Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

NASA Says 2005 Could Be Warmest Year Recorded 655

Posted by Zonk from the buy-some-shorts dept.
Ant writes "CNN reports that a weak El Nino and human-made greenhouse gases could make 2005 the warmest year since records started being kept in the late 1800s." From the article: "While climate events like El Nino -- when warm water spreads over much of the tropical Pacific Ocean --affect global temperatures, the increasing role of human-made pollutants plays a big part."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NASA Says 2005 Could Be Warmest Year Recorded More

NASA Says 2005 Could Be Warmest Year Recorded

Comments Filter:

  • Cool! (Score:2, Funny)

    by neonstz ( 79215 ) *
    eh...

    • Re:Cool! (Score:4, Funny)

      by drsquare ( 530038 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:40AM (#11658740)
      I think I speak for us all when I say:

      BRING ON GLOBAL WARMING!

      I'm sick of living under constant cold and rain, this news is fantastic. If only we humans could influence and accelerate this global warming thing, rather than it being just a natural variation, it would be fantastic! Long hot summers, warm winters, sunny springs and autumns, life would be a hundred times better.

      • Re:Cool! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... com minus distro> on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:50AM (#11658775) Journal
        Think long hot DRY summers - crop failure, famine, death and disease.

        Think of the dirty '30s dustbowl as being the norm, not an exception.

        Think of Europe having much colder winters because of the lack of a thermocline to drive the gulf stream currents.

        Think of rising oceans as the Greenland and Antarctic ice caps melt, and as the waters around the earth rise due to thermal expansion.

        Think of recurring global catastrophies that make the recent tidal wave look like "just another day".

        Think of what we're handing our kids.

        Think - everyone said "don't worry, it won't happen in our lifetimes anyway."

        I think they were wrong.

        --

        On February 7th, Russ Nelson (Open Source Initiative president) published an article called "Blacks are lazy", quoted in journal entries here [slashdot.org] and here [slashdot.org].

        Please consider signing the online petition [petitiononline.com] asking OSI to remove Russ Nelson.

        • Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)

          by drsquare ( 530038 )
          Think long hot DRY summers - crop failure, famine, death and disease.

          Ah....long hot summers, I can't wait. As for dry and crop failure, that's what we have water for. It generally counteracts the effects of dryness. Also, there are countries with warm sunny climates and they haven't died of famine, in fact they'r thriving. What are you talking about? Are you saying that Italy for instance is an arid wasteland, where not even olives can grow?

          Think of Europe having much colder winters because of the lack

          • Re:Cool! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by RWerp ( 798951 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @09:39AM (#11658963)
            Think long hot DRY summers - crop failure, famine, death and disease.
            Ah....long hot summers, I can't wait. As for dry and crop failure, that's what we have water for. It generally counteracts the effects of dryness. Also, there are countries with warm sunny climates and they haven't died of famine, in fact they'r thriving. What are you talking about? Are you saying that Italy for instance is an arid wasteland, where not even olives can grow?
            We have less and less water clean enough to be used in agriculture. In my country (Poland) level of ground waters has been dropping during the last 50 years. Water is becoming a luxurious commodity in many places of the world. Ask the farmers near Rio Grande, for example.
            Your picking of Italy as an example shows you know little on agriculture. Olives (and wine) do not need much water to grow. But you can't live on wine and olives. You need grass to feed the herds on, you need a lot more water to grow crops, vegetables and fruits. Southern Italy is becoming really dry by now, esp. Sicily.
            Hot summers can be dangerous to old people, as over 10,000 dead in France during the 2004 (or 2003) summer show.

            • Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Cleetus Freem ( 633000 )

              I recently moved away from Florida. While there, the drinkable ground water level dropped significantly each year.

              The aquifer that supplies that region extends up into Georgia and slopes downhill into Florida. As more water is sucked out for use by Floridians (for lawns, golf courses and industry) brackish water is drawn in, permanantly contaminating the aquifer. This trend is moving steadily south as the water level drops each year and can be seen by maping the increase in private wells contaminated by sa

          • Re:Cool! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by booble ( 638328 )
            I would suggest you are someone that also needs to read more. We are heading into our 6th year of your nice hot and dry summers. As a result we are having to greatly curtail irrigation in most parts of the state and we aren't the only state having to do this. Unless major rains fall this spring and summer, many irrigators in the western part of the state will run out of water around the end of June and beginning of July. This amounts to about 1/3 to 1/2 the water needed to fully raise a crop. Last summer we

        • Re:Cool! (Score:3, Funny)

          by MPHellwig ( 847067 ) *
          "Think of what we're handing our kids."

          Thats an easy one, don't reproduce!
          (Not only intended as funny)

      • Global Uncooling (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @10:39AM (#11659294) Homepage Journal
        Global "warming" isn't going to just raise everyone's thermostat by 5'C. It's cranking up the chaotic fractal dimension of the atmosphere. Some places will get colder. Like when the Greenland ice melts, flushing fresh water into the North Atlantic, it will push the "Thermo Haline Circulation" farther south, making the warm Gulf Stream flow more directly from America to, say, France, instead of warming the Baltic. The UK will plunge into an arctic climate like northern Scandanavia, along with the rest of northern Europe. Other places are likely to also freeze or drop, though the average will be higher, meaning some places will become hellishly hot. And the kinds of storms we'll see in the ongoing transition will make hurricanes look like mist.

  • Don't worry over it (Score:5, Funny)

    by Black Parrot ( 19622 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:40AM (#11658537)


    It will only be the hottest year on record for a year or so.

  • Make up your mind, NASA! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigtallmofo ( 695287 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:42AM (#11658541)
    You apparently want Earth colder and Mars hotter [slashdot.org]. Make up your mind!

    Sudden global climate change is a serious issue that should be dealt with, but it is interesting how on one side NASA feels it's possible to control and affect positive massive global climate change on Mars but fears comparatively tiny changes on Earth.

    • The difference is.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kngthdn ( 820601 ) * on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:45AM (#11658552)
      ...we live on Earth!

      • Re:The difference is.... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sique ( 173459 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:39AM (#11658733) Homepage
        And the second, more basic difference is that between tipping a balance and reaching balance. It's quite easy to tip a balance out of equilibrium (as planned on Mars). It's damn complicated to keep a complex system in balance (as necessary on Earth).

    • Re:Make up your mind, NASA! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by macshit ( 157376 ) * <[snogglethorpe] [at] [gmail.com]> on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:51AM (#11658572) Homepage
      it is interesting how on one side NASA feels it's possible to control and affect positive massive global climate change on Mars but fears comparatively tiny changes on Earth.

      Hmmm, think maybe it has something to do with the fact that Mars is an uninhabited wasteland, whereas if Earth gets screwed up, all we know is destroyed and we all die horrible agonizing deaths?

      Of course that might not happen -- but when the stakes are very high, you should pay a lot more attention to the risks...

  • Confirmed in Calgary, Canada (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:44AM (#11658548)
    Already in Canada, we have had some January temperatures of ONLY -35 C when normally we get some days of -37 C
    Definitely warmer this year!

  • Good (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Girls with even less clothes, is not cool?
  • Well... We've had one of our colder January's in a while here in South Australia - hardly used my swimming pool compared to last year.

    Where the hell is global warming when u need it?

  • Did you know that one? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:48AM (#11658562)
    Two planets meet in space:
    First planet: "You're not looking too well! Are you ill?"
    Second planet: "Yeah, I got homo sapiens!"
    First planet: "Never mind, that's one illness that quickly runs out. You may get some fever because of all the greenhouse gases, but in the end, they'll just wipe themselves out..."

    • Re:Did you know that one? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dustmite ( 667870 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:35AM (#11658719)

      Yeah, funny .. but actually it's interesting to compare our behaviour to that of a deadly virus: the latter will also consume all available resources multiplying as quickly as possible until its host is completely destroyed, and unless it can find a new host, it will die along with the host.

      Personally I'd like to believe that we're more intelligent than a virus cell, but all evidence seems against it.

  • Think of the Children (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    We should think of the future, and of the planet we'll be leaving to our children. Clearly someone should take out all the environmentalcases, so that our kids won't have to put up with them.

  • Americans are different (Score:5, Interesting)

    by violet16 ( 700870 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:51AM (#11658570)
    I find Americans to be, on balance, very intelligent and well-informed. They tend to hold views similar to those of intelligent, well-informed people of other countries, with two exceptions:

    (1) Gun control. Way more smart Americans believe in the right to carry a weapon than smart non-Americans. Most of the rest of the Western world thinks the US is kind of insane on this issue, actually.

    (2) Global warming. It is near-universally accepted outside the US that this is happening, and that humankind is responsible. But many smart Americans doubt this.

    I resist the urge to inject my own views here because I simply wanted to point this out. It's odd.

    • We have a government that does pretty much what we tell it because we have two guns for every three citizens and a tradition of cleaning house when needed. You can forget that self defense and sporting use stuff you here - its all about keeping the state in line.

      Global warming is deadly serious business and anyone with half a brain sees it coming. You're thinking of the Christian right behind Bush - they believe in this thing called 'the end of days' - this Christian prophecy makes it OK for them to

      • Re:Americans are sensible: welcoming the end (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        So, your argument is, since the Bush and his handlers and loony supporters expect good things from judgement day, they're not worried about looming disasters, in fact they welcome the end.

        How is this sensible?

      • Re:Americans are sensible (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jeif1k ( 809151 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:24AM (#11658669)
        We have a government that does pretty much what we tell it because we have two guns for every three citizens and a tradition of cleaning house when needed.

        You mean the American revolution? As far as democratic change goes, that was a pretty lightweight and recent effort. Nations like France fought long and hard for democracy, other nations in Europe have had a tradition of democracy going back a thousand years, and yet others had democracies and lost them again. America is a newcomer in the area of creating and maintaining democratic government, and there is no support for the view that America's gun policies are responsible for the current existence of democracy in the US, in particular since attitudes towards guns and gun ownership were altogether different around the time of the American revolution.
        • in particular since attitudes towards guns and gun ownership were altogether different around the time of the American revolution.

          I suspect you're referring to the book "Arming America". Are you not aware that it has been pretty well established that the author committed academic fraud. IOW, he misrepresented records in some cases, and in other cases made up facts supposedly based on records which he didn't realize had been destroyed long ago?

      • You're thinking of the Christian right behind Bush

        Really? One only needs to read most of the comments on slashdot to realise that thousands of people here think it isn't happening or isn't a problem. Are the majority of /. readers part of the "Christian right"?

      • Well-informed non-Americans are generally aware why some well-informed Americans consider guns to be a good idea. They still think it's bizarre.

        In my experience, anyway. If you haven't been brought up with guns freely available, it seems very strange indeed.

      • Global warming is deadly serious business and anyone with half a brain sees it coming.

        There was an article [globalclimate.org] in a 1975 edition of Newsweek where scientists were sure of a global cooling. Now it's a global warming?

        I think it's foolish to think that us humans can have such an impact of the climate. I'd hedge my bets that volcanic eruptions and other natural occurrences play a far more significant role that cars and buses.

        You're thinking of the Christian right behind Bush - they believe in this thing
        • ... apologies in advance for responding to trolls ...

          There was an article in a 1975 edition of Newsweek where scientists were sure of a global cooling. Now it's a global warming?

          Scientific hypothosi(sp?) evolve; religious nut jobs stay the same. That's the big difference. I'd be a lot more worried if thirty years of scientific research resulted in no changes in theory.

          So what source do you cite that says Christians think it's okay to ignore global warming because of the Second Coming? I'd like t

      • Re:Americans are sensible (Score:5, Insightful)

        by InadequateCamel ( 515839 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @09:27AM (#11658904)
        You honestly think the government is more responsible because you have guns? You actually believe your government is afraid of you? Talk about an inflated sense of self-worth :-)

        Seriously though, your "tradition of cleaning house when needed" would come to an abrupt end when that small gathering of armed civilians gets an Apache-helicopter-beatdown. Don't kid yourself about being able to wrest control of the government away by force.

        Funny enough, do you know what the US would look like if this scenario were to play out?

        Iraq.

    • There are other differences (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fished ( 574624 ) * <amphigory@@@gmail...com> on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:04AM (#11658608)
      There are more positive examples of differences. For example, consider Free Speech. America tolerates a level of free speech (including even speech that is offensive or subversive) that goes far beyond that tolerated in many other countries. Think about much of Europe, where it is illegal even to sell Nazi memorabilia, or Canada, where many churches are quite concerned that they will not be allowed to preach against homosexual practice.

      In the US, we allow people to call themselves neo-Nazis and salute Hitler while holding a sign proclaiming that "God hates fags." And, as nauseating as I find those points of view, I think people should have the right to express them (but not to act on them.)

      The bottom line is that the right to keep and bear arms is directly linked to the right to free speech (which most of us cherish). And one could argue quite strongly that the American tendency to hold opinions that differ from (todays) academic orthodoxy is itself a direct application of that same right of free speech.

      If the rest of the world jumps off a cliff, should America join them?

      • Re:There are other differences (Score:5, Insightful)

        by zootm ( 850416 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:32AM (#11658700)
        In the US, we allow people to call themselves neo-Nazis and salute Hitler while holding a sign proclaiming that "God hates fags." And, as nauseating as I find those points of view, I think people should have the right to express them (but not to act on them.)
        An interesting sidenote of this is the stigma around "communists", and how self-proclamation of communism was effectively a crime during parts of the Cold War. Freedom of speech in the US is less immutable than its residents like to think, although it is at a high and very respectable level.

        I like to think that my own country (the UK) has comparable levels of freedom of speech, and it's true, to a degree - there's some discrepencies (for example burden of proof in libel cases) which impede it to some degree.

        The arms rights thing is an interesting issue. I believe the US should keep the right to bear arms -- perhaps a more rigorous licencing system might be in order in some cases, but in general it's how the country has developed and it's what works there. This is not, however, a "be all and end all" decision -- the US is not a "better" country because of this right (I'm also not sure how it's linked to freedom of speech in a modern society, although in the formative stages of a newer society I could see it coming in). The UK, given the right to bear arms, would probably be negatively affected. It's not part of our culture. The same goes for a lot of countries. A lot of Americans don't understand how countries with gun control can be described as "free", and a lot of countries with gun control don't understand how America can be considered "sane" -- it's what works in the situation. The US is a culture that was born in the times when people had guns, it's built upon it. The UK's devolution from a monarchy to a democracy (yes, I know it's still technically a monarchy, but the difference is moot in context) is a different type of formation of a modern society than that of the US. I don't believe it makes the country better, it's just what fits the culture.

        On note, though, obviously there's people arguing against what I'd see as sane here, too. I've had long, drawn-out discussions with the kind of people who want to ban, for example, parties like the BNP [bnp.org.uk], because, as deplorable as I find their policies and views, I should not have the right to stop them expressing them

        It's a shaky subject, in any case. And this is getting waaaaaay off-topic.

      • The bottom line is that the right to keep and bear arms is directly linked to the right to free speech (which most of us cherish).

        Not in any practical sense. Do you really think that the army is afraid of the citizenry because of their weaponry? The idea is crazy. The thing that protects you is the same thing that protects Australians, Canadians, Brits, the French, the South Africans etc. You have a military that has a culture of deference to civilian leadership and civilian leadership with a tradition

      • There are more positive examples of differences. For example, consider Free Speech. America tolerates a level of free speech (including even speech that is offensive or subversive) that goes far beyond that tolerated in many other countries.

        You most be kidding me? Last time I heard US Patriot Act was used to stop union demonstrations. IMC and RaiseTheFist has been seriously attacked, etc. etc.

        When so many people get their news from Fox something most be wrong. The freedom in the US looks more and mor

    • Re:Americans are different (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Scarblac ( 122480 ) <slashdot@gerlich.nl> on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:20AM (#11658658) Homepage

      (3) Creationism. This is not a serious option anywhere in the Western world, but a large percentage of smart Americans still think that evolution is doubtful and that creationism is a real competitor.

      As you say, the difference between the US and elsewhere is odd.

      • (3) Creationism. This is not a serious option anywhere in the Western world, but a large percentage of smart Americans still think that evolution is doubtful and that creationism is a real competitor.

        Indeed, and in many circles in America that takes the form of looking upon God as an advanced extraterrestrial species and mankind as a genetically engineered (or uplifted) species.

        So what? It could be true... ;-)
    • Actually I think the Second Ammendment is morally correct. But if you really want to know a thing americans do all wrong, just... click the link on my sig.
    • What about

      (3) Creationism and the banning of evolution in schoolbooks? I think by now the USA has the worst schoolbooks in the world, AFAIK it's the only country in the world that allows creationism in it's schools.

    • You forgot another one:

      Smart non-Americans have a tendency to speak for the opinions of the rest of the world as if there wasn't a mind-numbing diversity of it.

      Smart Americans generally don't give a crap about the opinions of the rest of the world.
    • While I'm a heavy liberal and highly educated, I somewhat agree with the right to carry guns, at least on principle. Maybe this is what you're talking about, but ever since the French stormed the Bastille for weapons and took hold, the tradition of 'arm the masses' has been around, and protecting arms from the British troops was a major role in the Revolutionary War.

      Of course, I think that owning anything more damaging than a pistol or shotgun is too much, but our nation was founded on the blood of tyrant

    • Re:Americans are different (Score:5, Insightful)

      by plj ( 673710 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @09:08AM (#11658837)
      I am not American but European.

      What comes to the first issue: it is U.S. internal politics, so I don't worry about it that much. If the Americans want to let any nutjob out there to have guns, it is their problem, as long as it happens within their borders, i.e. they are only killing each other.

      Not that I wouldn't find it insane, though. The pro-firearms people always say that "guns don't kill people, people do" as their main defense. But same applies to cars, and still driving a car is not a constitutional right, but a special privilege granted only for those, who have obtained a driver's license. And yet killing living things -- including, but not limited to humans -- is the primary function guns are actually designed for, but this is definitely not the case with cars.

      The problem with global warming instead just seems to be that when people are not absolutely sure that global warming happens and that CO2 emissions caused by humans are actually contributing to it, they are willing to do nothing, as they feel that the preventative measures are too expensive to take without certainty of their necessity and effectiveness.

      Unfortunately, this viewpoint is just as shortsighted as quarter-year capitalism -- and like that, it seems to be most common in the U.S. The problem is that these people do not realise two facts about the measures that should be taken to stop the expected global warning.

      1) That if the humans have, in fact, contributing to global warming, as is assumed, the preventative measures must be taken now to be effective. If we postpone this until we have the bulletproof evidence, then it means that large-scale global warming is already happening, and it will be too late to take any preventative measures; we would have no option left but to deal with the conseqences, and we already know that that would become helluva lot more expensive than any preventative measures as the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica would melt in large scale, raising the sea level several metres and the extreme weather systems would become even much more common than they are now. Over time, it would probably cost a lot of human lives, too.

      2) That if we take the preventative measures, and we'll find out later that we could have never done anything to stop the global warming, or that it wasn't actually even happening in first place, the technology we had developed wouldn't still be in vain; first of all, we wouldn't be dependent of oil anymore, which problem would need to be solved anyway, as oil is not really renewable energy source.

      Second, we would likely have developed lots of new high technology stuff along the way, creating many entirely new businesses. These businesses and the value they would have added to the economies of the countries that would have developed them wouldn't be going away.

      Car is a good analogy again, as Americans love their SUVs; consider, that in future SUVs would all be using fuel cells. Now, to avoid CO2 emissions, the hydrogen used in those must not be produced using fossil fuels. Nuclear is a good option, of course, but fission is not renewable either, and then we'd yet have to deal with all the waste, which still seems to be somewhat problematic. So how about if U.S. would just invest so much money to fusion research (still pocket money comparing to the war in Iraq), that it would become the leading provider of fusion technology in the world, for example? An entirely possible scenario. Lots of extra research among renewables would not be bad idea either. The way to turn all this into good business will be there, if political will is.

  • 2005 could also be... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gralem ( 45862 ) * on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:51AM (#11658574)
    the coldest year on record
    the wettest year on record
    the dryest year on record
    the fewest storms on record
    the most storms on record

    Depending on where you live, your exact location could have any of these conditions. It's funny how the most generic weather predictions can always be proven true.

    All in all, 2005 looks to be pretty scary. I wouldn't go outside, based on NASA's findings.

    ---gralem
    • I'm gonna have to go with you on this one.

      From my point of view, this year's been shaping up to be the coldest one yet. Here in Kentucky it's barely made it above 50 degrees all year (even though it's less than 60 days into it so far). We haven't seen any record-setting snowfall yet, but that's not surprising either.

      Wake me up when March rolls to a close. I could use some warmpth.
      • And your local weather is relevant to the issue of global warming, because?

        That's right, it isn't.
      • I'm gonna have to go with you on this one.

        Living in Kentucky also, I'm going to have to have to jump in here and say this has been a friggin' warm winter compared to many in the past. According to NOAA [noaa.gov]:

        "The average temperature in January 2005 was 38.9 F. This was 4.8 F warmer than the 1895-2005 average, the 18th warmest January in 111 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is -0.2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade."

  • Interesting (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Pan T. Hose ( 707794 )
    It's interesting that the year following a strong earthquake or tsunami is usually slightly warmer than average. I wonder what will people do when thanks to foolishly burning oil and coal we will have no polar ice and ozone keeping us cool. Isn't it time to use hydrogen as fuel? Hydrogen + oxygen = pure water. Simple as that. Is there any other reason than shady business in the middle east that stops us from using clean and cheap energy today? Is it more profitable for certain people to start wars and contr

    • Re:Interesting (Score:2, Informative)

      by rush22 ( 772737 )
      Isn't it time to use hydrogen as fuel? Hydrogen + oxygen = pure water

      The problem with hydrogen is that no "natural" hydrogen available. Hydrogen essentially acts like an efficient battery and the energy used up creating it (via electrolysis of water, or the current cheapest way it's produced now, seperation of natural gas) is simply transferred into as potential chemical energy. Electrolysis is like charging up hydrogen, where water is the "used up" battery.

      When you factor in the costs of transporting

  • Pre-emptive climate change faq (Score:5, Informative)

    by rush22 ( 772737 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @07:54AM (#11658583)
    Frequently asked questions about the science of climate change [ec.gc.ca]

    I find it very helpful.
  • i'll give you a week in my nome timeshare for a week in your timeshare in boca raton

    come to think of it, nevermind... 50 or so tropical hurricanes are forecast for this year

    in alaska
  • Since NASA wants Mars wormer and Earth colder, why not make Mars a storage for our greenhouse gases?
    1. That space elevator can contain a few pipes that transport the gases to orbit.
    2. In orbit the gases are put into containers with propulsion.
    3. The containers are sent to Mars.
    4. The containers disintegrate upon entry and release the gases into the atmosphere.
    • It'd take a lot of engineering to get the details of Step 4 right. The major problem with this is that the capsules would most likely disintegrate long before they're at a low enough atmostpheric level for gravity to hold onto it.

      I think we'd have a lot better luck genetically engineering some kind of moss that loves cold temperatures, eating carbon-oxide rich rocks and outputting oxygen. Get enough of the moss on the surface to pump a certain quota of oxygen, then burn some of the moss, releasing CO2. Of
    • The problem isn't getting rid of CO2 (we can do that already), it's capturing it prior to release. Tailpipes, fires, etc. don't release CO2 in neat little packages.
    • why not make Mars a storage for our greenhouse gases?

      The energy budget for such a scheme (even including the as yet unrealized technology of a space elevator) would be such that if you just spent that energy directly on mars, you'd wind up warming the place to a greater degree using nothing more than waste heat.

      And do we even want to talk about how much waste heat would be released into the earth's atmosphere on this end?

      You're suggesting that we collect and move gigatons of material across tens to hundred

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Featureless ( 599963 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:14AM (#11658636) Journal
    Nasa says 2005 budget could be lowest recorded.

  • There may exist controversy... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by thenetbox ( 809459 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:16AM (#11658642)
    There may exist controversy around the topic of global warming and global warming may just be part of this planets natural way of evolving into whatever global climate is next. There were many types of global climates in the past and there is no proof that humans are the ones causing this temperature change.... and I read somewhere that termites and cows produce more green house gases than humans....

    But if the fear of global warming causes people to adapt a cleaner and healthier lifestyle then so be it and i'm all for it and infact there should be active participation by all people to keep the enviornment clean.

    People should, however, learn to share their concern about global warming with other global disastors happening.. or waiting to happen.. Illiteracy rates, population explosion, terrible health care for people, etc.. should all be taken care of and they all pose a huge short term risk which is much greater than the risk of global warming.
  • We know the temperature rises, we know know earth changes. - We think we might have something to do with it.

    It won't be the hottest year on record for long.

    The only uncertain thing about global warming is when mankind will realize that the end of that development is to be avoided.

  • Not so minute differences (Score:5, Interesting)

    by art6217 ( 757847 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:20AM (#11658655)

    One can say "only a 1 or 2 deg. Celsius". In fact, first it is a mean temperature, second, the climate might turn out to on the verge of some major deterministic chaos [wikipedia.org] state.

    As an example, during the so called Little Ice Age [wikipedia.org] the global temperature dropped by about 1 deg. C, but it caused the following: (from Wikipedia)

    Glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages. The River Thames and the canals and rivers of the Netherlands often froze over during the winter, and people skated and even held fairs on the ice. In the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing that island nation's harbors to shipping.

    The chaotic nature of weather patterns might, in turn, hypothetically cause that some very small change causes a major switch, i. e. in sea currents. I do not know if anyone now either predicts or excludes for sure any such event, though.

    So, concluding, I think that we do not really know how much serious to the climate the global warming is.

  • CNN's Crediblity (Score:2, Insightful)

    by 108Reliant ( 715381 )
    CNN's crediblilty has been on self destruction for the last year or so. Their stories have been filled with hype and falsehoods on the hope that their ratings will not continue to fall.

    • Their stories have been filled with hype and falsehoods on the hope that their ratings will not continue to fall.

      It is just as interesting what they don't say as well as what they do. All of the networks, not just CNN, have a tendency to leave out important details, so that while they are not telling you lies, but they tell you just enough to lead you in the wrong direction.

  • when they can consistantly give... (Score:5, Funny)

    by night_flyer ( 453866 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:35AM (#11658717) Homepage
    an accurate forcast for two days out in Oklahoma, and not in the middle of the summer with a high presure sitting on top of us (upper 90s, sunny, 70% humidity), then I will believe them.

    Forcast: Partly cloudly and a high of 41
    Actual: 1 inch of snow, high of 33
    • Some so-called "statistician" had the gall to tell me that the odds in roulette are stacked in favor of the house! He mumbled some nonsense about "probability" which I was too stupid to comprehend and told me that while I "might have short-term, unpredictable changes in winnings, the long-term trend favored the house by several percent."

      But I don't believe him anyway (we all know there are liars, damned liars, and statisticians). I asked him what number the ball would land on next, and he didn't know! H
  • How about a "nuclear winter"?

  • NASA Wrong -- GWB Knows Best (Score:4, Funny)

    by pmhudepo ( 595903 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @08:35AM (#11658721) Homepage
    "It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

    -- Governor George W. Bush, Jr.

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

  • More study is needed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by craXORjack ( 726120 ) on Sunday February 13, 2005 @12:26PM (#11660122)
    "There has been a strong warming trend over the past 30 years, a trend that has been shown to be due primarily to increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere," said James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, based in New York.

    That's just typical. It takes the arrogance of some NASA rocket scientist to proclaim world shaking doomsday scenarios based on a single transitory fluctuation like 30 years of data. President Bush says we don't know enough to be able to make predictions about the changing climate one way or the other. And who are you going to believe? A man who told us that 'God talks through him' or some ivory-tower egghead who studies weather satellite data all day?

Slashdot Top Deals

"Trust me. I know what I'm doing." -- Sledge Hammer

Close