Slashdot Mirror
2005 Will Probably be Warmest on Record
Nilmat writes "A Washington Post Article notes that 2005 will probably have the highest mean global temperature of any year since the advent of systematic temperature records. At the moment, the mean temperature is about 0.75 degrees C above the global mean from 1950 to 1990, approximately .04 degrees higher than 1998, the year of the previous record. Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record."
Seeing as how I live 30 miles North of Yellowstone, I'm not rooting for that option.
Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
Like this one?
. volcanoes.reut/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10/12/alaska
With each damning new report and every shred if indicting evidence that indeed the earth is entering into massive warming because of human activity it scares me a little more. As an average citizen, I am trying to help by:
I only wish others would wake up and smell the coffee and be diligent too.
It's all lies, I tell you, all lies! It's a conspiracy by the atheistic climatological establishment to make us all buy small cars and turn off our lights. It's every American's God-given right to puke greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But thank God that George W. Bush, His faithful servant, is making sure that these foul secularist reports are altered, so that we can continue our God-sanctioned practice of driving large vehicles, burning fossil fuels for electricity and all those other things that a proper Christian country ought to do.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Don't count out a huge volcanic eruption. With all the natural disasters so far this year, a nice big poof out of a volcano would round things out nicely.
I'm sure the Republicans are behind this.
Fine ash particulates in the atmosphere reflect solar radiation (light and heat) back into space.
How long until my House in the Canadian Rockies becomes tropical beachfront?
It's nice and cool in my new Hummer v2.
How many other 2005s do they have records of? If this is the only one, it will be the warmest, coldest, shortest, and longest 2005 on record forever!
who | grep -i blond | date cd ~; unzip; touch; strip; finger; mount; gasp; yes; uptime; umount; sleep
On a non related note real estate valuations in Siberia and Canada are rising to new highs.
**Life is too short to be serious**
It has come to our notice that you have been using the registered trademark of our client GOD(TM) for justifying Mr George Bush's actions. This is a cease and desist order as our client has never authorized any of Mr George Bush's actions and frankly considerd such advertising offensive as Mr George Bush happens to be an employee of our rival firm.
Thanking You
The only lawyer in heaven
**Life is too short to be serious**
Wild grapes were groing in Sweden during the neolithic age, about 6000 years ago. We'd be lucky to even grow them in green houses now.
- Henrik
- when the Shadows descend -
This sounds great until you realize that more atmospheric energy implies more extreme weather. And that it will shift climate zones so that regions which were once temperate become deserts, or deserts become rainforests. A shift in the atmospheric equilibrium will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, and more intense rains and flooding. The sudden melting of vast quantities of land-locked ice will release pressure from the earth and potentially lead to earthquakes (did you know that the island of Great Britain is slowly tilting because of the enormous weight of ice that was lifted during the last Ice Age? And that happened gently over thousands of years.)
You know, maybe humans are responsible for global warming, and maybe they're not. But it's happening, and perhaps it would be prudent to do what we can to not enhance the warming any further. Because you know, why fuck with the one planet we've got?
No, correlation is not causation. But when you have correlation and the most accurate models imply causation, you definitely have to think hard about what you're doing. The fact that global warming was predicted by the models before the data could be taken further suggest that it's not simply alarmist readings of the data.
Science is hard; in many fields it's impossible to prove causation completely. But when you have a theory, and the theory holds up to all the available data, you act as if the theory were true and make decisions based on that. You don't over-react as long as there are competing theories that imply otherwise, but this is one more piece of data to suggest that global warming is very real and quite possibly man-made.
The "quite possibly" means that we shouldn't over-react; as you say, the correlation need not imply causation. But as the burden of evidence falls on the side of man-made global warming, it becomes increasingly dangerous to rely on "Yeah, but are you really, utterly, totally, completely sure?" arguments against action.
My wife always complains that I stand there with the refrigerator door open looking for something to eat. Now I won't take her crap, and I'll look around the fridge longer with the damn door open and I can help global warming at the same time. Maybe people will start looking up to me as some kind of hero...
Every time you call tech support, a little kitten dies.
Answer:
* The intermediate period where famine and human suffering are caused by difficulty in both regions due to growing human population and temp. shinking food supply
* Massive flooding along costal areas
* Increased weather event strength due to warmer tropic waters
* (and this is sure to get me modded +1 True) The poor Canadians when Texas gets the US to invade due to Texas becoming a desert... "YEE HA"
I saw a program, i believe from the BBC on Global Dimming a few months ago. The idea being that at the same that we have been upping the greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere, we have also been blocking out the sun with the various soots and particulate matter that goes with it. This drove us into a net cooling period during those years, as the sunlight was reflected back into space. The researcher explained that this may be why global warming hasnt been as evident as it should have been in the past 30 years.
Now that we burn cleaner gas, and try and be more environmentally friendly, this reflective layer of the atmosphere is getting thinner. this then compounds the global warming aeffect already in motion. perhaps that is what we are seeing today.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
Try telling that to people living in low lying coastal areas or on small islands.
Those irresposible Republicans! They're screwing things up across the entire galaxy.
Article
And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.
The author must realize that having record low eruptions in 1998 and 2005 is the cause of the temperature hike.
See what happened in 1816.
Some excerpts:
And this:
And don't forget the worst greenhouse gas of all: WATER VAPOUR!
Better start campaigning to remove all the water vapour emissions. Oh wait, water covers 71% of the earth's surface. No dice there...
Yes there are advocates for global warming, and "evidence" therein, but there is much evidence against it, and ESPECIALLY against man-made warming. Today's Calgary Sun article by Licia Corbella also has some things to say on the topic.
Because it can trigger the next ice age, like a less dramatized version of "The Day After Tomorrow." "if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world." http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_age s.html
http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/02/101014 0.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1083419,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
Or just google it yourself.
DEAR FRIEND,
MY NAME IS MRS.LARISA NITSKAYA,PERSONAL SECRETARY TO MR.BORIS MIKHAIL
KHODORKOVSKY,THE ARRESTED CHAIRMAN/CEO OF SMIRNAUG SIBERIAN LAND AND TITLE, SPB IN SIBERIA, RUSSIA.
I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS OF A LARGE AMOUNT OF SIBERIAN LAND OWNERSHIP DEEDS WHICH WHERE HE HANDED
OVER TO ME BEFORE HE WAS DETAINED AND NOW BEEN TRIED IN RUSSIA FOR
FINANCING POLITICAL PARTIES(the Union of Right Forces,led by Boris
Nemtsov, and Yabloko, a liberal/social democratic party led by Gregor
Yavlinsky) OPPOSED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MR.VLADMIR PUTIN,THE PRESIDENT
THEREBY LEADING TO THE FREEZING OF HIS FINANCES AND ASSETS.AFTER
SEARCHING THROUGH THE BOOKS OF YOUR COUNTRY'S CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRIES HERE IN SIBERIA, RUSSIA I AM CONTACTING YOU TO ASSIST ME TO
RE-PROFILE THE LAND DEEDS AND EQUALLY INVEST SAME ON HIS BEHALF.
THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SIBERIAN LAND TO BE RE-PROFILLED IS TWO HUNDRED AND
SIXTEEN MILLION ACRES AND YOU WILL BE TITLED 12% OF THIS MAGNIFICENT TRACT
FOR YOUR MANAGEMENT SERVICES.
AS SOON AS I RECEIVE YOUR ACCEPTANCE,I WILL SEND YOU THE NECESSARY
DETAILS AND MY IDENTIFICATION.
YOURS SINCERELY,
MRS.LARISA NITSKAYA
asf a fasd f asdf a fasd fasdljfl ajkfjowieiotqwe q rqwer qoiwe roqiwue rioqiwe r
qwer qowieru rqiwueiru oiquwe ro qowie ro qowierfhj cv ahsdfi
Read this book The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, if you are genuinely interested in doing something about climate chnage.
It is brilliant and timely call to action for everyone to reconsider their energy use as it applies to C02 emmissions.
Sure there are lots of Greenhouse deniers, and no shortage of oil-business newspapers, like the Calgary Alberta Sun, that will print them. Because there's no shortage of oil and coal money to buy their hot air the press that keeps them in business.
But enough of dignifying your industry FUD propaganda with exposure. How about you just explain how the human workweek doesn't change the weather, in light of that Scientific American article to which I linked?
Then again, if you think people who want us to survive the Greenhouse we're creating somehow want all climate warming to be eliminated, it will be a cold day in hell before you have anything worthwhile to hear on the subject.
--
make install -not war
Which will make some insurance companies suffer until the government bails them out - but even the rich homeowners there will simply move to the new coastal areas in central-califoria/death-valley.
The vast majority of people in coastal areas, even in the US, are not 'rich homeowners'.
A large percentage (most?) of the worlds population lives within a few miles of a sea.
Are you actually suggesting that a web-site called "friendsofscience.org" wouldn't actually be friendly to science? Next thing you're going to tell me is that the Clear Skies Initiative allows for increases in pollution...
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
Fact: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.
No, that's not true at all. All terrestrial measurements have shown a steady increase - the satellite measurements were the exceptions, and showed a much slower increase in temperature.
Until last year, fossil fuel advocates pointed to the satellite measurements as refutation of the warming trend. Then, a bunch of clever guys realised that the problem was that the satellite measurements were taking an average of a rapidly heating troposphere (where we live) and a cooler upper section of the atmosphere.
There's a great discussion of this in the rather frightening book The Weather Makers by Australian scientist Tim Flannery, which is due for release in the US about now.
I'd rather listen to a scientist than to a "friend" of science.
It seems very suspicious than an organization could be dedicated EXCLUSIVELY to deny claims about global warming.
Plus, why is it called with such an emotionally moving name like "friends of science"?
I searched google, and the only references to friendsofscience.org were forums inside that same site. Plus, I checked the hosting company, and it's "reveal.ca", a BUSINESS SEARCH company.
Can you spell "Astroturfing"?
Look, it's MORE THAN OBVIOUS that companies will lose A LOT OF MONEY if the U.S. abides by the Kyoto Protocol. Don't you think that they will start creating phantom organisations to dismiss the idea of global warming?
Look, we all know what companies like Microsoft are capable of. You think companies that produce huge emissions of CO2 and other pollutants wouldn't do ANYTHING to keep earning money?
I'm sorry but you seem to naive to believe the "friends of science".
Record highs?
/ mars_snow_011206-1.html
Hmm. I don't think so.
After all, they're still finding Viking farms under the ice in Greenland.
I suspect that we have people looking at short term changes and ignoring the geological evidence about cyclic changes in world temperatures.
As another data point look at: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem
Somehow, I don't think what man is doing on Earth has much of an effect on Mars.
The promised information about him is here:
President, George C. Marshall Institute.
Adjunct Scholar, Competitive Enterprise Institute. Member, CEI Board of Directors. President and Founder, Solutions Consulting. President Emeritus, Global Climate Coalition. President, Solutions Consulting, Inc. Former Senior Vice President, Jellinek, Schwartz and Conolly, Inc. Chief Administrative Officer, Center for Naval Analyses.
According to federal lobbying records, O'Keef e was a paid lobbyist for ExxonMobil, 2001, 2002 and 2003 on the issues of environment and climate change, with contacts with the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. He writes frequently about climate change in his presidentail role at the George C. Marshall Institute.
O'Keefe has a long history of involvement with the fossil fuel industry. O'Keefe also served as Executive Vice President and CEO of the American Petroleum Institute, a position he held until 2000.
Competitive Enterprise Institute has received $1,645,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
George C. Marshall Institute has received $515,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998.
American Petroleum Institute
Currently "deactivated", the Global Climate Coalition was "A coalition of companies and trade associations seeking to present the views of industry in the global warming debate."
Suppose the temperate band moves 5 degrees towards the poles, what happens? Would there be the same amount of arable land, or more, or less?
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has the slightest idea.
And even worse, nobody will ever have.
You see, climate is the poster child for dynamic complex systems, and is inherently unpredictable beyond a few days.
Climate is obviously affected by global mean temperature, but is not the same thing.
A lot of people here seems to think that a warmer Earth will be just like now, but you know, warmer.
In reality, even a small change of mean temperature is going to cause massive disruptions in climate patterns, but we have no way to predict them.
Cheers,
Carlos Cesar
"Myth 4" is another mixture of truth and falsehood. Yes, water vapour is a greenhouse gas. However, relative humidity is more or less a constant in the atmosphere. Thus, the amount of water vapour (absolute humidity) is driven by the temperature. In this way water vapour increases the effect of any other heating - its an amplifier, but not a cause of global warming.
If you look over the site, you find more gems. "Myth 6", for example, not-cites the 1996 IPCC report, totally ignoring the current (2001) and upcoming reports.
Wikipedia has a reasonable good set of articles on global warming.
Stephan
Yeah, becaause it was those damn Newtonian special interest groups holding back Einsteinian physics.
So tell me again, what is the "political motivation" of those climatologists who believe in global warming? They want to believe we're poisoning our atmosphere because... they hate convenience? Seems to me the only side with something to gain is the anti-warming crowd.
Jebus Griste, did you even read the page you just linked to?
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
Let me be the first to say that correlation is even less a denier of causation than it is a confirmer. And that, in the absence of a positable common cause, the correlation of two trends is good evidence of causation. Further, that when one trend, climate change, cannot be shown to cause another, human changes to the global environment, and there is no evidence that that other trend impedes the first, then the case for that other trend, human changes to the environment, as cause of the first, climate change, is compelling.
Then there's correlations so close that they're undeniably causation. Especially when the mechanics of the causation are understood enough to immediately recognize, like manmade pollution creating the Greenhouse. Oh, and while we're retaining our objective scientific tone, I'll add that manmade climate change is the most reliable model we have, with which we successfully make predictions about further climate change. Having discharged that responsibility, I'll also point out that invoking abstract scientific principles to create FUD about how we're destroying ourselves to satisfy the greed of aging industrialists who never suffer any consequences for anything is really stupid. QED.
--
make install -not war
What an utter load of lies and deception. These issues are known about, and have been carefully tackled many, many times. To state these goes beyond mere ignorance, to deliberate attempts to mislead the public.
Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
That's because the satellites were taking an average of several layers, the weather balloons weren't accounting for improvements in radiation shielding technology and so on. Adjusted, they now fully match the results we have.
Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
Not according to the actual data. The proportional increase in carbon dioxide is huge, by all available data. And yes, ALL of that increase is due to human activity, because for example measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the sea shows that the sea is actively absorbing CO2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
This is a strawman. Hell, the most common greenhouse gas is probably Nitrogen. Anything has a greenhouse effect. The issue is whether the gas is a cause of climate change or not. Water, despite it's significance, isn't. Changes in water concentration in the atmosphere is rapidly evened out - we call it rain. But it never rains carbon dioxide. The action of water is as a positive multiplier for global warming - warming increases the level of equilibrium of water in the atmosphere, which makes CO2 a more significant effect, not less.
Don't listen to these 'friends of science'. They are lying to you.
Both sides of the "global warming" debate have political and economic motivations.
I understand the economic motivations of scientists working for oil companies and related industries. What are the economic motivations of scientists who think global warming is at least a partial result of human activity? (Other than, of course, the economic benefits of human survival.)
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
Yeah those are based on fuzzy logic and models that predict 2-5 degrees C warming for the 20th century that turned out to be .6 Degrees C. So we can take those with a grain of salt.
But even factoring in worst case fronm your point, going by your quote, and realizing Proto multiplied times the wrong number we get 20 Centimeters. or 7.1 inches in the next 100 years. RUN PEOPLE RUN THE SEA IS GOING TO RISE 7 INCHES IN A HUNDRED YEARS THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN OUTRUN THAT!!!!!
Divided by a factor of five (which is particularly alarmist), that means which we'll reach max melt of all arctic areas (absurd) we have increased that melt to the point where total meltdown is 38,000 years away.
But that is an unrealistic scenario based upon models that cannot predict present temperatures, and are often wrong by a factor of 4 or 5.
Completely ignoring any changes in the future 38 millenia, the negative logarithmic progression of greenhouse warming*, and the fact that winter isn't going to stop happening anytime soon.
Regardless of all that of BS, you are completely ignoring the fact that even worse case scenario we aren't talking about drastic sea level rises. Do you agree that even based on your quote we are still looking at fairly moderate sea level changes that are nothing to worry about. Or are you simply trying to distract from my point because even in your scenario the sea level rise is minor (worst case(bordering on the absurd) scenario) so you'd rather play a game of distracting from the fundamental point.
In fact based upon those numbers and all the other scaremongering they don't even look at a linear progression, but a positive logarithmic, which goes completely against everything we know about greenhouse warming.
Sometimes it is. But quite often, it is the main thing leading you down the wrong path.
In this case, the "I know what's happening crowd" is looking at some very tiny variations from a very abbreviated data set and drawing some very large conclusions from them, and then clamoring for some very profound and difficult reactions on the part of, well, just about everyone.
It is well to keep in mind that that the .04 degree quoted in the article is not .04% (it is much less) and that the highest recorded temperature means that we've got a number which should be evaluated as one sample out of 1x10^6 if we want to understand what this year's temperature stats mean in terms of human history.
Yet... it can only be evaluated as one sample out of 2x10^3, which can be fairly characterized as what it means to my grandfather and not a lot more.
That's not to say that global warming is, or isn't, happening. Just that these temperature measurements are woefully lacking as good quality signposts. We can add to that a few core measurements and some general knowledge, which doesn't significantly improve the quality of the data for our current situation.
We should keep in mind that the earth sees huge temperature swings without the aid of man's actions. At one time, North America was tropical here in Montana. I live not even 15 miles from where you can dig T. Rex skeletons from the ground as well as tropical vegetation. At another time, this area was covered by glaciers. Neither circumstance required or depended upon man's intervention or activity.
Yes, the world changes without our approval. Yes, we'll have to adapt if it does. Yes, we'll have to be clever about it when the changes are major. No, this year's temperature isn't a certain sign of any such change. Yes, we should continue to pay attention. No, we shouldn't start running around like chickens.
We now return you to your usual sensationalist ravings. :-)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Some people think they can filibuster the apocolypse.
Well, consider. This isn't a really bad Hollywood movie like "The Day After Tomorrow", it is reality, and there is natural law to mediate between nature and your nightmares. The fact is, if the flooding you speak of occurs, it won't happen such that a bunch of lowland dwellers go to sleep Tuesday night, dry, and wake up Wednesday morning floating on their mattresses. We will see it coming, people and businesses can migrate (and they will... believe me, they will.)
Again, if the climate is changing along these lines, you can be certain that just as Florida's coral outcrop goes under and provides zillions of new acres of game fish habitat, other parts of the country will change also. Areas that are too cold for raising oranges, for instance, will warm up and become useful in that way. Areas like mine, that see -40 degree temperatures some winters will see (perhaps) -35 degrees instead, and we won't have to plug in our cars as many evenings, saving some energy. Death Valley will probably still suck every day of the year.
And so on. The one thing you can be certain of is that things will change, and as they change, humans will adapt.
I see no reason for anyone to panic, or even seriously worry, at this point. We should pay attention, and we are. There is no indication we are facing any big changes in the near future, nor any sudden ones in any future as far as global warming goes. Nature will supply us with the facts no matter what they are. In the meantime, the sky isn't falling, and that's a fact. The sky might move a little, though we cannot be certain of this, and if it does, it'll do so slowly and gently and we will have plenty of time to rearrange ourselves as required, both as a civilization and as individuals.
And you know what else? If and as change comes, we'll no doubt turn it to our advantage. More heat, more energy, more liquid water, more opportunity. It's what we do. The ones of us who aren't running in circles, screaming hysterically about global warming, that is.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.