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

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true, but if the overall average weather isn't changing, we should also expect new records to become increasingly rare with time, and the frequency of record cold years to be about the same as the frequency of record hot years.

Re:Global Warming backed by poor science

[tekrat]

What, as opposed to Intelligent Design?

Hey, if the lunatics on one side of the field can have their wacky theories, the lunatics on the other side are welcome to theirs as well!

At least the Global Warming freaks aren't trying to legislate that it be taught in classrooms!!!

Re:Here here!

[ThosLives]

On a similar vein - does anyone know how they average the temperature? For instance, is it surface-area weighted? I sure hope that's the metric and not something less meaningful like a population-weigted average, or a straight average that doesn't account for the increased number of weather stations packed in (likely hotter) certain small areas.

Also, even more than temperature averages, I'd like to see what the standard deviation of temperatures over history is, and how we compare to that. That is the real measure of what's going on, not if we're "higher than average" or whatever.

Of course, I don't at all think that the climate isn't changing, and I don't think that human activity doesn't affect it. I think, though, panic or zealotry is not an appropriate response to the change. I don't even think huge global programs are the proper response: I think the correct thing is a proper response from everyone on the smallest level possible and the large problems will sort themselves out.

Remember, the problem isn't so much the change in temperature, but the resulting change in geographic distribution of certain things like arable land, habitable land, disease, etc. Basically we will need some combination of migration, new construction, etc. to mitigate the changing environment. I don't think any one of those things is necessarily bad. The problem is, humans typically don't handle change well and will just end up fighting each other.

Re:Huh?

[Horus1664]

"...Everyone is under the impression that global warming is real and back up their claims with a data sample that is less then 200 years, which is an insanely small sample when you consider the age of the Earth. Climate changes, especially RADICAL climate changes occur over periods of time far greater then 200 years, and to say otherwise is ignorant. I really hope eventually the media stops ushering in the concept that the planet is in distress due to something as stupid as global warming."

After reading this poster's tag-line I did wonder, but then I re-read what he's saying and it does seem he wants this comment taken at face value.

Is it possible that he could have overlooked that climate change in our planet's history did not involve quite the same situation as we have today with the human levels of interference in the natural eco-systems ?

Leaving aside the tendency for the media to over-state, over-dramatise and over-simplify all issues surely when large numbers of far more sobre, intelligent and conscientious members of the global scientific community consider a problem is serious enough for research, debate and recommendations for global action, surely we should listen to them ?

Perhaps the poster has already studied the scientific data and drawn his own conclusions but since science is built on small advances in knowledge (with occasional larger ones) it is surely naive to totally dismiss a field of study that is still so active ?

I could hazard a guess that the poster is from the US, which would be based on a suspicion that information circulating in mainstream media in that part of the world might be unduly influenced by interested parties in energy or government, but I don't want to personalise this in any way. I just think it is naive, dangerous and frankly irresponsible to dismiss this debate while we're still collecting scientific data

Re:And in other news..

[Mr. Underbridge]

That kind of weather is not normal in that part of India - it adds to the picture of the global climate in crisis, not detracts from it.

At the same time, the fact that many people can use absolutely any piece of climatological data (like record cold, as you just did) to point to global warming doesn't really help the case.

Wonderful with all these experts

[Anonymous Coward]

It's always wonderful to see that some of the slashdot-readers are so much smarter than people that actually do research in the area. While there among researchers, that has spent years working in the field, are close to a consensus on the existence of global warming and the man made causes of it, the supreme slashdoters can without reading any peer reviewed journals on the subject at all, judge the results as bogus, the data as flawed and the hypotheses as false. Some even come up with new ideas that I'm sure no one has ever thought about before. Some slashdoters have even made their own much more reliable data collection, in the style of "it's really cold here right now". Impressive!

Just like in the 70s

[Seoulstriker]

I remember the coldest years of the century back in the 1970s. Record low temps, record snowfall. No wonder it was so easy back then to agree with the idea of Global Cooling.

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