2005 Hottest year ever on record

[RichardE]

Click

By Deborah Zabarenko

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Last year was the warmest recorded on Earth's surface, and it was unusually hot in the Arctic, U.S. space agency NASA said on Tuesday.

All five of the hottest years since modern record-keeping began in the 1890s occurred within the last decade, according to analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

In descending order, the years with the highest global average annual temperatures were 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004, NASA said in a statement.

"It's fair to say that it probably is the warmest since we have modern meteorological records," said Drew Shindell of the NASA institute in New York City.

"Using indirect measurements that go back farther, I think it's even fair to say that it's the warmest in the last several thousand years."

Some researchers had expected 1998 would be the hottest year on record, notably because a strong El Nino -- a warm-water pattern in the eastern Pacific -- boosted global temperatures.

But Shindell said last year was slightly warmer than 1998, even without any extraordinary weather pattern. Temperatures in the Arctic were unusually warm in 2005, NASA said.

"That very anomalously warm year (1998) has become the norm," Shindell said in a telephone interview.

"The rate of warming has been so rapid that this temperature that we only got when we had a real strong El Nino now has become something that we've gotten without any unusual worldwide weather disturbance."

Over the past 30 years, Earth has warmed by 1.08 degrees F (0.6 degrees C), NASA said. Over the past 100 years, it has warmed by 1.44 degrees F (0.8 degrees C).

Shindell, in line with the view held by most scientists, attributed the rise to emissions of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and ozone, with the burning of fossil fuels being the primary source.

The 21st century could see global temperature increases of 6 to 10 degrees F (3 to 5 degrees C), Shindell said.

"That will really bring us up to the warmest temperatures the world has experienced probably in the last million years," he said.

To understand whether the Earth is cooling or warming, scientists use data from weather stations on land, satellite measurements of sea surface temperature since 1982, and data from ships for earlier years.

More information and images are available online at: http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/2005_warmest.html.

Temperatures just keep going up and up, now the only question is if Mankind is involved, or if this is a natural cycle of things and we are going to just have to bear it.

 

[RightIsWrong]

Nah.....the "theory" of Global Warming doesn't hold any water. It's junk science. /sarcasm

 

[jlmadyson]

Yea I read this article yesterday. The one thing that stood out the most for me was;

The 21st century could see global temperature increases of 6 to 10 degrees F (3 to 5 degrees C), Shindell said.

Certainly, not good.

 

[Diasper]

2005 Hottest year ever on record

Must have been all the Prescotts and Smithfields Intel sold


...I can just see Dubya chuckling "Global warming.. what global warming?" while he's sitting in front of his Smithfield dual-core PC

 

[firewall]

For now, it's too cold...bbrrrr.....

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Nah.....the "theory" of Global Warming doesn't hold any water. It's junk science. /sarcasm

OP is obviously a leftist with an agenda and ergo, full of sh** /sarcasm

 

[NeoV]

Where is TLC to tell us that it's all just a phase shift time/space continium echo effect, and that it's all completely normal?

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Where is TLC to tell us that it's all just a phase shift time/space continium echo effect, and that it's all completely normal?

Haven't seen him in awhile.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: NeoV
Where is TLC to tell us that it's all just a phase shift time/space continium echo effect, and that it's all completely normal?

Probably tired of having the same argument over and over... Debating GW is almost as stupid as debating abortion. There aren't many fence sitters on either issue and one side is blinded by religion at the expense of real science.

I did find it interesting, though, that one of the three listed methods for concluding that the earth might be warmer than it has been in the last million years consists of satellite data that only goes back 23 years.

 

[piasabird]

It is clear that our knowledge of the environment is somewhat limited and research in that area is a good idea. I was just wondering the other day about heat and I couldnt but wonder that every time we build a parking lot, it is like we are making a giant heat radiating surface that will rise the surface temperatrue of the earth.

I wonder what would happen if we started putting up camoflauge over large areas like that that radiate heat?

Plant more trees and save the earth.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: piasabird
It is clear that our knowledge of the environment is somewhat limited and research in that area is a good idea. I was just wondering the other day about heat and I couldnt but wonder that every time we build a parking lot, it is like we are making a giant heat radiating surface that will rise the surface temperatrue of the earth.

I wonder what would happen if we started putting up camoflauge over large areas like that that radiate heat?

Plant more trees and save the earth.

Certainly parking lots and even roads cause a lot of extra heat in cities, but you find many raods or parking lots in the Artic where warming is even more dramatic than in cities.

 

[dahunan]

60 degrees today in Denver, Colorado

 

[Aisengard]

Natural warming cycle for the earth. The funny thing about 'global warming' is that it will make some places colder, as the ice caps melt and all that cold water comes in.

Obviously pollution isn't good, but there is still insufficient evidence to prove that mankind is causing the earth to warm up, as opposed to a simple natural warming cycle that's happened many times before.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Natural warming cycle for the earth. The funny thing about 'global warming' is that it will make some places colder, as the ice caps melt and all that cold water comes in.

Obviously pollution isn't good, but there is still insufficient evidence to prove that mankind is causing the earth to warm up, as opposed to a simple natural warming cycle that's happened many times before.

Most of the Scientific experts on the issue disagree. Probably because this warming is unprecendented, as in: Has never occured before. AKA, there's nothing Normal/Natural about it.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Natural warming cycle for the earth. The funny thing about 'global warming' is that it will make some places colder, as the ice caps melt and all that cold water comes in.

Obviously pollution isn't good, but there is still insufficient evidence to prove that mankind is causing the earth to warm up, as opposed to a simple natural warming cycle that's happened many times before.

Most of the Scientific experts on the issue disagree. Probably because this warming is unprecendented, as in: Has never occured before. AKA, there's nothing Normal/Natural about it.

Even if Aisengard's second bolded statement were true (and as Sandorski pointed out, the scientific community overhwhelmingly believes there IS sufficient evidence), that doesn't lead to the conclusion expressed in the first bolded statement:

Absence of evidence for a thesis is not evidence of the negation of the thesis.

 

[Fingolfin269]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Natural warming cycle for the earth. The funny thing about 'global warming' is that it will make some places colder, as the ice caps melt and all that cold water comes in.

Obviously pollution isn't good, but there is still insufficient evidence to prove that mankind is causing the earth to warm up, as opposed to a simple natural warming cycle that's happened many times before.

Most of the Scientific experts on the issue disagree. Probably because this warming is unprecendented, as in: Has never occured before. AKA, there's nothing Normal/Natural about it.

It has never occurred before? How do we even know that?

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Natural warming cycle for the earth. The funny thing about 'global warming' is that it will make some places colder, as the ice caps melt and all that cold water comes in.

Obviously pollution isn't good, but there is still insufficient evidence to prove that mankind is causing the earth to warm up, as opposed to a simple natural warming cycle that's happened many times before.

Some of the Scientific experts on the issue disagree. Probably because this warming is unprecendented in the last 60 of 4,000,000,000 years, as in: Has never occured before in the last 60 of 4,000,000,000 years.

Fixed for realistic accuracy.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Natural warming cycle for the earth. The funny thing about 'global warming' is that it will make some places colder, as the ice caps melt and all that cold water comes in.

Obviously pollution isn't good, but there is still insufficient evidence to prove that mankind is causing the earth to warm up, as opposed to a simple natural warming cycle that's happened many times before.

Some of the Scientific experts on the issue disagree. Probably because this warming is unprecendented in the last 60 of 4,000,000,000 years, as in: Has never occured before in the last 60 of 4,000,000,000 years.

Fixed for unrealistic inaccuracy.

fixed

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: dahunan
60 degrees today in Denver, Colorado

104 degrees colder in Fairbanks, Alaska.

 

[jackschmittusa]

Whoozyerdaddy

I did find it interesting, though, that one of the three listed methods for concluding that the earth might be warmer than it has been in the last million years consists of satellite data that only goes back 23 years

Excellent data has been gathered worldwide on tree ring growth, both from living trees and preserved logs from old structures that has led to a well regarded weather database for as much as 100k years.

Ice cores from the Anarctic and Greenland have provided a record of global conditions going back over 1 million years.

While modern methods are becoming more and more precise, it is likely more a matter of not rounding while interpreting and interpolating the data. Todays data only refines the indirect methods used for times past.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: jackschmittusa
Whoozyerdaddy

I did find it interesting, though, that one of the three listed methods for concluding that the earth might be warmer than it has been in the last million years consists of satellite data that only goes back 23 years

Excellent data has been gathered worldwide on tree ring growth, both from living trees and preserved logs from old structures that has led to a well regarded weather database for as much as 100k years.

Ice cores from the Anarctic and Greenland have provided a record of global conditions going back over 1 million years.

While modern methods are becoming more and more precise, it is likely more a matter of not rounding while interpreting and interpolating the data. Todays data only refines the indirect methods used for times past.

Funny, they didn't list any of those methods in the article. Don't bait and switch.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Natural warming cycle for the earth. The funny thing about 'global warming' is that it will make some places colder, as the ice caps melt and all that cold water comes in.

Obviously pollution isn't good, but there is still insufficient evidence to prove that mankind is causing the earth to warm up, as opposed to a simple natural warming cycle that's happened many times before.

Some of the Scientific experts on the issue disagree. Probably because this warming is unprecendented in the last 60 of 4,000,000,000 years, as in: Has never occured before in the last 60 of 4,000,000,000 years.

Fixed for unrealistic inaccuracy.

fixed

Really, so our REAL data about the earths climate goes back further than that? What was the temp in denver in 45008 BC?

Furthermore, since we are discussing the article and this particular study, which uses VERY SHORT TERM MEASURMENT TO MAKE VERY RAIDCAL CLAIMS, and not data on global warming altogether, id like you to back up why you feel that editing my post is the correct thing to do.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Natural warming cycle for the earth. The funny thing about 'global warming' is that it will make some places colder, as the ice caps melt and all that cold water comes in.

Obviously pollution isn't good, but there is still insufficient evidence to prove that mankind is causing the earth to warm up, as opposed to a simple natural warming cycle that's happened many times before.

Some of the Scientific experts on the issue disagree. Probably because this warming is unprecendented in the last 60 of 4,000,000,000 years, as in: Has never occured before in the last 60 of 4,000,000,000 years.

Fixed for unrealistic inaccuracy.

fixed

Really, so our REAL data about the earths climate goes back further than that? What was the temp in denver in 45008 BC?

The temperature in Deenver in 45008BC is moot. The temperature in Denver today is also moot.

 

[tommywishbone]

We need that giant-sun-blocking-thing that Mr. Burns invented. Sure, Oil-Boy Cheney would make more moola-moola, but who cares?

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Aisengard
Natural warming cycle for the earth. The funny thing about 'global warming' is that it will make some places colder, as the ice caps melt and all that cold water comes in.

Obviously pollution isn't good, but there is still insufficient evidence to prove that mankind is causing the earth to warm up, as opposed to a simple natural warming cycle that's happened many times before.

Most of the Scientific experts on the issue disagree. Probably because this warming is unprecendented, as in: Has never occured before. AKA, there's nothing Normal/Natural about it.

Even if Aisengard's second bolded statement were true (and as Sandorski pointed out, the scientific community overhwhelmingly believes there IS sufficient evidence), that doesn't lead to the conclusion expressed in the first bolded statement:

Absence of evidence for a thesis is not evidence of the negation of the thesis.

There are have been warmer periods in Earth's past, but just saying that doesn't absolve (or necc have any relivance to) what is going now. Some of these warmer periods have come with the formation/breakup of large landmasses, such as Pangea and Gondwanaland, and huge changes in ocean currents as a result.

Clearly that is not going on here and other factors need to be looked at. Just dismissing data which is personally disliked is not sound science. The root cause is being investigated, and there is signifigant evidence of human influence, so it cannot just be casually dismissed (or accepted.)