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."

Comments

This is trivial and obvious

[BriSTO(V)L]

Weather records can only "increase" (ie. get more extreme) - they cannot, by definition, get smaller.
See the "Record Fallacy" at:

numberwatch get with the maths, people...

Re:This is trivial and obvious

[hanwen]

The interesting thing really is the graph, which is next to the article. We've been on a more or less steady temperature increase for the past century and a half.

Science vs economics

[Ogemaniac]

It is funny. One political party hates the science of global warming, as it contradicts their party line. The other party, though, is just as bad. They don't like the economics of global warming.

Simply put, the economics of global warming solutions are just terrible. You really have to stretch to come up with a cost-benefit that justifies actually doing much about global warming. Bjorn Lomborg's "Global Crises, Global Solutions" goes into this in detail, basically demonstrating that beyond a doubt, we can do much, much, much more good for the world by doing things like fighting AIDS or providing clean water to the poor than we can by spending hundreds of billions to put a micro-dent in the projected warming trend. The reason for the cost-benefit results should be obvious if you look at the map in the article. Where is the warming? In "#$"#$ cold places! There are lots of benefits to global warming that offset the costs.

Yes, global warming is happening. What we should do about it is an another matter entirely.

Re:Science vs economics

[electroniceric]

The question is not the present economics, which undoubtedly offer big initial costs to make any dent in global climate, nor about the potential present gains from climate change (e.g. longer growing season in temperate latitudes). The question is what happens in a century or two. The scientific community now speaks basically in unison saying it looks pretty grim. People can point to the various uncertainties in models all they like, but the driving mechanisms are rock-solid. It is a huge mistake to continue to pump carbon into the atmosphere, period. By whatever metric, this is not a "good" for humanity. If this massive forcing is stopped, the earth could well move itself into another mode, but the cost of dealing merely with rising sea level will be staggering.

Re:And in other news..

[gfxguy]

If this is your defination of "crisis" then, for the entire history of the world, we've been in a global "climate crisis".

Look at it this way... there may be local weather that may not be "normal" based on recent data, but there's no such thing as "normal" weather, and despite the active hurricane season this year, there is NOT an increase "catastrophic" weather. When you hear that the temperature on a given day is hotter or colder than average, it means nothing. The temperature has continuously cycled throughout the life of the planet, and there are many different cycles, there are long term and myriads of short term cycles that have all influenced the temperature and therefore the weather.

Some ice caps are melting, most are not, some are actually getting thicker. The ocean is rising; it has been for hundreds of years. The surface of the planet has always been in a continuous state of change. So what is your point?

Before anyone goes off on me, I'm not a fan of pollution, I consider myself an environmentalist, I don't like wasting resources, I drive a car with good fuel economy, I combine trips, I even turn the water off when I'm shaving and brushing my teeth. But I do not believe global warming has been influenced in any significant way by mankind.

Re:I Want to See Temps vs. Solar Output

[Kevinv]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=180

Re:Global Warming backed by poor science

[nysus]

You are forgetting that at some point, theories start having practical consequences. You seem to want to argue that science is just one big theoretical head game that has no bearing on real life existence. While your specious argument is true---that there is no such thing as absolute truth---you ignores the simple fact that we can apply usually apply well-examined and tested theories to reality and can use them to explain and predict phenomena around us.

Re:Just like in the 70s

[Carewolf]

I just wish there would be more science in the discussion rather than "Global Warming is happening, we need to act NOW!!!"

There is pleanty of science it is just being ignored and replaced by annecdotes and references to other times in the earths past the weather has changed.

The fact is that greenhouse gasses causes a greenhouse effect, the question is, how significant is that effect?
The fact is that the Earths average temperature is rising, the question is why?