Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

2006 Was the Warmest Year Ever

Posted by kdawson on Wed Jan 10, 2007 05:29 AM
from the El-Nino-and-humankind-conspiring dept.
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.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Earth's Temperature at Highest Levels in 400 Years 1044 comments
thatguywhoiam writes "Congress asked, and the scientists have answered: 'The Earth is the hottest it has been in at least 400 years, probably even longer. The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the 'recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.'"
[+] News: Tackling Global Warming Cheaper Than Ignoring It 586 comments
Coryoth writes, "In a report commissioned by the UK government, respected economist Sir Nicholas Stern concludes that mitigating global warming could cost around 1% of global GDP if spent immediately, but ignoring the problem could cost between 5% and 20% of global GDP. The 700-page study represents the first major report on climate change from an economist rather than a scientist. The report calls for the introduction of green taxes and carbon trading schemes as soon as possible, and calls on the international community to sign a new pact on greenhouse emissions by next year rather than in 2010/11. At the very least the UK government is taking the report seriously; both major parties are proposing new green taxes. Stern points out, however, that any action will only be effective if truly global."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by antifoidulus (807088) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @05:41AM (#17536700) Homepage Journal
    are either closed or operating at significantly reduced loads. Hell, some of the places in Austria are suggesting hiking trips instead of skiing this year. Here in Bavaria, we had(so I'm told) one of the coldest winters in the past 20 years last year, and this year I have only had to deal with frost twice(which is nice because I am on a bike)

    Meanwhile Colorado seems to be getting more snow than the rest of the world combined(I'm only being a tad dramatic there). They probably have the best skiing in the world this year, but the airports are always closed so nobody can get there!
    • by WindBourne (631190) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @05:59AM (#17536802) Journal
      No, the bulk of the snow is on the eastern side of the divide (i.e. denver). The snow is maybe a bit above average for this time of year (but the snow is nice). If you want lots of snow, try the northwest.

      As to the airport closure, it was actually only closed for 36 hrs for the first storm only. On the second storm, airlines assumed a closure would happen and flights were manipulated. As it was, the airport never closed. The storm hit hard to the south east. Had the storm moved just 41 miles north, then most likely DIA would have been closed for 48 hours or more.

      But in my 25 years of living in Colorado, this is the first time that I have seen this much snow on the ground at this time of year. It reminds me of xmas in south wisc (which actually had no snow).
    • Not just hotter (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wrmrxxx (696969) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @06:11AM (#17536874)
      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.
      • Weirder indeed (Score:5, Informative)

        by Pegasus (13291) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @06:35AM (#17537014) Homepage
        This just shows that people don'r really understand what global warming means. Sure, temperatures are going to be one or two degrees higher ON AVERAGE, but that does not mean warmer winters and hotter summers in general. It means that the system as a whole will have more energy, so weather phenomena will be more intensive and fluctuations will have higer amplitude. Think of more powerful storms, more destructive hurricanes, etc. Cold winter 2005 and warmest year 2006 is a nice example of such fluctuation.
  • by kihjin (866070) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @05:51AM (#17536760)
    You know, Michigan's upper peninsula. "Normally" we get about 200" of snow in a winter season [mtu.edu]. So far this season we've had one major snow storm, leaving us with approximiately 18". That's all. In December 2005, 77.5" fell. I would be surprised if we got a 1/10 of that in 2006.
    • by merikari (205531) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:54AM (#17537810) Homepage
      January is the coldest month in Finland. Usually we have had snow cover by November/December. This year, there has been one freak snowstorm in the beginning of November, and right now it's raining outside. No snow cover for two winter months. Not your typical winter in Finland where temperatures in January can be -20 to -30 degrees Centigrade.

      Disclaimer: I know weather does not equal climate.
  • Pollute more (Score:5, Informative)

    by Swimport (1034164) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @05:58AM (#17536796) Homepage
    If it wasnt for Global Dimming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming [wikipedia.org] this would be worse. However, since particulate pollution is being cut more than C02 global dimming is falling behind global warming.
  • by reklusband (862215) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @06:13AM (#17536884)
    Think about it...Hot Eskimo chicks in BIKINIS!!! Just give it ten years.
  • by popo (107611) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:52AM (#17537798) Homepage
    I'm looking at you Microsoft.
  • by Darth Daver (193621) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @09:36AM (#17538240)
    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.
  • by HoneyBeeSpace (724189) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @10:30AM (#17538922) Homepage
    ENSO is the El Nino Southern Oscillation. If you'd like to simulate global warming and El Nino / La Nina cycles yourself you can do some of the experiments discussed in the article. The EdGCM [columbia.edu] project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.

    Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
  • Here in Maine... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Civil_Disobedient (261825) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @10:31AM (#17538934)
    This has been one of the weakest winters on record. Simultaneously, last Spring was one of the wettest on record. Don't know if there's any correlation between the two of those, but I do know that it's been in the 50s (F) for a few days this week, which is simply insane. We've had perhaps two miserly snowfalls (less than a couple of inches accumulated). The average temperature for December was up 10 degrees from the average.

    From the National Weather Service:

    The average temperature of 34.5 degrees tied 1996 as the second warmest December on record. The warmest December was 34.8 degrees in 2001. In contrast, the coldest December was in 1989 with an average temperature of 14.1 degrees. Normally December has as average of 27.6 degrees.
    [...]
    The average high temperature for the month was a record 43.3 degrees. The old record was 42.8 degrees in 1953. The coldest high temperature was 24.7 degrees in 1989 and the normal December average high temperature is 36.4 degrees.
    [...]
    The average low temperature for the month was 25.6 degrees, warm enough to be the 3rd warmest on record. The warmest average low temperature was 27.8 degrees in 1996 followed by 26.8 degrees in 2001. The coldest average low temperature was 3.4 degrees in 1989 and the normal December average low temperature is 18.7 degrees.
    [...]
    The temperature never got below zero degrees in December. In fact, the coldest reading was only 9 degrees and that didn't occur until the last day of the month.
    [...]
    The warmest temperature for the month was 61 degrees on the 1st.
    I'm going to have to move to Canada if I ever want to see a white Christmas again.
  • well no (Score:5, Informative)

    by Budenny (888916) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @10:45AM (#17539132)
    It was not globally the warmest year ever.

    It may have been, in North America, the warmest year, by a small amount, for a couple hundred years. Its a bit different. We have also the Holcene Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period to worry about, before pronouncing last year the warmest ever.

    Global warming may or may not be happening, but headlines like this do not help convince anyone.
    • by stsp (979375) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @06:17AM (#17536916) Homepage
      Could this really be avoided? Is it still time to revert those climate changes? Shouldn't we be preparing for the worse yet? Instead of deciding whether or not it's really happening ?
      Well, according to Douglas Adams' stories, people start to panic only when it is already way too late to do something about the situation.
    • by Xugumad (39311) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @07:13AM (#17537206)
      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*
      • by Pentagram (40862) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @07:18AM (#17537232) Homepage
        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.
      • by digitalhermit (113459) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @08:47AM (#17537760) Homepage

        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.
            • by Pentagram (40862) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @07:32AM (#17537308) Homepage
              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.
              • by sholden (12227) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @07:50AM (#17537412) Homepage
                You mean the model in which when you heat up water the solubility of CO2 decreases, so warmer temperatures would cause CO2 levels to increase?

                Or the one in which CO2 increases cause a greenhouse effect so increasing CO2 levels cause warmer temperatures?

            • by c6gunner (950153) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @09:20AM (#17538036)
              Eh, no, sorry, not quite. All that Kyoto buys is more coal-powered plants for third world nations. If anything Kyoto is more likely to harm the environment, and is, in any event, more of a wealth redistribution scheme than it is an environmental management plan.

              It's also funny to note that the country which "hates the worlds children" has made bigger strides in combating GHG emissions than several Kyoto signatories.

              But hey, who needs facts and logic when you can get all your opinions from the "down with HaliBusHitler" maniacs, eh?
        • by MrFlibbs (945469) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @10:23AM (#17538826)
          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.
      • by werewolf1031 (869837) on Wednesday January 10 2007, @07:20AM (#17537240) Homepage
        Inconvenient truth is pretty much boring for the educated people - there's nothing in it that I wouldn't know already. I can't help but feel sorry for people who find it creepy or shocking - that just shows they live in some dark basement or something
        Your attitude is self-righteous, narcissistic, and condescending. It is far better to have learned something for the first time, than to never have learned it at all. I can't help but feel sorry for people who too-easily forget that they, too, once learned something for the first time, when it was new to them.
    • Re:Ever? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Dystopian Rebel (714995) * on Wednesday January 10 2007, @10:58AM (#17539318) Journal
      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.