Slashdot Mirror
2006 Was the Warmest Year Ever
kpw10 writes "Dr. Jeff Masters from Wunderground has a great summary of this year's rather abnormal weather (his blog is the best source on the net for in-depth weather analysis). The post discusses some of the cyclical climate forces at work this year and compares this year's record temperatures to records from the past. There are some interesting differences, particularly in the extent of the northern hemisphere seeing record highs this year." From the article: "December's weather in the Northeast U.S. may have been a case of the weather dice coming up thirteen — weather not seen on the planet since before the Ice Age began, 118,000 years ago. The weather dice will start rolling an increasing number of thirteens in coming years, and an ice-free Arctic Ocean in summertime by 2040 is a very real possibility..." Here is the The National Climatic Data Center's report announcing the entry of 2006 into the record books.
In the Victorian Alps (south eastern Australia) the ski season was a dismal flop due to lack of snow. Due to the drought there wasn't enough water for snow making either. But on Christmas day (which is summer here of course), there was a large snow storm up in the mountains: more snow than there was during winter. My entirely unscientific impression of the recent weather is not just that it's getting hotter - it's getting weirder.
That's quite a strawman you've got there.
and there are loads.... okay one... decent scientist who says it isn't Man made or true or nothingExactly correct. Everyone knows that the present of a specific scientific principle is decided by a central committee and then approved by the electorate at large. It's an excellent system, look how the Catholic church managed to keep us at the centre of universe!
Well said, refreshing to read that.
/.er to see past the techno-fix as this is the general mindset here.
I just read in 'Revenge of Gaia' that this period of warming may take 100,000 years to subside. R'uh-oh.
A critical fact in Al Gore's film: after compiling the results of 1,100 serious scientific papers about GW not one suggests that it is anything but man's fault. The percentage of journalistic articles suggesting that it may not be man's fault: 53%.
That's where this argument stems from I think. That and big oil sponsored research. Additionally It's very hard for a
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
What amuses/terrifies me is the people that argue that global warming isn't humanity's fault, and as such we don't have to do anything about it. I mean, the apocalypse may be coming, but if we didn't cause it, no point in us trying to stop it *shakes head quietly*
Any proposed solution that involves hurting the economies of the nations with resources to actually deal with the problem is not the answer.
Whilst it would be desirable to have a solution to climate change that does not involve hurting the economy (and I believe this is certainly possible), we should get our priorities straight. I would not want a bigger television at the expense of living in a filthy polluted desert.
The first thing I thought when I saw those charts was 'correlation doesn't equal causation'.
You're joking right? Correlation does not *necessarily* imply causation but it gives you the right to be damned suspicious that it does. And this is a very good correlation, with a known scientific model that points to causation.
A critical fact in Al Gore's film: after compiling the results of 1,100 serious scientific papers about GW not one suggests that it is anything but man's fault. The percentage of journalistic articles suggesting that it may not be man's fault: 53%.
This is an extremely important point. From reading regular articles, many people believe that the scientific community is evenly balanced on the question of whether human activity is causing global warming.
There's a trap in journalism that can cause this. In an effort for scientifically untrained reporters to report "fairly", they may try to get both sides of a story, even if the other side is not scientifically valid. This leads to the disproportionate number that you quoted above.
That said, there are enough reports that news articles and supposedly scientific studies have been influenced by corporations that I can't blame the journalists entirely.
And by "Ever" we mean since the 1860's, which is the limit of accurate records. If you try to estimate temperatures based upon other data (gases in ice core samples, tree rings, etc.), there were years warmer than this one including the medieval period and a time when the arctic circle was tropical, long before SUVs.
This is an excellent point, but it cuts both ways. As you've pointed out, the available evidence during the Middle Ages made an Earth-centered universe viable. Thus, it was entirely possible to rigorously follow the scientific method and still conclude we are at the center.
Rigorously scientific, and quite wrong. This is something that's overlooked all too often -- Science can never promise Truth. The best any theory can hope for is to be very well verified. Please don't get me wrong -- the Scientific Method works better than any other method known to us. We can never know with absolute certainty that our conclusions are true, but using any other method is much worse. I'm not advocating that we replace Science with something else; I'm just pointing out that the conclusions are never absolute.
This is something to keep in mind with the current global warming debate. The evidence suggests that human burning of carbon fuels is a big part of the problem. A strong majority of Scientists across multiple disciplines are convinced we need to do something about it. But they could be wrong.
Your argument is that our data are statistically insignificant. Your general position, I assume, is that people should be rational and not panic. I agree with the latter but the former is a flawed argument.
Much of the planet's 4 billion years has been spent in a slow process of stabilization. Complex life is relatively recent (and therefore, you would say, "statistically insignificant"). Human existence is even less statistically significant among all life. However, the conditions for human life have been favourable during this "statistically insignificant" period. So it ~is~ a reasonable inquiry to analyze this period and conclude that something is changing in what we can prove has been relatively constant for us and other creatures.
Since I doubt that you breathe car exhaust and eat plastics, I assume you understand the threat to the environment and biodiversity that 6-8-10 billion humans represent, that the collapse of the food chain is no fantasy, and that man-made pollutants have permeated the biosphere.
There are several points of interdependency between living things and climate. We are affecting both in ways that must be evident to people who give themselves the trouble to think, observe, and read. It is reasonable to conclude that human activity is at least a significant contributing factor in any remarkable change, because our impact on the environment has been significant.
There are planetary processes that we cannot control. But we are affecting things that affect planetary processes.
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
- Fact: Humanity is producing a considerable amount of greenhouse gases.
- Fact: Greenhouse gases cause more sunlight to be converted into heat.
Here is where the discussion usually breaks down into fisticuffs. We do know that this unnatural stress on the environment (global warming) will cause the global climate to change. However, we do NOT know exactly what will happen in response to this stress. In the past, global warming was a gradual process, as flora and fauna produce greenhouse gases naturally at a much reduced rate. This time the stress is acute, and we have no real past historical basis to predict what will happen.
Personally, I'm with the scientists on this one. (That this is most likely a "bad thing".) Earth has a nasty habit of responding with mass extinctions whenever it gets hit with something big and bad. However, there is a slim possibility that the earth will just "get warmer", which is not entirely a bad thing, but would make dwindling fresh water supplies a real cause for war and conflict.
So to sum up, "global warming" will most likely cause "global climate change". However, we don't know what exactly will change, but it's likely it'll be bad for us.
Trouble is...this isn't just a happy world of cooperating peoples. It is made up of countries in competition for everything! Competition for land...resources...food....economic power. Until there is some kind of one world order (God forbid), this will be the way of things. If something, while good for the world at large, will be detrimental to a country economically, then, it won't be done.
I don't personally see the 1st world countries willingly sacrificing their lifestyle and world position for the 'greater good'.
No one claws their way to the top, just to willingly let go and slide back down, no matter what the cause....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
First of all the planet can easily sustain a populous double our current size, if people would just use the grey matter known as our brains that we have been greatly blessed with.
Of course we can, we just have to be more efficient and cooperative and/orreduce our quality of living. But, since that isn't happening because people like you revile the concept of cooperation claiming it is opposed to natural selection, expect to be naturally selected and removed from the populace or have your quality of living greatly reduced.
I hear so many of the far leftists say "stop breeding" and such mantra to that effect...
"Leftists? Left and right are artificial political assignations used to oversimplify politics so it can be superficially reported to people with below average IQs. Trying to imply that those assigned to the left end of the spectrum think others should stop breeding is a big stretch. It sounds a lot more like you're looking to vilify a group, out of mental laziness.
Umm, I don't think you are properly using the word "unquestionably." Promiscuity has a strong positive relationship with poverty, low education rates, and adherence to particular religions including catholicism and some protestant sects. Those traits have a negative correlation with members of political groups generally assigned to the "left." I'd say it is more than questionable. Just as a side note, calling groups "hypocritical is meaningful only if you can demonstrate that contradictory actions are those of an individual, or large number of individuals. If half of the people in a town publicly claim guns are evil and half are gun owners the town is not hypocritical.
It will be a very long time before we have discovered all of the species of the ocean, let alone consumed said species.
Perhaps you're misunderstanding the meaning of "sustainable." It means live in such a way that our supplies will not run out in the foreseeable future. If we're gradually reducing the number of species by consuming them, we're not behaving in a sustainable manner.
Again, there are laws of selection that nature lives by, and if left alone all will balance out.
This is a weak cop out. It is simply a denial of responsibility. "Nature" will take care of things. It is true, but the way it takes care of things might be to eliminate our species or kill off large portion in a slow and painful way, like starvation. One of the defining traits of humanity is intelligence. Thus we define goals and then logically address how best to achieve those goals. Depending upon your definitions that may or may not be "natural."
This 'make everyone equal (financially) so they can all have the same lobster dinner' and such mentality...
Wow, way to cram a lot of logical fallacies into a small amount of words. Argument by association is where you assume people that hold one view must hold another (worried about global warming means you must favor extreme socialism) and then you argue against the second point without ever addressing the first point. This is wrong because people don't all hold the same sets of opinions and because even if the second opinion is wrong, it does not mean the first one is.
The "left" is a nebulous assignation. By definition it cannot crete propaganda. More importantly, propaganda requires a deceitful motivation. What is the motivation of marine biologists and fishing organizations around the world to misstate the facts about fishing harvest sizes. How come most of the fish I can now buy in the supermarket was considered to be "junk" 50 years ago and not suitable for people to eat since other types were plentiful and better? Is i