2007 equal second hottest on record
January 17, 2008 4:33 PM Subscribe
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century (2005 being the hottest). More here. of course, others disagree.
Although 2007 did not post a new record high, the year stands out as being extremely warm despite several natural factors that usually cool the planet.
Also, it's apparent just from the temperature vs time graph that the variance in temperature is about 10 times the size of the yearly rate of change, so those last two links are basically full of it.
posted by topynate at 5:00 PM on January 17, 2008
Also, it's apparent just from the temperature vs time graph that the variance in temperature is about 10 times the size of the yearly rate of change, so those last two links are basically full of it.
posted by topynate at 5:00 PM on January 17, 2008
BREAKING: CORPORATE INTERESTS DENY ANYTHING IS WRONG. "KEEP CONSUMING" THEY ADVISE. FILM AT 11. IF THE EARTH IS STILL HERE.
posted by DU at 5:09 PM on January 17, 2008 [4 favorites]
posted by DU at 5:09 PM on January 17, 2008 [4 favorites]
systematic, there are a number of things going on that GISS are trying to sort through. There's no confusion, just too much detail. The El Nino event this year should have meant the world would be a lot cooler than it was. There is also a mix between US temperature (which isn't particularly relevant) and global temperatures. The GISS got in trouble last year by recalculating a set of data and moving one figure by 0.01 of a degree. A big conspiracy apparently.
The trends are quite clear, quite explicit.
posted by wilful at 5:11 PM on January 17, 2008
The trends are quite clear, quite explicit.
posted by wilful at 5:11 PM on January 17, 2008
The working hypothesis of global warming remains a good one, says Mr. Whitehouse, but it doesn’t fully explain what is occurring in the Earth’s atmosphere. “Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what” or risk wasting billions of dollars on the wrong solutions.
So he's saying we should do more research before we make any drastic changes.
Nahh, that can't be a reasonable position.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:17 PM on January 17, 2008
So he's saying we should do more research before we make any drastic changes.
Nahh, that can't be a reasonable position.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:17 PM on January 17, 2008
...we should do more research before we make any drastic changes.
Yes, it would be a major disaster if we were to stop using oil. Wait, I mean wouldn't be a disaster, so keep using it until it runs out. I mean no, it isn't running out, there's an infinite supply, keeping using it or we'll all die.
Look, I don't remember exactly the company line here, but the point I want to get across is: just keep driving. And no regulations.
posted by DU at 5:25 PM on January 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
Yes, it would be a major disaster if we were to stop using oil. Wait, I mean wouldn't be a disaster, so keep using it until it runs out. I mean no, it isn't running out, there's an infinite supply, keeping using it or we'll all die.
Look, I don't remember exactly the company line here, but the point I want to get across is: just keep driving. And no regulations.
posted by DU at 5:25 PM on January 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
"... (2005 being the hottest)..."
Back in early 2006 when I did an FPP claiming that 2005 was the hottest on record, the ensuing discussion generated a lot of hot air. Wonder how this thread will fare...
On the bright side, it's good to see that although back then Australia was refusing to sign up to Kyoto, we've done so now (funny what a change of Government will do for you). Now all that's left is for countries like the US and China to come onboard, and things will really (hopefully) start to change.
posted by Effigy2000 at 5:34 PM on January 17, 2008
Back in early 2006 when I did an FPP claiming that 2005 was the hottest on record, the ensuing discussion generated a lot of hot air. Wonder how this thread will fare...
On the bright side, it's good to see that although back then Australia was refusing to sign up to Kyoto, we've done so now (funny what a change of Government will do for you). Now all that's left is for countries like the US and China to come onboard, and things will really (hopefully) start to change.
posted by Effigy2000 at 5:34 PM on January 17, 2008
Yes, it would be a major disaster if we were to stop using oil. Wait, I mean wouldn't be a disaster, so keep using it until it runs out. I mean no, it isn't running out, there's an infinite supply, keeping using it or we'll all die.
What on earth are you talking about? I don't know what the "company line" is (and I'm not sure there's any such thing), but your position sure isn't clear.
Do you want us to stop using oil? When? How quickly should we phase out? What will we use instead? What do we do about oil uses that we can't find replacements for? What are the costs of your plan? The benefits? What are the costs and benefits of not adopting your plan? Show your work.
Unless you feel comfortable answering all of those questions, maybe you should be a little more open to the idea that more research is a good idea.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 5:37 PM on January 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
What on earth are you talking about? I don't know what the "company line" is (and I'm not sure there's any such thing), but your position sure isn't clear.
Do you want us to stop using oil? When? How quickly should we phase out? What will we use instead? What do we do about oil uses that we can't find replacements for? What are the costs of your plan? The benefits? What are the costs and benefits of not adopting your plan? Show your work.
Unless you feel comfortable answering all of those questions, maybe you should be a little more open to the idea that more research is a good idea.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 5:37 PM on January 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Doesn’t look like the beef is over the data, but over what the data means. Yeah, that’s stupid.
Between the folks with a vested interest in one viewpoint and folks who don’t stand to gain anything either way, kinda easy choice there.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:43 PM on January 17, 2008
Between the folks with a vested interest in one viewpoint and folks who don’t stand to gain anything either way, kinda easy choice there.
posted by Smedleyman at 5:43 PM on January 17, 2008
If I am unable to be the Oracle that answers all questions on climate change and energy alternatives, then the scientific community must suffer from a paucity of research.
posted by DU at 5:46 PM on January 17, 2008
posted by DU at 5:46 PM on January 17, 2008
"Tex", your behind the times. See the Stern Report, the IPCC report, reports from the Pentagon, national and international institutions around the globe - any number of major major studies done in the past couple years - the cost to fix it is not as bad as you think.
posted by stbalbach at 5:56 PM on January 17, 2008
posted by stbalbach at 5:56 PM on January 17, 2008
If I am unable to be the Oracle that answers all questions on climate change and energy alternatives, then the scientific community must suffer from a paucity of research.
So you're sure the scientific community knows the answer to all of those questions? I mean, you haven't actually seen the answers, and you don't know what they are, but the scientific community has them? In a file somewhere, maybe?
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 5:57 PM on January 17, 2008
So you're sure the scientific community knows the answer to all of those questions? I mean, you haven't actually seen the answers, and you don't know what they are, but the scientific community has them? In a file somewhere, maybe?
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 5:57 PM on January 17, 2008
I'm takin' off all my clothes, just in case.
posted by Balisong at 6:01 PM on January 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by Balisong at 6:01 PM on January 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Additionally, snowed for the first time in Baghdad in living memory. -16 C in some parts of Saudi Arabia.
(Not saying there are no changes in weather-systems influenced by increased worldwide carbon-emissions though. Just sharing something that I heard on radio yesterday evening.)
posted by the cydonian at 6:18 PM on January 17, 2008
(Not saying there are no changes in weather-systems influenced by increased worldwide carbon-emissions though. Just sharing something that I heard on radio yesterday evening.)
posted by the cydonian at 6:18 PM on January 17, 2008
Yes, it would be a major disaster if we were to stop using oil.
No, it would be a major disaster to spend billions on something you shouldn't, when all of the wealth -- created by real human effort, not nebulous "taxes on teh evil corporations" -- could've been used for something else.
Like, say, education. Or health care.
Or perhaps the major disaster will be simple unintended consequences. The kind that we humans are notorious for failing to predict.
Ever wonder what's going to happen to all those batteries in all those hybrid cars once the cars get old and traded in? Batteries aren't exactly biodegradeable...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:21 PM on January 17, 2008
No, it would be a major disaster to spend billions on something you shouldn't, when all of the wealth -- created by real human effort, not nebulous "taxes on teh evil corporations" -- could've been used for something else.
Like, say, education. Or health care.
Or perhaps the major disaster will be simple unintended consequences. The kind that we humans are notorious for failing to predict.
Ever wonder what's going to happen to all those batteries in all those hybrid cars once the cars get old and traded in? Batteries aren't exactly biodegradeable...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 6:21 PM on January 17, 2008
Unless you feel comfortable answering all of those questions, maybe you should be a little more open to the idea that more research is a good idea.
More research is always a good idea, but so's putting on your brakes first if it looks like you could go over a cliff if you don't, without waiting for a detailed report from the state highway department about road conditions in the next 100 yards between you and the edge.
posted by jamjam at 6:22 PM on January 17, 2008 [3 favorites]
More research is always a good idea, but so's putting on your brakes first if it looks like you could go over a cliff if you don't, without waiting for a detailed report from the state highway department about road conditions in the next 100 yards between you and the edge.
posted by jamjam at 6:22 PM on January 17, 2008 [3 favorites]
Cool Papa Bell: They'll be recycled?
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 6:28 PM on January 17, 2008
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 6:28 PM on January 17, 2008
Cool Papa Bell: But are we not also now dealing with unintended consequences of 150 years of ever increasing coal and oil burning?
posted by absalom at 6:30 PM on January 17, 2008
posted by absalom at 6:30 PM on January 17, 2008
"Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys writes So you're sure the scientific community knows the answer to all of those questions? I mean, you haven't actually seen the answers, and you don't know what they are, but the scientific community has them? In a file somewhere, maybe?
This paper is a good summary of the current best thinking on your questions.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:32 PM on January 17, 2008
This paper is a good summary of the current best thinking on your questions.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:32 PM on January 17, 2008
Actually, it's 3 1/2 years old, so there's been some rethinking. Last I heard, Pacala and Socolow is turning out to be a little on the conservative side in its estimates.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:34 PM on January 17, 2008
posted by mr_roboto at 6:34 PM on January 17, 2008
More research is always a good idea, but so's putting on your brakes first if it looks like you could go over a cliff if you don't, without waiting for a detailed report from the state highway department about road conditions in the next 100 yards between you and the edge.
Look, analogies like that just aren't helpful. It sounds like you're claiming that if we don't take drastic action very soon we're all going to die, and that's just idiotic.
I happen to think that substantially reducing greenhouse gas output over the next few decades by aggressively pursuing alternative technologies and using taxes and carbon credits to try to internalize the true costs of fossil fuel use is a good idea, and I'm open to using regulation as a backstop, but some of you guys' hysterics are turning even me off, and I basically agree with you.
Remember: Employ measured, proportionate responses to address reasonably verifiable threats, because the situation is never so bad that you can't make it worse.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 6:34 PM on January 17, 2008
Look, analogies like that just aren't helpful. It sounds like you're claiming that if we don't take drastic action very soon we're all going to die, and that's just idiotic.
I happen to think that substantially reducing greenhouse gas output over the next few decades by aggressively pursuing alternative technologies and using taxes and carbon credits to try to internalize the true costs of fossil fuel use is a good idea, and I'm open to using regulation as a backstop, but some of you guys' hysterics are turning even me off, and I basically agree with you.
Remember: Employ measured, proportionate responses to address reasonably verifiable threats, because the situation is never so bad that you can't make it worse.
posted by "Tex" Connor and the Wily Roundup Boys at 6:34 PM on January 17, 2008
Good God.
There are endless, countless numbers of feasability studies for transitioning to renewable, or at least non-carbon, energy. The general consensus of every major study is that investing and promoting diverse, alternative fuel sources, and creating a national policy to do so, would be a net gain - economically, socially, and environmentally. None of it needs to happen overnight, but it does need to start happening (in fact, it's about two decades overdue) - together with the promotion of population growth controls, cradle-to-cradle recycling, and social welfare reform.
What's holding it back? Fear of change. Entrenched interests. Myopic viewpoints. People doing the same thing, over and over, convinced that things will always remain good, always remain the same, that something - the market, the government, the gods - will always provide. Just as the Easter Islanders were carving the very largest moai as they were cutting down the last trees, and just shortly before they began eating each other.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 6:43 PM on January 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
There are endless, countless numbers of feasability studies for transitioning to renewable, or at least non-carbon, energy. The general consensus of every major study is that investing and promoting diverse, alternative fuel sources, and creating a national policy to do so, would be a net gain - economically, socially, and environmentally. None of it needs to happen overnight, but it does need to start happening (in fact, it's about two decades overdue) - together with the promotion of population growth controls, cradle-to-cradle recycling, and social welfare reform.
What's holding it back? Fear of change. Entrenched interests. Myopic viewpoints. People doing the same thing, over and over, convinced that things will always remain good, always remain the same, that something - the market, the government, the gods - will always provide. Just as the Easter Islanders were carving the very largest moai as they were cutting down the last trees, and just shortly before they began eating each other.
posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 6:43 PM on January 17, 2008 [2 favorites]
You know how old people always complain about being cold?
I'll never know what they meant.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:52 PM on January 17, 2008
I'll never know what they meant.
posted by Astro Zombie at 6:52 PM on January 17, 2008
What's holding it back?
The impression I get from talking to people who know the petroleum/energy industry is that it's Dick Cheney. Energy policy in the US is worse than a joke: it's a disaster. No company is going to want to make a significant investment in the current environment of absolute uncertainty. Everyone is sitting on their hands waiting for the new administration. The last seven years have been a waste.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:53 PM on January 17, 2008
The impression I get from talking to people who know the petroleum/energy industry is that it's Dick Cheney. Energy policy in the US is worse than a joke: it's a disaster. No company is going to want to make a significant investment in the current environment of absolute uncertainty. Everyone is sitting on their hands waiting for the new administration. The last seven years have been a waste.
posted by mr_roboto at 6:53 PM on January 17, 2008
Back in early 2006 when I did an FPP claiming that 2005 was the hottest on record, the ensuing discussion generated a lot of hot air. Wonder how this thread will fare...
Effigy, that was a good thread - even had ParisParamus arguing in there.
I wonder how many sceptics there truly are left.
posted by wilful at 7:23 PM on January 17, 2008
The impression I get from talking to people who know the petroleum/energy industry is that it's Dick Cheney. Energy policy in the US is worse than a joke: it's a disaster. No company is going to want to make a significant investment in the current environment of absolute uncertainty. Everyone is sitting on their hands waiting for the new administration. The last seven years have been a waste.
The 60-ish Senate votes from farm states are a far bigger threat to sensible energy policy nowadays than Dick Cheney is.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:27 PM on January 17, 2008
The 60-ish Senate votes from farm states are a far bigger threat to sensible energy policy nowadays than Dick Cheney is.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:27 PM on January 17, 2008
Yeah, I was being a little glib. I think the big problem is an utter lack of energy policy, and the uncertainty created by that lack. If industry at least knew there were going to be carbon taxes, or a cap-and-trade, or something, anything....
posted by mr_roboto at 7:33 PM on January 17, 2008
posted by mr_roboto at 7:33 PM on January 17, 2008
If industry at least knew there were going to be carbon taxes, or a cap-and-trade, or something, anything....
I'm pretty sure that they see the writing on the wall, and they're focusing many of their counter-regulatory efforts on building loopholes for themselves. This is why I am convinced that we won't have a carbon tax in the US anytime soon; instead, we'll see a cap-and-trade boondoggle within five years. The hard right will use the boondoggle as evidence that Pigovian taxes are stupid, and the hard left is going to be a bit confused because its constituents will be hardest-hit, especially relative to, say, ExxonMobil, which will find that emerging Asia is quite happy to buy its oil. (also, natural gas does pretty well under the vast majority of carbon regimes)
I rarely make predictions like these because when one does so, he is begging the world to tell him how stupid he is as soon as it has hindsight on its side. But this one, I'm pretty sure of.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:52 PM on January 17, 2008
I'm pretty sure that they see the writing on the wall, and they're focusing many of their counter-regulatory efforts on building loopholes for themselves. This is why I am convinced that we won't have a carbon tax in the US anytime soon; instead, we'll see a cap-and-trade boondoggle within five years. The hard right will use the boondoggle as evidence that Pigovian taxes are stupid, and the hard left is going to be a bit confused because its constituents will be hardest-hit, especially relative to, say, ExxonMobil, which will find that emerging Asia is quite happy to buy its oil. (also, natural gas does pretty well under the vast majority of carbon regimes)
I rarely make predictions like these because when one does so, he is begging the world to tell him how stupid he is as soon as it has hindsight on its side. But this one, I'm pretty sure of.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:52 PM on January 17, 2008
Cool Papa Bell: They'll be recycled?
You mean like the several billion batteries disposed of each year in landfills?
OK, I'm deliberately conflating car batteries with Duracells, but don't miss the point -- running in any direction has unintended consequences. It's just nice to have a little bit more data.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:31 PM on January 17, 2008
You mean like the several billion batteries disposed of each year in landfills?
OK, I'm deliberately conflating car batteries with Duracells, but don't miss the point -- running in any direction has unintended consequences. It's just nice to have a little bit more data.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:31 PM on January 17, 2008
Cool Papa Bell: But are we not also now dealing with unintended consequences of 150 years of ever increasing coal and oil burning?
Yes, we are. So should we not heed the lesson of history and rush into something else? Can I put a cheap-ass Soviet-style nuke plant in your backyard? It doesn't release greenhouse gases...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:35 PM on January 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Yes, we are. So should we not heed the lesson of history and rush into something else? Can I put a cheap-ass Soviet-style nuke plant in your backyard? It doesn't release greenhouse gases...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 8:35 PM on January 17, 2008 [1 favorite]
Well, apparently Toyota's already set up a recycle program that comes complete with a $200 refund for every battery brought back. I don't really see your point though. Just because something is currently being executed stupidly doesn't mean it is fundamentally fallible. Those duracells aren't getting recycled because they can't, they aren't being recycled because people are being idiots.
On the other hand, burning oil is more of a fundamental problem. Unless you start sequestering the CO2 that's produced in caves somewhere the world's going to get a little warmer every time you burn something that's been buried underneath the earth for several million years.
Besides, how do you propose to get data without experimenting? Sure you could think about stuff, or look at other countries, but whatever.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 9:39 PM on January 17, 2008
On the other hand, burning oil is more of a fundamental problem. Unless you start sequestering the CO2 that's produced in caves somewhere the world's going to get a little warmer every time you burn something that's been buried underneath the earth for several million years.
Besides, how do you propose to get data without experimenting? Sure you could think about stuff, or look at other countries, but whatever.
posted by Orange Pamplemousse at 9:39 PM on January 17, 2008
I wish people would stop linking to those who "disagree".
It's not that I want to stifle debate or something, it's that there isn't any real scientific debate except precisely how bad it is, and how bad it will be. Everyone who isn't a right-wing pundit agrees it's real and continuing.
Oh well.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 10:23 PM on January 17, 2008
It's not that I want to stifle debate or something, it's that there isn't any real scientific debate except precisely how bad it is, and how bad it will be. Everyone who isn't a right-wing pundit agrees it's real and continuing.
Oh well.
posted by Tacos Are Pretty Great at 10:23 PM on January 17, 2008
Well, apparently Toyota's already set up a recycle program that comes complete with a $200 refund for every battery brought back. I don't really see your point though. Just because something is currently being executed stupidly doesn't mean it is fundamentally fallible.
Funny, I found this link while I was looking for stats on battery recycling.
"Dell is encouraging customers to return the potentially flammable batteries -- the company will send a stamped envelope and address label to users who request a replacement battery.
But many customers will never take either step -- claiming a new battery or returning the old one. ... "When you offer people a US$50 or $100 coupon in a mail-in rebate, you get about 50 percent compliance. When you offer them a $30 coupon, you get about 15 percent compliance. And that's when you're trying to give them cash," said Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technology Research Associates.
Those duracells aren't getting recycled because they can't, they aren't being recycled because people are being idiots.
Soon as you figure out how to make human beings stop acting like idiots, lemme know, willya? ;-)
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:02 PM on January 17, 2008
Funny, I found this link while I was looking for stats on battery recycling.
"Dell is encouraging customers to return the potentially flammable batteries -- the company will send a stamped envelope and address label to users who request a replacement battery.
But many customers will never take either step -- claiming a new battery or returning the old one. ... "When you offer people a US$50 or $100 coupon in a mail-in rebate, you get about 50 percent compliance. When you offer them a $30 coupon, you get about 15 percent compliance. And that's when you're trying to give them cash," said Roger Kay, an analyst with Endpoint Technology Research Associates.
Those duracells aren't getting recycled because they can't, they aren't being recycled because people are being idiots.
Soon as you figure out how to make human beings stop acting like idiots, lemme know, willya? ;-)
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:02 PM on January 17, 2008
Those duracells aren't getting recycled because they can't, they aren't being recycled because people are being idiots.
I think you mean "They aren't not being recycled because people are being idiots". I didn't realise there are situations when you need a double negative, and canceling them out changes the meaning, but apparently there are.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 1:00 AM on January 18, 2008
I think you mean "They aren't not being recycled because people are being idiots". I didn't realise there are situations when you need a double negative, and canceling them out changes the meaning, but apparently there are.
posted by Jon Mitchell at 1:00 AM on January 18, 2008
Comparing car batteries to duracells isn't very nuanced. I'd bet on a mass basis more duracells get thrown out than even regular starter batteries. The large battery packs in electric cars are _rarely_ going to be disposed of instead of recycled. Especially since core charges are going to be high. If there was a $10 core charge on each AA you'd see lots of disposal compliance.
And just because Dell isn't getting the batteries back doesn't mean they are being disposed of correctly. The end of life user can be dropping the whole thing off for recycling locally.
posted by Mitheral at 1:27 AM on January 18, 2008
And just because Dell isn't getting the batteries back doesn't mean they are being disposed of correctly. The end of life user can be dropping the whole thing off for recycling locally.
posted by Mitheral at 1:27 AM on January 18, 2008
Late to the party, but this is obligatory.
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 4:14 PM on January 18, 2008
posted by Emperor SnooKloze at 4:14 PM on January 18, 2008
Cool Papa Bell: What I'm saying is that you seem to be saying "well, who knows what we fuck up if we change things, so let's just keep going with what we're doing and maybe be a little more attentive." Well, when what is happening is demonstrably bad, theoretical blowback does not seem like a compelling barrier to action.
posted by absalom at 6:51 AM on January 19, 2008
posted by absalom at 6:51 AM on January 19, 2008
« Older Interaction and the buildings of tomorrow | The Internet Party (Video) Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
"It is unlikely that 2008 will be a year with truly exceptional global mean temperature."
"The eight warmest years in the GISS record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990."
"As we predicted last year, 2007 was warmer than 2006, continuing the strong warming trend of the past 30 years...."
"In the contiguous 48 states, the statistical tie among 1934, 1998 and 2005 as the warmest year(s) was unchanged."
Is there or is there not a trend? I'm always interested in global warming news, but I somehow never come away feeling more certain about what's really going on.
posted by systematic at 4:57 PM on January 17, 2008