×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

2005 Will Probably be Warmest on Record

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the steamy-in-here dept.

Science 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."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

698 comments

Massive volcano eruption??? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786066)

Seeing as how I live 30 miles North of Yellowstone, I'm not rooting for that option.

Let me be the first to say (2, Insightful)

Kobun (668169) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786068)

Correlation is not causation.

Re:Let me be the first to say (2, Interesting)

akzeac (862521) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786125)

Correlation is not causation.

But it's the main requisite.

Land sharks in Siberia (4, Insightful)

ghoul (157158) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786142)

On a non related note real estate valuations in Siberia and Canada are rising to new highs.

Re:Land sharks in Siberia (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786280)

Here in Quebec our summer has been rainy and hot, while we prepare for a dry and cold winter... pain in the ass, but still nothing compared to Siberia, where birds fall from the sky having heart attacks caused by frost.

The real question nowadays is: where would we want to live? Only safe place seems to be SF :P

Let me be the first troll to say (1, Interesting)

team99parody (880782) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786155)

This can cause more good than harm.

There's a ton of arible land in the world that does not have the absolutely-perfect-ideal climate.

  • Many cold areas - siberia, canada - may become nice temerate regions.
  • Many currently nice areas warmed by ocean streams (england) may suck as those ocean streams move elsewhere -- but it's just as plausable that nice-warm (or cool) ocean streams may end up pointing at other places that are currently too cool (or warm) and make them nice.
  • True, some deserts may get worse - others may get rain thanks to more evaporation

The only people who really have a lot to lose are the huge-scale real-estate gamblers (companies like ADM who control a lot of currently nice farmland) - and that wealth will move to people who are now miserably poor (siberia).

Please explain to me what that's a bad thing.

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (3, Insightful)

LordPhantom (763327) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786242)

Answer:
* 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:Let me be the first troll to say (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786309)

* 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

It's hard to believe that arible land would move faster than the farming companies can rotate their crops. For staples (rice, wheat, etc) in a single planting season, they could choose more appropriate crops. For luxury goods from trees with many-year lifespans there might be shortages (wait for the orange trees to grow in greenland); but that's hardly a crisis.

* Massive flooding along costal areas

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.

* Increased weather event strength due to warmer tropic waters

Agreed with this one. Building codes will have to be updated; and new cities probably shouldn't be built on flood planes (which was true before).

* (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"

+1 Ok, this one sold me. :-)

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (2, Insightful)

metotalk (168817) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786340)

Texas is a desert all ready and has been for some time now.

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (4, Insightful)

the real manta (319870) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786269)

Try telling that to people living in low lying coastal areas or on small islands.

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786364)

Fair, but that harm is made up by people living in areas that will be improved.

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786274)

What this guy [slashdot.org] said. Troll.

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (1)

Timothy Brownawell (627747) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786281)

The only people who really have a lot to lose are the huge-scale real-estate gamblers (companies like ADM who control a lot of currently nice farmland) - and that wealth will move to people who are now miserably poor (siberia).
No, there's also the individual people who live in the areas that get less nice.

Tim

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (3, Interesting)

clayasaurus (758835) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786310)

Because it can trigger the next ice age, like a less dramatized version of "The Day After Tomorrow." "if enough cold, fresh water coming from the melting polar ice caps and the melting glaciers of Greenland flows into the northern Atlantic, it will shut down the Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe and northeastern North America warm. The worst-case scenario would be a full-blown return of the last ice age - in a period as short as 2 to 3 years from its onset - and the mid-case scenario would be a period like the "little ice age" of a few centuries ago that disrupted worldwide weather patterns leading to extremely harsh winters, droughts, worldwide desertification, crop failures, and wars around the world." http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_age s.html [clearlight.com] http://www.21stcenturyradio.com/articles/02/101014 0.html [21stcenturyradio.com] http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12 374,1083419,00.html [guardian.co.uk] http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm [commondreams.org] Or just google it yourself.

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786356)

An in this "ice age" some currently suffering areas (Siberia, the mid east) may become nice temperate regions. Remember, that the birthplace of civilization wasn't always an arid desert. A return to a rich jungle environment in northern africa would be welcomed.

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (2, Informative)

Simon Brooke (45012) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786350)

This can cause more good than harm.

There's a ton of arible land in the world that does not have the absolutely-perfect-ideal climate.

Many cold areas - siberia, canada - may become nice temerate regions.

Suppose the temperate band moves 5 degrees towards the poles, what happens? Would there be the same amount of arable land, or more, or less? Hint: the world is round like a ball. The further north you go from the equator, the less the diameter is, and consequently the less surface there is per degree. Furthermore, most of the current temperate zone was under broadleaved woodland for thousands of years before the coming of agriculture, and we're still using the depth of fertile soil laid down in thousands of years of leaf-fall. But the current tundras have been tundras for thousands of years, and don't have any great depth of soil fertility. So it does matter if the temperate belt shifts five degrees towards the poles.

Re:Let me be the first troll to say (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786354)

DEAR FRIEND,

MY NAME IS MRS.LARISA NITSKAYA,PERSONAL SECRETARY TO MR.BORIS MIKHAIL
KHODORKOVSKY,THE ARRESTED CHAIRMAN/CEO OF SMIRNAUG SIBERIAN LAND AND TITLE, SPB IN SIBERIA, RUSSIA.

I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS OF A LARGE AMOUNT OF SIBERIAN LAND OWNERSHIP DEEDS WHICH WHERE HE HANDED
OVER TO ME BEFORE HE WAS DETAINED AND NOW BEEN TRIED IN RUSSIA FOR
FINANCING POLITICAL PARTIES(the Union of Right Forces,led by Boris
Nemtsov, and Yabloko, a liberal/social democratic party led by Gregor
Yavlinsky) OPPOSED TO THE GOVERNMENT OF MR.VLADMIR PUTIN,THE PRESIDENT
THEREBY LEADING TO THE FREEZING OF HIS FINANCES AND ASSETS.AFTER
SEARCHING THROUGH THE BOOKS OF YOUR COUNTRY'S CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND
INDUSTRIES HERE IN SIBERIA, RUSSIA I AM CONTACTING YOU TO ASSIST ME TO
RE-PROFILE THE LAND DEEDS AND EQUALLY INVEST SAME ON HIS BEHALF.

THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF SIBERIAN LAND TO BE RE-PROFILLED IS TWO HUNDRED AND
SIXTEEN MILLION ACRES AND YOU WILL BE TITLED 12% OF THIS MAGNIFICENT TRACT
FOR YOUR MANAGEMENT SERVICES.

AS SOON AS I RECEIVE YOUR ACCEPTANCE,I WILL SEND YOU THE NECESSARY
DETAILS AND MY IDENTIFICATION.

YOURS SINCERELY,

MRS.LARISA NITSKAYA

asf a fasd f asdf a fasd fasdljfl ajkfjowieiotqwe q rqwer qoiwe roqiwue rioqiwe r
qwer qowieru rqiwueiru oiquwe ro qowie ro qowierfhj cv ahsdfi

Re:Let me be the first to say (2, Interesting)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786166)

Why, because an empty logical truism is all you've got as you desperately attempt to deny manmade climate change? Try arguing with the causation in Workweek Causes Climate Change" [sciam.com] . It's just correlation, right?

Re:Let me be the first to say (3, Interesting)

Erioll (229536) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786304)

How about This Site [friendsofscience.org] ?

Some excerpts:
Myth 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
Fact: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures.

Average ground station readings do show a mild warming over the last 100 years, but well within the natural variations recorded in the last millenium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands") which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

And this:
Myth 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

Fact: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. The CO2 increase was only 0.4% over the last 50 years, rather than the 5% per 100 years quoted by Kyoto. However, as measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this. There is solid evidence that as temperatures rise naturally and cyclically, the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

And don't forget the worst greenhouse gas of all: WATER VAPOUR!
Myth 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

Fact: Water vapour or clouds, which makes up on average about 3 % of the atmosphere by volume, and - according to several researchers - about 60% by effect, is the major greenhouse gas. 97% of greenhouse gases are water vapour by volume. Moreover, because of its molecular weight and absorptive capacity, water vapour is 3000 times more effective than CO2 as a greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

Better start campaigning to remove all the water vapour emissions. Oh wait, water covers 71% of the earth's surface. No dice there...

Yes there are advocates for global warming, and "evidence" therein, but there is much evidence against it, and ESPECIALLY against man-made warming. Today's Calgary Sun [calgarysun.com] article by Licia Corbella [canoe.ca] also has some things to say on the topic.

Re:Let me be the first to say (3, Insightful)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786376)

Sure there are lots of Greenhouse deniers, and no shortage of oil-business newspapers, like the Calgary Alberta Sun, that will print them. Because there's no shortage of oil and coal money to buy their hot air the press that keeps them in business.

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.

Science is hard (5, Interesting)

jfengel (409917) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786223)

No, correlation is not causation. But when you have correlation and the most accurate models imply causation, you definitely have to think hard about what you're doing. The fact that global warming was predicted by the models before the data could be taken further suggest that it's not simply alarmist readings of the data.

Science is hard; in many fields it's impossible to prove causation completely. But when you have a theory, and the theory holds up to all the available data, you act as if the theory were true and make decisions based on that. You don't over-react as long as there are competing theories that imply otherwise, but this is one more piece of data to suggest that global warming is very real and quite possibly man-made.

The "quite possibly" means that we shouldn't over-react; as you say, the correlation need not imply causation. But as the burden of evidence falls on the side of man-made global warming, it becomes increasingly dangerous to rely on "Yeah, but are you really, utterly, totally, completely sure?" arguments against action.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

Ryan C. (159039) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786336)

True but not relevant. A wealth of scientific data shows causation. Every model, every experiment, on every scale that has been performed, shows that greenhouse gasses will raise the temperature of a solar heated system. Pay attention.

Re:Let me be the first to say (1)

s20451 (410424) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786377)

Let me be the first to make the rejoinder: the summary suggests no possible cause for the warming trend. However, it's pretty much indisputed that the trend in the climate is towards warming.

Now the questions are: do you think that warming is harmful, and if so, what do you do about it? It is well understood that CO2 has an insulating effect, so reducing atmospheric CO2 should counteract the warming ... whether or not you agree that it is the cause.

Which leads to another question -- is reducing atmospheric CO2 the easiest way to counteract warming? I wonder how much it would cost to cover large stretches of the Earth's surface with mylar and reflect the sun's energy back into space, and how easy it would be.

My plans are on track (4, Funny)

waynemcdougall (631415) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786076)

Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record.
Nothing can possibly go wrong now.

Volcanic eruption you say? (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786077)

Re:Volcanic eruption you say? (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786247)

Whoa whoa, that article is dated yesterday. It can't appear on Slashdot for another two days. Mod it Offtopic, then on Saturday go back and mod it Insightful or Interesting.

What? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786079)

Why would a volcanic eruption cause cooling?!

Re:What? (1)

pclminion (145572) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786105)

Why would a volcanic eruption cause cooling?!

Because ash tends to block the sun? This has been documented time and again for over a hundred years. Large eruptions cool the earth.

Re:What? (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786154)

Large eruptions cool the earth.


Just not the part right next to the volcano. That part can get pretty hot.

Re:What? (1)

CaptainFork (865941) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786159)

It's kind of like a nuclear winter. But without the radiation and the endless recriminations about who started it. And the inevitable turf wars between cockroaches.

Re:What? (3, Informative)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786107)

Fine ash particulates in the atmosphere reflect solar radiation (light and heat) back into space.

Re:What? (2, Funny)

demonbug (309515) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786189)

It's the placebo effect, I tell you! All that ash falling to the ground looks sort of like snow, so it just makes everyone feel a little colder! Take that!

Re:What? (2, Funny)

Mondoz (672060) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786198)

Volcanic eruptions are so 1980. Let's have some kind of impact with a comet or something.
That should provide way more stuff to block out the sun. Should be really cool after that, and it wouldn't take yet another a boring volcanic eruption.

Re:What? (1)

Stripsurge (162174) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786215)

To summarize this link http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/climate.html [und.edu] its the sulphur dioxide reaching the stratosphere that blocks solar radiation. Man released SO2 doesn't typically make it all the way up to the stratosphere.

Unfortunately intentionally cranking this stuff into the upper atmosphere isn't a solution to global warming since SO2 leads to ozone breakdown.

I'm starting to believe. (4, Funny)

yagu (721525) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786081)

With each damning new report and every shred if indicting evidence that indeed the earth is entering into massive warming because of human activity it scares me a little more. As an average citizen, I am trying to help by:

  • keeping my hot tub set at 101 degrees or less
  • never setting the thermostat higher than 78 in the winter, or less than 72 in the summer
  • avoiding jack rabbit accelerations in my HumVee during my 60 mile commute to and from work
  • never, never using acclerants to start fires when clearing the trees from my property
  • always making sure my tv, stereo, and five computers are turned off when I leave the house
  • being careful to stay mostly on the trails when I'm riding my off-rode motorcycle (hmmmm, same goes for the HumVee)
  • filling the bathtub only 3/4 full when taking a bath each day

I only wish others would wake up and smell the coffee and be diligent too.

Re:I'm starting to believe. (5, Funny)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786106)

I only wish others would wake up and smell the coffee and be diligent too.

Nooooo! Making coffee only worsens global warming!

Re:I'm starting to believe. (1)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786254)

Shhh... don't say anything or you'll anger all the new Canadian coffee farmers!

--
Evan

Re:I'm starting to believe. (2, Funny)

Rorschach1 (174480) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786175)

Heck yeah, I've got a 20-amp coffee maker that starts brewing a batch every morning at 4:00 whether I'm home or not! How's that for diligence?

Re:I'm starting to believe. (5, Insightful)

Seumas (6865) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786270)

As an average citizen, I don't even care. I'll be dead before it ever impacts me. That's not a very nice thing to say - I know - but it's practical.

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!

Not that long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786087)

This is not exactly a very long time frame, geolocially speaking. I wonder if it's valid to draw any conclusions based on such short term changes.

Re:Not that long (1)

richdun (672214) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786316)

This is not exactly a very long time frame, geolocially speaking.

Well if the whole universe was created in six 24 hour days, then at least for me 50 years is a good time frame.

But seriously, this is reminding me of how the number of cancers detected in 2005 is so dramatically more than the number detected in 1940. The real problem is all these statistics - if we wouldn't keep records of these things we wouldn't be able to draw all these conclusions - and no amount of backward extrapolation from various geological records is going to be able to definitively determine the warming/cooling patterns. We know there are ice ages, we know there are not-so-ice ages, but the precise statistics to start drawing causations just isn't there. Geology speaks in time periods of millenia, even thousands of millenia, not years or even centuries.

It's All Lies (5, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786088)

It's all lies, I tell you, all lies! It's a conspiracy by the atheistic climatological establishment to make us all buy small cars and turn off our lights. It's every American's God-given right to puke greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. But thank God that George W. Bush, His faithful servant, is making sure that these foul secularist reports are altered, so that we can continue our God-sanctioned practice of driving large vehicles, burning fossil fuels for electricity and all those other things that a proper Christian country ought to do.

Re:It's All Lies (1)

Gogo0 (877020) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786181)

The saddest thing about your post is that it will be modded +5 Interesting or Funny in stead of -5 Flamebait.

Re:It's All Lies (2, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786260)

Sad isn't it? Just like when I mock pseudo-scientists attacking evolution, and get rewarded for it, so I get rewarded for mocking pseudo-scientists who attack global warming.

Re:It's All Lies (4, Funny)

CaffeineAddict2001 (518485) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786191)

Ecological catastrophe is in revelations. It must be fufilled so that the lord may return, clean it up and let the meek rule the world while the know-it-all science geeks get poked by demons for their materialistic ambitions and lack of faith.
Amen.

Memo from God's Lawyer (4, Funny)

ghoul (157158) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786204)

It has come to our notice that you have been using the registered trademark of our client GOD(TM) for justifying Mr George Bush's actions. This is a cease and desist order as our client has never authorized any of Mr George Bush's actions and frankly considerd such advertising offensive as Mr George Bush happens to be an employee of our rival firm.

Thanking You
The only lawyer in heaven

volcano! (4, Insightful)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786090)

Don't count out a huge volcanic eruption. With all the natural disasters so far this year, a nice big poof out of a volcano would round things out nicely.

Can't read.... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786091)

... the article requires registration. I bet it was nice. Probably has some discussion about scientists claiming global warming and others that refute that conclusion.

Re:Can't read.... (1, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786119)

As with all sciences that some don't like, you can always find the odd man out. The question here is the concensus of the climatological community, not some guys on the payroll of oil companies, a few cranks and those who have sold their souls to the White House.

Re:Can't read.... (2, Insightful)

Jason Earl (1894) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786334)

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.

What registration? (0, Offtopic)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786131)

I didn't have to register to view it.

Re:What registration? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786172)

Probably because you already registered for the Washington Post and have a cookie saved...

Re:What registration? (1)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786261)

I don't think so; I cleared my cookies to check and didn't have to register or sign in. /me shrugs.

Knock on wood (0, Redundant)

sveskemus (833838) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786095)

Yeah, a major vulcano eruption. That's just what we need after all the hurricanes, floods, earthquakes and the tsunami.

Vulc(a)no Mr Spock? (1)

ghoul (157158) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786359)

Vulc(a)no explosion? Is that something which happens when Mr Spock eats Chili?

The Bastards (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786096)

I'm sure the Republicans are behind this.

That's good! (1)

picz plz (915164) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786101)

People who heat with oil and natural gas will be happy to hear this. I heard heating oil and gas will cost a hell of a lot more this winter.

major volcanic eruption.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786104)

Think about the past year - and now you're saying only a major volcanic eruption would stop from setting this record. Just asking for it ain't ya? ... we're doomed.

let me be the first to say (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786111)

Let me be the first to say that running out of oil will cause global catastrope long before global warming will. I do believe we will see ice caps melting, seas rising, and coastal flooding in the next 100 years, but by then the world's population will be down to about 50-100 million, and we can all just move to higher ground.

Re:let me be the first to say (1)

eln (21727) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786265)

So you think not having oil anymore would cause 99% of the world's population to die off in a scant 100 years? There may be conflict, and economies would certainly suffer, but to say 99% of the world would die off if we had to live the way we did before we had any real use for oil (and many people in this world still do live essentially like that) is a little extreme.

I think the Peak Oil guys are a little too alarmist. Yes, oil is likely to rise dramatically in price, which could have numerous nasty effects on the economy and our way of life, but with a slackening of demand caused by price increases, together with the extraction of oil from places it's not currently profitable to do so, the remaining oil should last a lot longer than you think.

Come on Mount St. Helens.... (1)

SydShamino (547793) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786121)

Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record.

Come on Mount St. Helens, you can pull us out of this mess!

/ starts staring at the web cam, waiting....
http://www.fs.fed.us/gpnf/volcanocams/msh/ [fs.fed.us]

Seriously, I suppose a drastic event now would make winter even harder for some part of the world, possibly killing many people and probably driving heating costs even higher than they are expected to be. Are there any good volcanoes in the southern hemisphere than could help us out and only cool down the southern summer?

Re:Come on Mount St. Helens.... (1)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786258)

> > Only something dramatic, such as a major volcanic eruption, could cause enough cooling to miss setting a new record.
>
> Come on Mount St. Helens, you can pull us out of this mess!

But since we haven't developed the technology to trigger large volcanoes, we'll have to go with the next best thing!

SHALL WE PLAY A GAME?

("Oh, it sounds like it misses him!")
("Yeah, weird, isn't it?")

> How about Global Thermonuclear War?
WOULDN'T YOU PREFER A GOOD GAME OF CHESS?

> No, let's play Global Thermonuclear War.
FINE.
WHICH SIDE DO YOU WANT?

Global Warming Is Not Bad (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786126)

This will obviously fuel environmental types and greenies who believe this is more evidence of global warming. And then you'll have the people who will correctly point out its still not necessarily because of humans.

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.

Re:Global Warming Is Not Bad (4, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786216)

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.

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:Global Warming Is Not Bad (1)

ghoul (157158) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786320)

You mean why fuck with the comfortable life you have now. I am sure people in the Sahara would be most willing to let the US become a desert while the Sahara becomes fertile land. All this global warming talk is just another way of using the planet to justify continuation of your comfortable lifestyle.

Re:Global Warming Is Not Bad (1)

mickwd (196449) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786332)

Your post, and the fact that it was moderated +1,Insightful (at the time of writing) on a slightly-more-clued-up-about-science-than-the-gene ral-population web discussion forum, helps demonstrate the kind of problems people are going to face getting anything done about the problem.

No doubt many people will reply at this point and say that it's not a problem, it's not the fault of humans, and/or nothing needs to be done about it.

Just out of curiosity, if you do feel the need to answer in this way, I'd be curious if you could mention where in the world you're from. Just as a sort of random sample of the geographical distribution of the people who feel strongly that this talk of global warming is a big fuss about nothing.

I like warmer weather (1)

Vile Slime (638816) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786129)

Hey,

If I had to choose I'd rather it be a degree warmer than a degree colder.

And who is to say that 1990 was the norm. 1734 could have been the norm. Or that 2005 is really that far away from the norm....

Re:I like warmer weather (1)

Darius Jedburgh (920018) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786248)

It doesn't matter what the norm is. What matters is that we have things in the world that are adapted to conditions corresponding to whenever they were constructed. Someone who lives in New Orleans doesn't care what the norm is, they care whether or not the levees that were built in the past with certain expectations can withstand weather conditions that are likely to occur in the future.

Warmest 2005 on record? (4, Funny)

toetagger1 (795806) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786136)

How many other 2005s do they have records of? If this is the only one, it will be the warmest, coldest, shortest, and longest 2005 on record forever!

Re:Warmest 2005 on record? (2, Funny)

CyricZ (887944) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786213)

There was 2005 BC. And if the history Republicans told me about is correct, that would have been about the time that Moses was smiting homosexuals and Jesus was driving his SUV. Of course, it was a whole lot warmer then, too, because friendly industrialists had not yet filled the air with pollution to cleanse the sun's energy.

Re:Warmest 2005 on record? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786217)

It's comments like parent's that provide me with a reason to continue reading Slashdot. :)

Re:Warmest 2005 on record? (1)

temojen (678985) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786249)

Lots of cultures have (or had) their own calendars, many of them started long before 2005 years ago.

Grapes in Sweden (3, Interesting)

Henriok (6762) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786206)

Wild grapes were groing in Sweden during the neolithic age, about 6000 years ago. We'd be lucky to even grow them in green houses now.

Re:Grapes in Sweden (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786306)

And maybe you will be growing them again in 100 years.

No one is saying that the earth's climate is supposed to be static - it's the rate of climate change we're experiencing currently that is of concern.

Re:Grapes in Sweden (1)

drMental (60513) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786351)

Neolithic is just a code word for neocon. Those neolithics did indeed pump oil out of the permafrost of times past. Gas up their SUV's and do drive by shootings on unsuspecting Cro-Magnons. With any luck we will yet again grow grapes in Sweden, make decent settlements on Greenland, and perhaps with some luck, we will find a land bridge between Asia and North America to come visit with our SUV's.

I'll help (3, Funny)

No2Gates (239823) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786237)

My wife always complains that I stand there with the refrigerator door open looking for something to eat. Now I won't take her crap, and I'll look around the fridge longer with the damn door open and I can help global warming at the same time. Maybe people will start looking up to me as some kind of hero...

Global Dimming (3, Interesting)

crabpeople (720852) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786251)



I saw a program, i believe from the BBC on Global Dimming [wikipedia.org] a few months ago. The idea being that at the same that we have been upping the greenhouse gasses we put into the atmosphere, we have also been blocking out the sun with the various soots and particulate matter that goes with it. This drove us into a net cooling period during those years, as the sunlight was reflected back into space. The researcher explained that this may be why global warming hasnt been as evident as it should have been in the past 30 years.

Now that we burn cleaner gas, and try and be more environmentally friendly, this reflective layer of the atmosphere is getting thinner. this then compounds the global warming aeffect already in motion. perhaps that is what we are seeing today.

 

State of Idiocy (2, Interesting)

ceguy (921818) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786259)

After having read Michael Crichton's book, State of Fear [crichton-official.com] , I am thinking people who pick sides on this issue just like to argue. Crichton is against claims of global warming. Everybody's got an agenda.

We don't even know how much we don't know about our planet. How about we try our best not to pollute the planet we live in while enjoying life?

PS I am not endorsing the book. It has an awkward plot and idiot characters listening to a lot of "explanations" by "experts".

I say speed it up (2, Funny)

ghoul (157158) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786278)

1 Most of the interior of America is very lightly populated as people want to live near the sea. Once sea velel rises and Phoenix and Chicago are beachfront land in the mid west will be much better utilized.

2 Siberia and Canada are almost unused land right now as they are too cold. With enough Global warming people can start living there

3 Large no of people lead very inefficient and lazy lives on a number of pacific islands. Once these are below the sea these people will become available for low wage work in our factories.

4 The areas of land submerged by sea should silence the critics that we are not doing anything to replace the oil we are pumping out of the earth. All these submerged plants and animals will become oil.

5 Africa has too many wars but the Sahara is relatiely peacefull. Heat up Africa and increase the Sahara in size and you will have an Australia like continent- first world country. Extra people refer to point 3 .

Futurama Anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#13786285)

We could make giant rockets stick them on the equater and aim them at the sun so that we can push the earth farther into space. That will intern help to cool the earth down.

It's getting pretty hot on mars too! (3, Interesting)

TheNarrator (200498) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786288)

Those irresposible Republicans! They're screwing things up across the entire galaxy.

Article [nasa.gov]

And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress.


Blame the volcanoes (3, Interesting)

dada21 (163177) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786297)

The author must realize that having record low eruptions in 1998 and 2005 is the cause of the temperature hike.

See what happened in 1816 [nasa.gov] .

doesn't anyone google anymore? (1)

alen (225700) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786301)

you can google historic temp changes and see that they vary by a few degrees every 1500 years or so. Why did temps drop in the medieval ages? why did they go up before? Did the romans have SUV?

too early to call (1)

jonastullus (530101) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786344)

with "global warming" (now more appropriately called "global extreme temperatures" or something like that) in mind, isn't it a bit early to call it the hottest year in october already?

isn't "global warming" supposed to cause extreme temperatures in BOTH directions, and isn't weather prediction limited to a few days?

so how can anyone predict the weather for the next 2 1/2 months based on historical records and in face of supposedly dramatic climate changes...

well, gotta believe the scientists, especially when they are overeager to get their results out first and maybe "prove a point" in passing.

The Weather Makers (4, Informative)

tarvo (557992) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786355)

Read this book The Weather Makers [amazon.com] by Tim Flannery [wikipedia.org] , if you are genuinely interested in doing something about climate chnage.

It is brilliant and timely call to action for everyone to reconsider their energy use as it applies to C02 emmissions.

1 year does not make a trend (1)

olddotter (638430) | more than 8 years ago | (#13786389)

While I do beleive in global warming, one year does not prove a trend. It will take a few decades of this to prove the trend, of course by then it might be too late.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...