2010 tied for Earth's warmest year on record

2010 tied for Earth's warmest year on record

http://www.usatoday.com/w...r-climate-change_N.htm


Last year tied with 2005 as the world's warmest on record, according to data released Wednesday by the National Climatic Data Center. Records began in 1880.

It was also the wettest year on record globally as measured by average precipitation, according to the center. Heavy rain in Asia due to the monsoon (which led to disastrous floods in Pakistan) and tropical storms in Central America contributed to the extreme precipitation amounts.

The Earth's average temperature in 2010, as in 2005, was 58.12 degrees, which is 1.12 degrees above the 20th-century average of 57 degrees.

It was the 34th consecutive year that the global temperature was above average, according to the data center. The last below-average year was 1976.

Did we not have this discussion before?

Later
Albert

gamblerschoice


Did we not have this discussion before?

Later
Albert

LOL thought you were having a deja vu Albert?
 
Bat usually the first of August here in northern LA and your hot.
This last summer it was HOT longer than I've seen in twenty years. We had a good 8 weeks of
temps we usually see for a few weeks.
Most days I couldn't ride my Harley in/around town. Not only would the bike get to hot but
you sure didn't want to be sitting on it at a red light.
 
I don't keep track of weather trends but I do remember hearing the tube local weather man saying
record breaking heat more than a few times.
 
 

Is it heating up or cooling down....? I guess that depends on who's cooking the data. (no pun in-ten-did)

Heck the people in charge have switched from calling it global warming to global climate change because they're not even sure..... but with the new name they can ride the wave no matter what direction it appears to be going.

You can get numbers to say whatever you want by being selective in choosing them...or in the case of NOOA, locating the majority of sensing stations in less then optimal places to skew the data. Or like that University, just discard the data you don't like.

When Earth Day first started, they were totally convinced that CO2 was ushering in a new ice age. Now it's heating us up? Did the properties of CO2 change chemically in 35 years? It can't do both. It likely does neither.

Albert's back!  And that's worth celebrating! 

But I did hear some places are supposed to have the coldest winter in 1000 years.  It's pretty cold here too.  After one of the hottest summers ever.  I wonder if we could ask for an average?

heheh

this is a music forum where political and religious discussions are prohibited.

why do people choose to ignore that?

slartabartfast

most of the science is crap

It is interesting to see at what point we are willing to bail out on our faith in the ability of the human intellect to understand reality. I spent much of my life in a field that drew heavily on the sciences to attempt to manage complex systems. That experience gave me a fair understanding of the limits of science to perfectly explicate and predict real world events. We tend to underestimate the degree of uncertainty to which we routinely trust our lives. A blind faith in (or rejection of) science or any other intellectual or religious system helps to blunt the razor's edge upon which we walk. But intellectual discipline, and the very real need to manage our lives really call on us to make a more nuanced critique of the limits of science.

Certainly most of us accept some of the findings of the scientific method, and the analysis of observations. Most of us do not believe that every breath we take is a newly minted miracle of a magical entity, and at least will entertain an explanation that a complex neurochemical feedback loop is involved, even if we ourselves have not taken the trouble to learn what the current understanding of respiratory physiology is. Some of us will even trust that science can lead to successful treatments for disorders of that system, at least to the extent of consulting a physician when they are having trouble breathing, even if the science behind the therapy is uncertain and incomplete.

Why we choose to accept one scientific/technological model and reject another, when we have no deep personal understanding of either says more about our personal belief system than our intellectual accomplishment or intellectual judgment in most cases.

Consider the possibility that some of the science is inaccurate or incomplete or insufficient to build a reliable projection on. Unless you have carefully reviewed the published literature with the background necessary to criticize it as a peer, you have no justification to call it junk. Then consider the consequences of ignoring the projections if they are reasonable. If you wait to administer the medicine until there is no doubt about the science behind it, the patient may be dead. That possibility would certainly be more uncomfortable to contemplate than dismissing it as junk science.

How did the atom form?

Like I've said before, this climate thing is TOOOO big a question. The debate about the scientific part, the theories and methods is interesting and endless. An average civilian has no means to really judge the reliability of different sources. I wonder if an individual scientist has!!
 
People tend to accept the scientific model they think they can comprehend?? If the model is too frightening, we deny it??

If the pessimists are wrong or even 70 % wrong, everythings fine.

If the pessimists are right (that the climate change is caused by Homo Sapiens and its speed and  effect follow the worst case scenario), the world as we know it will change dramatically during the life of our grandchildren - so dramatically that none of us has the guts to actually think about it. It means whole countries and nations disappearing, unimaginable migrations of peoples etc.
If anyone suggested or tried to implement actions powerful enough to have any effect, it would inevitably lead to a catastrophy.

If the pessimists are 50 % right, (for example that the change is caused by us, but the speed and effect is only 50% of the worst case scenario and 50% smaller actions are required) that would still mean changes that none of us would easily accept. It would mean radical cuts to the way of living we're used to in the wealthy countries.

Science fiction?:Could you imagine something like banning per apartment airconditioning or needing a lisence to buy clothes made of oil based materials in case you already own a piece of clothing of that kind. Any powerful nation would without hesitation destroy a weaker one in order to avoid such a situation... Or only one yearly air flight ticket per citizen...
I know my imagination is a bit wild, but...

If the change is coming but is not caused by us...let's just work hard and cross our fingers.

My point being: We don't know the shape of things for sure, but if it's even partly true, we quite simply can not afford not taking actions. The risks are too big. To have any true effect those actions should be so radical that they are simply impossible to implement. Could someone stop the growth of India and China?

I believe most people are willing to just wait and see, and meanwhile do some meaningless shopping choises to comfort consience. "It doesn't hit me, anyway."

Mankind is replacable, if dodos got extinct, why not us. I wouldn't grief for it. It's the suffering, injustice and mayhem that'll take place on the way that horrifies me. A young generation without future is a sad thing, and is capable of terrible things.

How do we maintain our childrens faith in the future? They must believe that there's something for them.

Well...this is typically me, but I wrote it...so I mail it...Rubbish or not.

How did the atom form?

Which one?

We had the coldest winter in 86 years last year right here in south west florida.....  yeah it was hot this summer, but it always is!

See this Video for a a great take on the environment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjmtSkl53h4

Beagle


this is a music forum where political and religious discussions are prohibited.

why do people choose to ignore that?

And what does bacon and moobs have to do with music?

Beagle

marcos69

Beagle


this is a music forum where political and religious discussions are prohibited.

why do people choose to ignore that?

And what does bacon and moobs have to do with music?

nothing.  but those are not subjects which are against the forum rules.

Discussion of off-topic music related subjects. No politics. No religion. Enjoy!

OK, I guess I was misinformed.

Beagle

marcos69

Beagle

marcos69

Beagle


this is a music forum where political and religious discussions are prohibited.

why do people choose to ignore that?

And what does bacon and moobs have to do with music?

nothing.  but those are not subjects which are against the forum rules.

Discussion of off-topic music related subjects. No politics. No religion, EXCEPT BECAN and MOOBS.  Enjoy!

OK, I guess I was misinformed.

restored to original condition

"Unfortunately, ignoring all of the information when the debate has been influenced by politics and money leaves you a slave to the wealthy and powerful."
 
Actually, I am not ignoring "all of the information", I am dismissing the information influenced by politics and money, and in turn ignoring the debate based on that prejudiced information.

There is a lot more information available, and carefully locating and filtering that info with an eye on the source allows for better decision making.

I am not a slave to anyone.

Later
Albert