Slashdot Mirror
2005 Was the Hottest Year on Record
Gulthek writes "As predicted, 2005 was the hottest year since accurate temperature recording began in the late 1800s.
This news is all the more interesting because 2005 was not an "El Niño" year like 1998, the previous record holder."
We all know what we believe in regards to Global warming. Most of the time we want to believe the worst... or the best. Here in Texas, it has been a very weird winter indeed. There's no denying that. When I was a kid, I remember snow in this area. I haven't seen snow in a really long time. There has been ice and the occasional white stuff that never sticks to the ground, but nothing that could make a christmas white.
The worst story I have heard about global warming was on NPR and some research group claimed that we are past the point of no return meaning that it doesn't matter what we do at this point, the permafrost is melting at an unstoppable rate and our world is going to change very rapidly into something uninhabitable. The interesting thing about that particular story was that they believed it has been past the point of no return for quite some time now and that even if any of the "green people" had been able to make a bigger difference, it wouldn't have changed anything.
And so long as everything costs money, (i.e. that money can be worth more than people) we'll never pull ourselves together enough to find another place to go, let alone get off this rock in any efficient manner.
I think it's time to make peace with whatever the future holds and enjoy the moment like the 80's.
Give these people some credit for competence. Their analysis takes full account of the locations of the monitoring equipment (see reference 8 of the linked article).
You are incorrect on multiple counts.
The direct data sample is actually smaller. It is less than 30 years. Before that there were no weather satellites and ground stations have never covered the entire globe. 200 years from ground stations are available only for 20-30 locations mostly in Western Europe and Eastern USA..
Indirect data sample - Oxygen isotope distribution, CO2 content, methane content, morphology of some algae and plankton, etc spans back nearly a million years now. All of these can be used to get an estimate for a global or local temperature average. The last 10000 are covered with fairly good precision.
So your 200 years claim is bogus. If you are talking about direct data there is considerably less than that. If you are talking about all data, there is a useable sample going back 10000+ years.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Really, we're having one of hashest winters in the recent X years...
It was -26C here just a few days ago, on the latitude of 50N.
So even though the average temp is increasing, the amplitude is increasing even faster.
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Some of them do, some of them don't. Global Warming is a very complicated issue. Definately things are getting warmer, this is know. Definately a natural cycle is contributing to it, this is known. However, what is not so sure is how fast the temperature is rising -- a lot of evidence sugests that it might be rising significantly faster than the natural process can account for.
One thing that is for sure is that human polution is not helping the enviroment any, and has other deletarious effects on human habitability as well. Global Warming is just one of several reasons why reducing carbon emmisions would be a good plan, but because it's easier to argue against than the others it tends to get jumped on and pushed into the limelight as if it was the be all and end all of enviromental issues.
James P. Barrett
You asked to see how the data are averaged, and wanted to see it normalized to variance. Here is the site where those records live. Enjoy.
Climate Research Unit Page
The "ozone hole" is not caused by global warming (which is correctly called Climate Change). It is caused by chemical depletion - the chloroflourocarbons and other chemicals reacting with the ozone. Now, this thinning of ozone does not help the warming effect - as it lets more heat in. Climate change is the net effect of things like ozone depletion and the "greenhouse effect" which is the trapping of carbon dioxide and heat.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Definitely obvious, but the reasoning is "trivial". Weather is not a stochastic process, but is linked to variables including (but not limited to) the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. If you look in terms of only records, then your argument is correct. However, if you look at average global temperature rise, you'll note that while the global temperature fluctuates, the overall trend is a steady rise.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
It would appear that, as usual, Rush doesn't know what he's talking about.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
If you want to understand climate as a whole and not just weather, you have to look at the geological systems that represent the balance of all the weather effects.
Good examples: alpine glaciers. The extent of an alpine glacier in any given year depends directly on how much snow falls on it (how much it grows) vs. how warm it has been (how fast it melts).
Alpine glaciers throughout the world are in retreat. This means that either less snow that recent historical average is falling on almost every glacier in the world, or almost every glacier in the world is melting faster than its recent historical average. But wait, you can measure precipitation separate from the glacier--you can control for that variable. And when you do so it becomes clear that for most glaciers the issue is a higher melting rate. Alpine glaciers are melting faster than they used to, all over the world. This is a pretty good clue that something is changing in the climate as a whole.
And, as an extra bonus, it's visible to the layman's naked eyes. In fact there have been hundreds of news stories over the last 5 years about the retreat of the glaciers world wide. Or you can just ask mountaineers or local villagers.
Are we causing it? That's a tougher nut to crack. We know of a mechanism that can contribute to greater global atmospheric heat storage--greenhouse gases. We also know that human systems create and store an unnatural amount of heat (car exhaust, AC exhaust, plus the urban "heat island" effect). And we know that global overall temperature is going up.
We'll probably never know the exact percentage of our responsibility vs. sunspots. But the point is we know there's a trend and we know we probably are contributing to it to some degree.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You would think so. I did as well but then I just sent a question to realclimate.org. Here is part of the response I got:
The global energy usage is around 316 quadrillion BTUs (World Bank, 1995 figures) per year. 1 BTU = 1055 Joules. Therefore spread out over the globe the effective forcing (W/m2) is
More explanation: The laws of theromdynamics lead to the conclusion, hat every bit of energy used is converted to heat eventually. So this calculation takes all the energy used by humans (transportation, electricity,3.16 x 10^17 * 1055 / 5.1x10^14 / (3600*24*365) = 0.02 W/m2
this should be compared to 0.25 W/m2 for a solar cycle, or 2.8 W/m2 for well mixed anthopogenic greenhouse gases or, -3 W/m2 for a big volcano, like Pinatubo.
Keep open minded - but not that open your brain falls out...
No, it wouldn't. This is the Big Number Fallacy. Nukes are big. Planets are big. But the two are not equally big. Planets are many orders of magnitude bigger. Your average volcano releases more energy that one of those nukes, and the amount of energy released on an ongoing basis due to tectonic plates shifting is so much vaster than that that your nukes aren't even worth measuring.
You want numbers? In order to disintegrate the Earth, you have to counter gravity. This is equivalent (if I can trust my figures) to about 1x10^16 megatonnes. The largest hydrogen bomb ever detonated was at Bikini Atoll in 1954, and was 13.6 megatonnes, which is rather smaller than 10'000'000'000'000'000.
You say that the bombs' shock waves merely liberate energy already inherent in the Earth's core? Well, if it could happen, it would have --- Earth has been struck with a lot of very big asteroids in its history, and it's still intact. As are all the other planets in the solar system: the asteroid belt always was debris, there's not enough there to form a real planet. It's worth mentioning that on the scales we're talking about, rock flows like liquid. Any big impact will cause a splash, and the result will very quickly reform into a sphere again.
Sorry if I'm seeming rude, but this is something that I've seen a lot and it always irritates me --- I think it stems from people wanting to believe that humankind is a lot more influential that it actually is. On a planetary scale, we have no power whatsoever. We're barely at the stage of being able to affect ecosystems, and that is, quite literally, only just scratching the surface.