2005 Will Probably be Warmest on Record 698
Nilmat writes "A Washington Post Article notes that 2005 will probably have the highest mean global temperature of any year since the advent of systematic temperature records. At the moment, the mean temperature is about 0.75 degrees C above the global mean from 1950 to 1990, approximately .04 degrees higher than 1998, the year of the previous record. Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record."
Let me be the first to say (Score:2, Insightful)
volcano! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Can't read.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Global Warming Is Not Bad (Score:0, Insightful)
But I think even if global warming is real, it's not a big problem. We just came out of an ice age recently, I'd rather have it be more warm and cold. We'll just spend more time outdoors playing sports, enjoying the warm summer breeze, rather than freeze and shiver in the cold.
To paraphrase Confucious, If Global Warming is inevitable, lay back and enjoy the ride. This is a Good Thing.
Land sharks in Siberia (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming Is Not Bad (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds great until you realize that more atmospheric energy implies more extreme weather. And that it will shift climate zones so that regions which were once temperate become deserts, or deserts become rainforests. A shift in the atmospheric equilibrium will lead to more water vapor in the atmosphere, and more intense rains and flooding. The sudden melting of vast quantities of land-locked ice will release pressure from the earth and potentially lead to earthquakes (did you know that the island of Great Britain is slowly tilting because of the enormous weight of ice that was lifted during the last Ice Age? And that happened gently over thousands of years.)
You know, maybe humans are responsible for global warming, and maybe they're not. But it's happening, and perhaps it would be prudent to do what we can to not enhance the warming any further. Because you know, why fuck with the one planet we've got?
Re:Let me be the first troll to say (Score:3, Insightful)
* The intermediate period where famine and human suffering are caused by difficulty in both regions due to growing human population and temp. shinking food supply
* Massive flooding along costal areas
* Increased weather event strength due to warmer tropic waters
* (and this is sure to get me modded +1 True) The poor Canadians when Texas gets the US to invade due to Texas becoming a desert... "YEE HA"
Re:It's All Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the first troll to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm starting to believe. (Score:5, Insightful)
How many hundreds of people will have to nit-pick their entire lives over every purchase they make, every item they reuse, every thing they throw away, every little thing they consume, washing out tin cans to reuse them for... whatever... -- just to compensate for one illegally dumped barrel or government legitimized "waste disposal"?
Anyway, I figure I've already done my part. I don't drive or own a car and I don't intend to have any kids.
Frankly, I'm not sold on "man is killing the planet and causing it to heat up!". I'm open to it, but not sold on it. Nevertheless, it doesn't hurt for people, businesses and governments to take precautions anyway. Just because we may not be directly responsible for any global warming or cooling wouldn't mean that we shouldn't try to keep our planet clean and habitable for all on it anyway.
If this trend continues though, I'll just start wearing whatever the appropriate colored ribbon is that shows I care about the environment. Look at all the people with aids that red ribbons have helped. It's almost like fricking prayer beads! Ooh!
Re:Can't read.... (Score:2, Insightful)
It wasn't so long ago that the "consensus" of the physics community held Newtonian physics to be immutable, and before Newton the "consensus" included all sorts of things that we know today to be 100% false. Climatology is one of the most politicized of the hard sciences and there are more missing pieces to the puzzle than hard information. It's quite likely that the "odd man out" could be interpretting the little data we have correctly in the same way that Columbus was right and his many detractors were wrong. Heck, like Columbus the guy that's proven "correct" will probably eventually find out that he didn't end up where he thought he was going.
That's the interesting bit about science. In the long run it is not a popularity contest. Just because 100 scientists believe that something is so does not make it true, especially when these scientists have political axes to grind. Both sides of the "global warming" debate have political and economic motivations. As more data is amassed and better models are made most of the theories we have today will be proven to be more incorrect than correct.
Re:Let me be the first troll to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the first to say (Score:3, Insightful)
But enough of dignifying your industry FUD propaganda with exposure. How about you just explain how the human workweek doesn't change the weather, in light of that Scientific American article to which I linked?
Then again, if you think people who want us to survive the Greenhouse we're creating somehow want all climate warming to be eliminated, it will be a cold day in hell before you have anything worthwhile to hear on the subject.
Re:Let me be the first troll to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Which will make some insurance companies suffer until the government bails them out - but even the rich homeowners there will simply move to the new coastal areas in central-califoria/death-valley.
The vast majority of people in coastal areas, even in the US, are not 'rich homeowners'.
A large percentage (most?) of the worlds population lives within a few miles of a sea.
Re:It's All Lies (Score:3, Insightful)
Not to mention the money Exxon generously gives to Bush.
Re:Let me be the first troll to say (Score:1, Insightful)
Hint: The world's surface is not uniform. The tropics (the area between 20 degrees north and 20 degrees south) is mostly ocean. The farther north you go, the more land there is in proportion to water.
So if you move the temperate latitudes 5 degrees north, the amount of arable land would increase.
Re:Let me be the first troll to say (Score:1, Insightful)
Also, if the climate shifts to where it was during the late Mesozoic/early Tertiary era, then the only temperate area will be Antarctica. The landmass of Antarctica and the polar winds will prevent excessive heat from reaching continental Antarctica, but the Artic Ocean will be bring up warm waters from the equator and keep the climate tropical (just barely, but still warmer than Florida).
If we do manage to dump all the carbon contained in coal, oil, natural gas, coalbed methane, oil shale, tar/oil sands, peat, whatever other flammable fossil fuels we come up with, we will easily exceed the CO2 concentrations of the late Mesozoic. Don't forget that there's lots of methane and carbon locked up as hydrates and in permafrost that will get released in the process, and raising ocean temperatures will release CO2 (since hot water holds less gas than cold water).
So we're not talking about a 5 degree shift, but about a 75 degree shift. Tundra and taiga will no longer be found, and there will only be temperate land (with no topsoil, I may add) in Antarctica. In addition, coastal flooding will be so massive that the globe will look quite different.
It will take time, since the oceans and ice caps have enourmous thermal inertia, but climate change is accelerating exponentially (something like e^t) as our emissions grow exponentially. The melting is more like t^2 * e^t right now, and t * e^t once most of the ice in the world is melting. The exponential comes from the exponential solar forcing (CO concentrations are increasing exponentially), the t^2 comes because a doubling in climate change roughly doubles the melt area and doubles the melt rate. It might even be t^3 * e^t because the melt season will also increase, since until winter temps are above freezing, the melting will only occur during the summer.
One last point is that the sun is brighter now than during the Mesozoic, so given the same atmosphere and geography, it will get even warmer.
Mars is much less regular than Earth (Score:3, Insightful)
OT: As for those irresponsible Republicans - compare Argentina's deficit before their currency crash with USA's current deficit.
Re:Science is hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite doubts about whether or not human activity is contributing to gloabl warming, we still have the responsibility to minimize our impact.
As you point out, Climatology is hard. There are several known unknowns, and even more unknown unkowns. Until we can be CERTAIN that we are not taking the risk of causing dramatic climate change, particularly given the haunting specter of a threshhold after which climate changes accelerates, we need to proceed with caution.
If there is ANY believable evidence that our actions are causing global warming, we need to take action to lessen those actions.
Period.
Re:convergence of science & theology (Score:2, Insightful)
I would like to point out that according to the mayans, the world ended before...and everyone was eaten by panthers.
I went and looked at those maps, does that dufus explain where all the water will come from? Cause there isn't enough water at the poles for his maps.
people, eh?
Re:Let me be the first troll to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY has the slightest idea.
And even worse, nobody will ever have.
You see, climate is the poster child for dynamic complex systems, and is inherently unpredictable beyond a few days.
Climate is obviously affected by global mean temperature, but is not the same thing.
A lot of people here seems to think that a warmer Earth will be just like now, but you know, warmer.
In reality, even a small change of mean temperature is going to cause massive disruptions in climate patterns, but we have no way to predict them.
Cheers,
Carlos Cesar
Re:Can't read.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So tell me again, what is the "political motivation" of those climatologists who believe in global warming? They want to believe we're poisoning our atmosphere because... they hate convenience? Seems to me the only side with something to gain is the anti-warming crowd.
Devil's Advocatre/Cynic...take your pick (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not suggesting that the crap we pour into the atmosphere has no effect on our climate, but rather that, as the article sort of states, temperatures are only approaching record levels since the advent of systematic temperature records. If we look back over several major climatic cycles in the Earth's history however, what we are experiencing is actually nothing special.
That said, I'm off to buy some factor 50 sunblock.
Re:Let me be the first troll to say (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Let me be the first to say (Score:4, Insightful)
Then there's correlations so close that they're undeniably causation [sciam.com]. Especially when the mechanics of the causation are understood enough to immediately recognize, like manmade pollution creating the Greenhouse. Oh, and while we're retaining our objective scientific tone, I'll add that manmade climate change is the most reliable model we have, with which we successfully make predictions about further climate change. Having discharged that responsibility, I'll also point out that invoking abstract scientific principles to create FUD about how we're destroying ourselves to satisfy the greed of aging industrialists who never suffer any consequences for anything is really stupid. QED.
Re:Science is hard (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice. Do you take the same approach to individual pollution (like throwing plastic bags in a stream), or to violent criminal activity? I mean, really, killing 10 people doesn't make a difference to society as a whole, it will heal itself.
Your lack of respect for the world around us is scary. The Earth will go on, it is true. But in what form? Why should WE be the agents of change? How is it acceptable for us to cause mass extinctions, to remake the planet as we see fit? To poison other species, and ourselves, just because we think that in the long run, it doesn't matter?
Your selfish attitude should absolutely appall anyone with a sense of personal responsibility.
What gives you the right to deprive future generations from experiencing the Earth in its natural state, or as close to it as possible?
Re:Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
What an utter load of crap (Score:4, Insightful)
Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
That's because the satellites were taking an average of several layers, the weather balloons weren't accounting for improvements in radiation shielding technology and so on. Adjusted, they now fully match the results we have.
Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
Not according to the actual data. The proportional increase in carbon dioxide is huge, by all available data. And yes, ALL of that increase is due to human activity, because for example measurements of carbon dioxide concentration in the sea shows that the sea is actively absorbing CO2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87 [realclimate.org]
Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
This is a strawman. Hell, the most common greenhouse gas is probably Nitrogen. Anything has a greenhouse effect. The issue is whether the gas is a cause of climate change or not. Water, despite it's significance, isn't. Changes in water concentration in the atmosphere is rapidly evened out - we call it rain. But it never rains carbon dioxide. The action of water is as a positive multiplier for global warming - warming increases the level of equilibrium of water in the atmosphere, which makes CO2 a more significant effect, not less.
Don't listen to these 'friends of science'. They are lying to you.
Re:Consequences are hard (Score:3, Insightful)
Please tell me one energy source that does not cause any issues when implemented on a scale needed to solve humankind's energy needs? The only one that is close may be fusion...but it is not usable yet. I agree, we should investigate other thing...but rushing headlong into alternatives could also cause problems.
And in my view, it is better to suspend actions of questionable results than it is to continue them without knowing.
Are you advocating stopping all energy production? (well...more specifically concentration)
Re:Can't read.... (Score:2, Insightful)
If you can't see the political motivations of the global warming climatologists then you are very naive. Let me give you a hint. Forty years ago did politicians give a flying fig about anything climatologists had to say, and twenty years ago the "prevailing wisdom" among climatologists was that the earth was in danger of another ice age. Climatology matters today, and climatologists are drowning in research money, because they have managed to convince people that, "the end of the world is nigh."
Now, it may be true that the end of the world truly is right at our doorstep, and it also may be true that man is the cause of global warming, but that's hardly conclusive. The fact of the matter is that the temperature of the earth has *always* fluctuated, and climatologists only really understand a small piece of the picture. Because this is such a hot button political issue research money goes to the climatologists that say what their poltical backers want to hear. These sorts of politics have *always* played out in science (see Tesla's history as an example), and they frequently taint the actual search for "truth" a great deal.
Re:Can't read.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm starting to believe. (Score:3, Insightful)
There's nothing wrong with playing it safe. There's certainly no reason for society not to conserve and live clean, but let's not jump to conclusions, either.
Motivations? (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand the economic motivations of scientists working for oil companies and related industries. What are the economic motivations of scientists who think global warming is at least a partial result of human activity? (Other than, of course, the economic benefits of human survival.)
Re:I say speed it up (Score:2, Insightful)
Wow! (Score:3, Insightful)
And the global mean from 1950 to 1990? Why those years? Did they happen to give the result the author wanted?
They are playing a numbers racket with you, people. As geeks you should see right through this stufff. For shame.
Re:Let me be the first troll to say (Score:3, Insightful)
But even factoring in worst case fronm your point, going by your quote, and realizing Proto multiplied times the wrong number we get 20 Centimeters. or 7.1 inches in the next 100 years. RUN PEOPLE RUN THE SEA IS GOING TO RISE 7 INCHES IN A HUNDRED YEARS THERE IS NO WAY WE CAN OUTRUN THAT!!!!!
Divided by a factor of five (which is particularly alarmist), that means which we'll reach max melt of all arctic areas (absurd) we have increased that melt to the point where total meltdown is 38,000 years away.
But that is an unrealistic scenario based upon models that cannot predict present temperatures, and are often wrong by a factor of 4 or 5.
Completely ignoring any changes in the future 38 millenia, the negative logarithmic progression of greenhouse warming*, and the fact that winter isn't going to stop happening anytime soon.
Regardless of all that of BS, you are completely ignoring the fact that even worse case scenario we aren't talking about drastic sea level rises. Do you agree that even based on your quote we are still looking at fairly moderate sea level changes that are nothing to worry about. Or are you simply trying to distract from my point because even in your scenario the sea level rise is minor (worst case(bordering on the absurd) scenario) so you'd rather play a game of distracting from the fundamental point.
In fact based upon those numbers and all the other scaremongering they don't even look at a linear progression, but a positive logarithmic, which goes completely against everything we know about greenhouse warming.
Re:Let me be the first to say (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes it is. But quite often, it is the main thing leading you down the wrong path.
In this case, the "I know what's happening crowd" is looking at some very tiny variations from a very abbreviated data set and drawing some very large conclusions from them, and then clamoring for some very profound and difficult reactions on the part of, well, just about everyone.
It is well to keep in mind that that the .04 degree quoted in the article is not .04% (it is much less) and that the highest recorded temperature means that we've got a number which should be evaluated as one sample out of 1x10^6 if we want to understand what this year's temperature stats mean in terms of human history.
Yet... it can only be evaluated as one sample out of 2x10^3, which can be fairly characterized as what it means to my grandfather and not a lot more.
That's not to say that global warming is, or isn't, happening. Just that these temperature measurements are woefully lacking as good quality signposts. We can add to that a few core measurements and some general knowledge, which doesn't significantly improve the quality of the data for our current situation.
We should keep in mind that the earth sees huge temperature swings without the aid of man's actions. At one time, North America was tropical here in Montana. I live not even 15 miles from where you can dig T. Rex skeletons from the ground as well as tropical vegetation. At another time, this area was covered by glaciers. Neither circumstance required or depended upon man's intervention or activity.
Yes, the world changes without our approval. Yes, we'll have to adapt if it does. Yes, we'll have to be clever about it when the changes are major. No, this year's temperature isn't a certain sign of any such change. Yes, we should continue to pay attention. No, we shouldn't start running around like chickens.
We now return you to your usual sensationalist ravings. :-)
Re:I'm starting to believe. (Score:3, Insightful)
Do we have direct temperature records reaching back more than a century or so? No. We do have a variety of other sources such as tree ring data and ice cores that can provide estimates of temperature stretching back thousands and even tens of thousands of years. Collect enough of those proxy data sets from a decent variety of locations and types of sources and can calculate a reasonably accurate estimate of global temperatures stretching back about ten thousand years. There is, of course, room for interpretation on which proxy data series to include or exclude and exactly how tight the error margins on historical temperature estimation are based on the temperature calculation techniques. The result, however, is that unless you are very selective in how you interpret the data there is a notable upswing - that is to say acceleration beyond the roughly cyclical behaviour - in global temperature for the last century or so. The data we have so far is pretty clear, we are experiencing notable global warming.
Is global warming entirely caused by humans? I think it's safe to say no. I doubt you'll find any serious scientist or non-politically motivated person saying otherwise. What we do know is that according to our understanding of physics CO2 will tend to trap heat. We also have (via those ice cores etc.) historical C02 records. It turns out that C02 levels and global temperature correlate extremely well (though not perfectly - there are clearly other factors at play). That is we have good correlation (over a roughly 400,000 years via the vostok ice core, less via other methods but with similar results), and via basic physics we have sound reasons to believe in causation. We also know that C02 levels have spiked dramatically over the last 150 years, above any previous levels from the last 400,000 years or so.
Given all of that I think we can reasonably suggest that there is good evidence that human actions may well be having a significant effect on the global climate, and that the global climate is indeed warming. Of course we may still be mistaken, but given the evidence I think the burden of proof now falls on those who deny any signficant impact from humanity in terms of global warming.
Jedidiah.
Please... (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you America.
Since you asked... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, consider. This isn't a really bad Hollywood movie like "The Day After Tomorrow", it is reality, and there is natural law to mediate between nature and your nightmares. The fact is, if the flooding you speak of occurs, it won't happen such that a bunch of lowland dwellers go to sleep Tuesday night, dry, and wake up Wednesday morning floating on their mattresses. We will see it coming, people and businesses can migrate (and they will... believe me, they will.)
Again, if the climate is changing along these lines, you can be certain that just as Florida's coral outcrop goes under and provides zillions of new acres of game fish habitat, other parts of the country will change also. Areas that are too cold for raising oranges, for instance, will warm up and become useful in that way. Areas like mine, that see -40 degree temperatures some winters will see (perhaps) -35 degrees instead, and we won't have to plug in our cars as many evenings, saving some energy. Death Valley will probably still suck every day of the year.
And so on. The one thing you can be certain of is that things will change, and as they change, humans will adapt.
I see no reason for anyone to panic, or even seriously worry, at this point. We should pay attention, and we are. There is no indication we are facing any big changes in the near future, nor any sudden ones in any future as far as global warming goes. Nature will supply us with the facts no matter what they are. In the meantime, the sky isn't falling, and that's a fact. The sky might move a little, though we cannot be certain of this, and if it does, it'll do so slowly and gently and we will have plenty of time to rearrange ourselves as required, both as a civilization and as individuals.
And you know what else? If and as change comes, we'll no doubt turn it to our advantage. More heat, more energy, more liquid water, more opportunity. It's what we do. The ones of us who aren't running in circles, screaming hysterically about global warming, that is.
Re:Since you asked... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Since you asked... (Score:5, Insightful)
*cough-katrina-cough*
Re:Since you asked... (Score:2, Insightful)
What makes you believe exactly that?
I rather believe the opposite!
Right, the ocean will raise slowly, but that says nothing about how fast or slow portions of land will sink in water.
For example the vast majority of the Netherlands are below sealevel. Realy with "Dijks" 10 meters high all along the coast, their is nothing to fear if sealevel raises 0,5 or a meter or even 2
Oh, haven't you in the US had a similar scenario
You're right, the ocean will raise slowly and the vast mojority of land won't sink the next day
"We will see it coming, people and businesses can migrate (and they will... believe me, they will.)"
Do you realy believe people and buisiness will migrate? Come on, blind or braindead are you?
Recently in the US a whole city was sunken in the ocean
Re:I'm starting to believe. (Score:3, Insightful)
They don't hate capitalism, they hate anyone else who has more money than they do. The whole 'we have to change our lifestyle NOW' shtick really means 'YOU have to change your lifestyle now, and I'll use the government to force you to make that change if I can get away with it'. Typical extremist behavior, trying to subvert government power through public opinion so they can tell some other group of people what to do, or think, or say, or how to live their lives, and punish that group if they step out of line.
Whether they be hard-core environmentalists or religious fundamentalists, an extremist is an extremist is an extremist. All extremists have the exact same goal: to get you on your knees, kneeling before them, beaten and defeated, while they think of ways to get their malicious little rocks off by doing unto you in whatever fashion they think will upset you the most, or cause the most harm. Extremists are dangerous and evil people.
Max