You gotta love those global warmers...

[Yonivore]

U.K. scientists say 2005 hottest ever

LONDON, Dec. 16 (UPI) -- British scientists have calculated 2005 was the warmest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere, at least since records began being kept in the 1860s.

The United Kingdom's Met Office and the University of East Anglia say the data indicate more evidence of human-induced global warming, the BBC reported Friday.

The average temperature during 2005 in the Northern Hemisphere was 0.65 C above the average for 1961-90 -- the baseline against which scientists compare temperatures. The Northern Hemisphere Atlantic Ocean has also been the hottest on record.

"The data also show that the sea surface temperature in the northern hemisphere Atlantic is the highest since 1880," said David Viner, from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Viner says no measurements of average temperature can be completely accurate and the team's calculations are subject to an error of about 0.1 C, however, the long-term trend is clearly upwards.

"It's simple physics; more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emissions growing on a global basis and consequently increasing temperatures," Viner told the BBC.

Okay, who wants to point out the two elephants in the living room?

Oh, nevermind...

British scientists have calculated 2005 was the warmest year on record in the Northern Hemisphere, at least since records began being kept in the 1860s.

Isn't 145 years kind of a limited data set when compared to the nearly 5 billion years the earth has been in existence? I'm willing to bet there have been hotter years.

"It's simple physics; more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, emissions growing on a global basis and consequently increasing temperatures," Viner told the BBC.

Okay, this one is a little tougher. While he doesn't come out and say it, the inference is the increase in greenhouse gases is caused by man. It's been said by other leftist organizations and scientists. But, the fact remains that greenhouse gases have fluctuated for millenia (as evidenced in core samples of polar ice) and, indeed, have been in higher concentrations than present -- before man existed (I know, shocking!).

It's also a fact that you could eliminate all manmade sources of greenhouse gases and not make a dent -- Mother Nature, through biological decomposition, volcanic activity, and her own persistent geologic processes has humanity beat, hands down, when it comes to the release of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Oh, and save your "yeah, but we're upsetting the delicate balance nonsense," The earth's own fluctuation in climate have been more dramatic and cataclysmic than you can imagine -- all before we were around.

[Yonivore]

650,000/5,000,000,000. Then, let's remove some zeroes...

65/500,000.

Now we'll reduce the equation.

13/100,000.

Okay, let's express it in decimal form

.000013

So, what you're saying -- or, more accurately, the article is saying -- is that for we know that in 1 particular spot on the face of the earth the greenhouse gas levels haven't been any higher than they are today for the latest .000013 of the life span of the planet.

You do realize that doesn't even take us back to the time of the dinosaurs, right? Back when the planet was more tropical and covered with those pretty ferns that became fossilized over damn near the entire face of the planet.

You'd have to go back 65 million years to even reach the end of the age of dinosaurs.

Claiming data collected over 145 or even 650,000 years is a good indicator of how extreme is the current state of our climate -- when compared to history -- is more a manifestation of human arrogance, pursuing the belief that we can actually have a long-term or lasting affect on climate, than it is scientific certainty.

[JoeChalupa]

I'll check back in a few thousand years to see how this develops.

[Yonivore]

Did you also notice how the headline writer for the article translated the content to read that 2005 was the hottest year "ever." Based on 145 years of data.

[JoeChalupa]

Well it has been the hottest ever since data has been collected.

[Yonivore]

Well it has been the hottest ever since data has been collected.

But, I would venture to guess -- not the hottest year "ever."

[Duff McCartney]

I guess Yonivore wants some data gathered from the time when humans didn't even exist. Yeah I'm sure there have been hotter days...like when the Earth was just a molten ball of lava.

[SA210]

If we say it's too HOT, we are against the troops.

[Extra Stout]

The climate is changing. I can see it where I live. The pine forests are retreating to the north and the Mexican-ish cedar/oak forests are moving in. Fall comes later. Spring comes earlier.

The Arctic ice cap is receding.

For a look at San Antonio's future climate, visit Monterrey.

It's happening, we're not going to stop it, so we better just adjust.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Isn't 145 years kind of a limited data set when compared to the nearly 5 billion years the earth has been in existence? I'm willing to bet there have been hotter years.

You don't know about , they have 2 or 3 accepted techniques for measuring temperature billions of years ago, so stuff your stupid republican nonsense back into your stupid republican mouth.

But, the fact remains that greenhouse gases have fluctuated for millenia (as evidenced in core samples of polar ice) and, indeed, have been in higher concentrations than present -- before man existed (I know, shocking!).

Republican, you are right, however, what you are false in assuming is that CO2 levels have increased at the same rate they are increasing today.

You ing idiots are so stupid to think global warming is a lefty lefty thing, the fact is the rate of CO2 increase since the advent of the Industrial Revolution is completely unprecedented in evolutionary history.

COMPLETELY UNPRECEDENTED. The amount of CO2 alone will take thousands and thousands of years to go away, the average CO2 particle stays in the atmosphere for 100 years.

You're so full of , I can't wait till the temperatures keep rising just so the common people can look back on history and realize how ing stupid you people were for thinking global warming is some partisan agenda.

You people are winning the battle by fooling Marriott's out there into thinking Global Warming is a liberal agenda, but you will lose the war and will go down as the stupidest mother ers in history. That is all.

[ChumpDumper]

Naw man, all those Tahoes and pig farms are HELPING the earth. Smog is a figment of your imagination. If Woody Harleson would just get off our ing backs we could show just what unfettered emmissions can do for this counrty. As God is my witness, the Cuyahoga will burn again!

[mookie2001]

global warming only furthers the sexual agenda
only French, Canadian, and French-Canadian scientist believe in that bogusness

[Cant_Be_Faded]

The only legitimate argument against global warming is that it will increase area on the earth suitable for agriculture. However, to use this argument is to admit the earth will undergo global warming.

Furthermore, rich ass republican business people are assuming that there will be people ready to invest millions and millions of dollars to acquire farm land in rural ethiopia or some .

[smeagol]

Who cares about the environment? I want to drive my Tahoe!

[Cant_Be_Faded]

global warming only furthers the sexual agenda
only French, Canadian, and French-Canadian scientist believe in that bogusness

Every single nation's organizations with a large number of acedemics has gone out and said they widely accept the earth is warming.

Every one except the U.S. and 1 other I believe (i think china)

Then, when the U.S. acedemics heard about this bogus , and how Bush went on record saying "we don't have enough information to say this is happening" they bypassed official nation and went straight up and signed a huge do ent saying basically that Bush was full of and there is more than enough information out there.

There are like FIVE SCIENTISTS in the entire world who don't agree with global warming.

FIVE.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

read and learn

That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

[mookie2001]

the rest are all sexual French Canadian scientists

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I can't wait till I get some serious free time on my hands. I'm gonna rebump my global warming thread in the club and totally bukkake each and every half assed argument used against me and back up everything with a MannyIsGod-esque link.

[Dos]

I guess that brown haze over southeast asia is also the fault of the US.. after all none of those developing countries have signed onto kyoto....

BBC News Online environment correspondent


Pollution in southern Asia is a regional and a global menace, according to scientists working for the United Nations.
They say the region's brown haze affects rainfall and farming, and puts hundreds of thousands of people in jeopardy.

They fear the pollution's impacts will worsen over the next 30 years.


A pollution parcel like this, which stretches three kms high, can travel halfway round the globe in a week

Dr Klaus Toepfer, Unep
It has a direct effect on human health, they say, causing more respiratory disease.

The scientists, working for the UN Environment Programme (Unep), have based their work on data gathered by the Indian Ocean Experiment (Indoex), supplemented by satellite readings and computer modelling.

The team includes Professors V Ramanathan of the Scripps Ins ution of Oceanography, US, Paul Crutzen, of the Max Planck Ins ute for Chemistry, Germany, and A P Mitra, of India's National Physical Laboratory.

The head of Unep, Dr Klaus Toepfer, told journalists in London the threat was real.

He said: "The haze is the result of forest fires, the burning of agricultural wastes, dramatic increases in the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, industries and power stations, and emissions from millions of inefficient cookers burning wood, cow dung and other 'bio-fuels'."

Monsoon warning

These initial findings clearly indicate that this growing tail of soot, particles, aerosols and other pollutants is becoming a major environmental hazard for Asia.

"There are also global implications, not least because a pollution parcel like this, which stretches three kilometres (two miles) high, can travel halfway round the globe in a week."


Haze over Kuala Lumpur
The scientists say the haze is reducing the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth's surface by up to 15%. But it also absorbs heat, and they estimate that it is not only cooling the Earth's surface but warming the lower atmosphere appreciably.

They believe this is altering the winter monsoon, sharply cutting rainfall over north-western Asia and increasing it further east.

The models they used suggest the haze may reduce rain and snow over north-west India, Pakistan, Afghanistan and neighbouring parts of western central Asia by between 20% and 40%.

'Premature deaths'

The report's authors say the reduction in solar energy reaching the Earth's surface also means less oceanic evaporation of the moisture which controls summer rainfall.

They estimate that the haze could be reducing India's winter rice harvest by up to 10%. And they fear "several hundreds of thousands" of premature deaths from haze-related respiratory diseases.

The south Asian region judged to be especially affected includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka. But Unep says the haze problem is at least comparable, and perhaps worse, in south-east and eastern Asia.

The report, commissioned by Unep, was prepared by the Center for Clouds, Chemistry and Climate.

Main image courtesy Unep.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

funny

[Dos]

so the asia's brown haze isn't contributing to global warming...?

ahh poor elpimpo .. US bad .. Southeast Asia Brown Haze good for the enviroment... lol

[smeagol]

Who care who is polluting. The fact is we are and we should all work together to stop doing it. Put ing special interests aside and work together. Not that difficult.

[SA210]

[smeagol]

Now you are making fun of me?

[SA210]

no, I'm not, your avatar reminded me of this pic. no offense.

[Guru of Nothing]

Global warming = Canadian terrorism.

Recognize!