pfarley: In like a Lion, out like a Shoggoth.

Patrick Sean Farley (

pfarley) wrote,
@ 2006-03-31 15:35:00

In like a Lion, out like a Shoggoth.
I say this in complete honesty: I would be OVERJOYED if Global Warming were a lie.

I know this is a long shot, but --

Is there anybody reading this journal who believes Global Warming is a lie, a hoax, a myth, or otherwise unsound science, and is willing to articulate that point for me?

I'm not trolling for a flame-war here; I'm genuinely curious to hear a sound argument against Global Warming which isn't based on wishful thinking; and preferably one which doesn't include such phrases as socialist, atheist, New World Order, doesn't exhort me to buy a Michael Crichton novel, and doesn't reference the April 28, 1975 edition of Newsweek magazine.

Anybody?

Page 1 of 2
<<	[1] [2]	>>

(Post a new comment)

	bostonsteamer 2006-04-01 12:31 am UTC (link)
	No. I'm just amused that this is the first post of yours I've seen with zero comments. So I figured I'd add a comment, so if people see this post has one comment, they might think to themselves "Who's the schmuck who thinks Global Warming is a hoax?" and click through only to read this. (Reply to this)

	enolarama 2006-04-01 12:38 am UTC (link)
	Like I just did! Awesome. No. But seriously. I try to drive it from my thoughts but every day, as it continues to rain and the weather continues to be abberant and freakish, I can't stop thinking, like a mantra: global warming. we're fucked. global warming. we're fucked. global warming. etc. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	pfarley 2006-04-01 12:54 am UTC (link)
	Yeah. I've been looking through old almanacs, and while the SF Bay has had a few hot Februaries and rainy Marches in the past, they've never occurred together in the same year like this. Today, especially, "just didn't feel right." Hence the post. (Reply to this) (Parent)

bahumat
2006-04-01 12:47 am UTC (link)

I live in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, and it's plain as day.

The winters are frighteningly milder than they were even 5 years ago, much less 20.

I agree with many that, ultimately, we suck enough at science that our global warming trends aren't going to be well established. But we don't suck at it so bad that we can miss the blindingly obvious for longer than 20 years.

Maybe we'll be a pretty pretty Venus in a few hundred years, yay!

(Reply to this)

greyaenigma
2006-04-01 12:49 am UTC (link)

Since the first post is already out of the way, and the ice is broken (so to speak..)

The best argument that I've seen against Global Warming merely takes the position that it's part of a natural cycle, implicitly dismissing the thought that humanity could affect the global climate. The last rational was probably some muttering about "liberal scientists" or somesuch. I don't want to hijack this thread -- but was anyone else really disturbed by the South Park global warming episode? I know crazy hyperbole is their stock and trade, but by painting those concerned about global warming as kneejerk reactionaries, they seemed to paint the picture that global warming was nothing to be concerned about. And on the flip side, The Day After Tomorrow was so absurdly sudden, it does to global warming concerns what Reefer Madness did for marijuana opposition.

The tragedy of humanity is that we seem temporally myopic -- we can't seem too be able (as a species, as a culture) to really look at things over a long span of time and say "well, it doesn't make much difference today, if we don't change things, my grandkids are going to get screwed."

(Reply to this) (Thread)

akkmedk
2006-04-01 01:21 am UTC (link)

I would have agreed with you on the The Day After Tomorrow point of it being to sudden until I saw a show on the Science Channel about global warming. I know it sounds hokey already, but hear my out.

They posit that the melting of icecaps would change the salinity of the ocean, effectively stopping the "pump" mechanism it now provides through the Atlantic. With water circulation slowed or stopped we would be thrown into a cataclysmic ice age that could fall in a matter of 10 years.

This is obviously cut short for length, as the show was a half hour or hour, but I think you get the idea.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

greyaenigma, 2006-04-01 01:35 am UTC

(no subject) -

akkmedk, 2006-04-01 01:46 am UTC

(no subject) -

greyaenigma, 2006-04-01 01:52 am UTC

	arielmeadow 2006-04-01 12:49 am UTC (link)
	Those most devil's advocate-y thing I can say is "What do we know about global weather trends? We've only been measuring the weather for a hundred years!" But even I don't believe me. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	greyaenigma 2006-04-01 01:15 am UTC (link)
	You probably don't believe yourself because we actually have a lot of historical evidence, between archaeology, ice core samples, and tree ring measurement. Every once and a while, I wonder how soon I need to get a house in a higher elevation. Not that it'll help when civilization falls apart, but at least my stuff will be dry. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

mister_borogove, 2006-04-01 01:18 am UTC

(no subject) -

greyaenigma, 2006-04-01 01:27 am UTC

	stutefish 2006-04-01 12:57 am UTC (link)
	I actually know a very smart and thoughtful person who believes Global Warming is a myth. I will ask him to elucidate over the weekend. (Reply to this)

	rstevens 2006-04-01 01:01 am UTC (link)
	The planet is definitely warming up, I'm just not convinced that it's not at least partly due to some natural process. Pollution is definitely a bad thing, but the power we wield is nothing compared to what the entire planet does. We can't even nuke a hurricane, let alone bend nature completely to our will. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	eideteker 2006-04-01 01:30 am UTC (link)
	You just said everything I said but in three sentences rather than a four page essay. Curse your sequential-artist mind! I need to learn to think in short and pithy panels. (Reply to this) (Parent)

mister_borogove
2006-04-01 01:14 am UTC (link)

Anecdotes are not data, a few weird months of weather is not global climate change.

That said, we're probably altering the global climate significantly, yes.

That said, it's probably not the end of the world. It might well be the end of a lot of important coastal cities. Other chunks of land which are currently no fun to live in, on the other hand, will become more hospitable.

That said, increased global temperature should lead to more evaporation of water which should lead to more formation of clouds which should lead to higher global albedo which will feed back against temperature increase. I don't see a Venusian future for us.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

drangnon
2006-04-01 01:48 am UTC (link)

it's all a question of whether we hit a runaway greenhouse effect.

the key word is runaway. as the oceans warm, they become less capable of storing CO2. as we chop the forests, a lot of carbon storage disinitegrates. each of these activities increases global average temperature and further reduces the ability to store carbon. at some point the mechanism to reach an equilibrium within the temperature ranges for Life As We Know it will go away. will we stop the trends before that point is reached?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

mister_borogove, 2006-04-01 02:14 am UTC

(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2006-04-03 04:13 am UTC

	mister_borogove 2006-04-01 01:17 am UTC (link)
	Also, we've had non-human-caused temperature cycles on this planet for quite a while. Niven and/or Pournelle have suggested -- with irritating right-wing smugness, yes -- that human-caused greenhouse emissions will perfectly balance out an all-natural impending ice age and let them live their sunny southern California lives for the next thousand years or so. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	w00t... trinityva 2006-04-01 01:18 am UTC (link)
	...all they'll have to worry about is smog. :) (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: w00t... -

yakkette, 2006-04-01 09:21 pm UTC

e-trade oil investment program - accept PayPal - (Anonymous), 2006-11-06 05:39 pm UTC

	akkmedk 2006-04-01 01:23 am UTC (link)
	The important thing to remember is that we will not be able to destroy the earth, just humanities ability to live on it. Good old mother earth will bounce back. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	_w_o_o_d_ 2006-04-16 09:27 am UTC (link)
	That's right. Cockroaches, for example, will hardly notice the change ! They've been around before us, and will survive anything we do (even nuclear explosions, I'm told) (Reply to this) (Parent)

I'm not sold.

eideteker
2006-04-01 01:27 am UTC (link)

Everyone seems to accept global warming as gospel (or decry it as heresy), but I don't think there's enough evidence. As arielmeadow said (and then dismissed), we've only been measuring the weather for about a hundred years, and the types and amounts of measurements have not remained consistent in that amount of time. I was reading the wikipedia article a while back about ice ages, and there's a lot of information in there and in related articles on climatology and temperature cycles.

Right now, the earth's temperature is warming. That's not really the question here, though, is it? It's whether this global warming is something humans are doing, and if it's something we can and need to stop. I'm not a climatologist, so I can't tell you if we need to be worried. I did pass 8th grade earth science, though, so I can tell you about the CO₂ cycle. According to the wiki, "the volume of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased from around 280 parts per million in 1800 to around 315 in 1958, 367 in 2000 (a 31% increase over 200 years), and about 380 in 2006." Is it going to kill us? I don't know. But I do know we shouldn't be so cavalier about changing our planet's atmosphere if we don't know that we can stop and reverse the effect.

I don't believe that humans are causing the earth's temperature to rise. I believe it's possible, but I'm not sold that yes, we are 100% to blame. What we can do is reduce the amount of carbon dioxide we're putting into the atmosphere and see if it makes a dent or changes the global temperature. We need to isolate whether or not we are a factor (or the sole factor) before we come to any conclusions (I'm not saying this is the only way to do it, it's an oversimplification. Consult your climatologist. Offer void in Utah). That's good science. "I learned it in middle school so it must be true!" is not.

(Also, while speaking of good science, your audience here is a self-selected sample, and so therefore is not representative of the population. Sort of the opposite of preaching to the choir. The priest is asking the choir to convert him to Satanism! Of course, you knew this, but then again, you said you were asking seriously, so I thought I'd just make sure.)

To conclude (and sermonize): Humanity is into its adolescence. We now have the keys to the car, and need to start conducting outselves thoughtfully and responsibly. It's time to grow up; because the choices we make can now, at least theoretically, kill us. Every adolescent goes through that immortality phase where they think, nah, nothing I do can kill me, I'm gonna live forever! So humanity is realizing now that some of our choices (individual choices scaled up globally) can impact our ecosphere. On the flip side, it's not healthy to start seeing death around every corner. Rational decision making, responsibility, and good feedback (i.e. measurements) should be the cornerstone of any course of action. Neither denial nor fingerpointing serve this rational process. I don't mean to misconstrue the point of your entry or its tone. But I guess I'm still trying to figure out your goal in posting it; or what set you off, as you don't exactly update daily with your musings on this and that. I feel like this is a reaction to something you read, or an extension of a conversation you've had. I'm just hoping your agenda is truly scientific and not political. It probably is; I'm oversensitive to political axegrinding from reading too much MetaFilter.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I'm not sold.

greyaenigma
2006-04-01 01:46 am UTC (link)

but I'm not sold that yes, we are 100% to blame

I get frustrated with this -- why does humanity have to be 100% to blame for us to care or be concerned? Is anyone at all in the scientific community saying that we are 100 to blame?

I realize that you have a pretty rational comment up there (and even mention the theoretical possibility that we are only partly to blame), but casting the issue in the light of "are we 100% to blame or not?" gets us off the hook too easily if we're only fractionally to blame. It's far too easy for the current political structure to spin "not 100% to blame" into "not to blame", and I don't think we should allow the question in that light. We need to hold ourselves responsible for what happens, regardless of whether we're the sole cause. We're certainly going to have to deal with the consequences regardless.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I'm not sold. -

eideteker, 2006-04-01 02:02 am UTC

marared
2006-04-01 01:34 am UTC (link)

I'm firmly in the camp that not only believes in global warming, but also believes that it's as much part of a natural cycle as it is the result of pollution. There was what was called a "Little Ice Age" back in the early 14th century; I don't remember the numbers anymore (and am presently firewalled out of a search), but it was pretty damn cold for, what, about a hundred years or so? The door is just swinging back the other way.

There was an article on the news this morning fussing about the high-speed destruction of the brain coral down in the Caribbean due to the rising average temp of the water, which is sad for its impact on the tourist economy (there's much to be said for snorkeling past brain coral the size of a Buick), but it's all Darwinian in the end: if the brain coral can't cut it, something else will adapt in its place. Humanity has got to adapt to the changes as well - and I suspect nothing short of a natural disaster on a scale much larger than, say, New Orleans is going to make people really understand this.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

"Little Ice Age"

axolotl9
2006-04-01 05:11 am UTC (link)

actually (by some accounts) lasted until the mid-19th century.

there's a reason the Renaissance happened in the Mediterranean region - everyone else was too cold for deep thinking. :)

this is also why wars lasted so long in the bad ol' days - war season was essentially the same as baseball season is now (okay, as baseball season was before such abominations as wild-card playoffs. ;). When it got too cold, the armies packed up & went home until it warmed up again the next spring.

So we could just be at a warm point after a three- to six-hundred-year cold cycle (depending on who's counting). Or not.

That said, I do believe that we are affecting the climate, probably making things warm up faster than they naturally would.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

glych
2006-04-01 01:41 am UTC (link)

There's a few theories surrounfing global warming...Okay...there's a LOT of theories... But what a lot of those theories are discounting is the natural cycle of the planet. We're approaching the reversal of the poles which has been noted by scientists to be accompanied by climate changes (Here, and here.)

Not to mention there has been many warming and cooling trends observed through archeology and palentology which lead some scientists to believe we're simply amidst a cycle of one (Here, here, and here). Some think that, though our activities might have contributed to the warming half of this trend, human activities did not CAUSE the condition.

(I did -like- a report and stuff on this in college)

-glych

(Reply to this) (Thread)

agrumer
2006-04-01 08:32 pm UTC (link)

Hold on — how do you figure that we’re “approaching” a pole reversal? The article you linked to states that no periodicity has been found in pole reversals.

The Wikipedia article on geomagnetic reversal points otu that, as far as the current decrease in magnetic field strength goes, “[t]he rate of decrease and the current strength are within the normal range of variation, as shown by the record of past magnetic fields recorded in rocks.”

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) -

glych, 2006-04-02 03:11 am UTC

(no subject) -

agrumer, 2006-04-03 02:45 am UTC

(no subject) -

glych, 2006-04-03 05:04 am UTC

(no subject) -

glych, 2006-04-02 03:15 am UTC

shaenon
2006-04-01 02:43 am UTC (link)

Global warming definitely seems to be happening, and is almost certainly partly or wholly our fault. However, it might not be as totally devastating as some people suggest. Some bad stuff will almost certainly happen: some coastal land will go underwater, certain plant and animal species will die out, cancer rates will rise. All these things are, in fact, starting to happen right now. But beyond that, it might not be too bad. It's hard to tell, because this type of climate change hasn't happened before at a time when people could study it. We can predict a lot of things that *might* happen, but not which ones actually *will* happen.

The less palatable truth is that, whether or not global warming becomes devastating, and whether or not humans are responsible, it's very possible that we can't do much at this point to stop it. We don't have the technology or the social infrastructure in place to stop CO2 emissions from continuing to flood the atmosphere (and just wait until China and India start catching up to First World pollution power), nor can we do much to reverse the damage that's already done. Switching from Hummers to compact cars ain't gonna do jack shit. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	mister_borogove 2006-04-01 04:33 am UTC (link)
	What does global warming/climate change have to do with cancer? (Reply to this) (Parent)

kayjkay
2006-04-01 02:55 am UTC (link)

Global Warming... hot topic these days aint it...

Yes, the earth's temp is rising... who do we point the finger at? Yes. Humanity.

Back when I worked at my local tropical fish-shop the big arm flailing article was on the bleaching of the coral reefs. These reefs have existed for thousands and in some parts, millions of years. Suddenly, they're dead. WTF mates. Scientists blamed the increase in temperature, in some parts as much as 4 to 6 degrees higher during the year. Anyone who keeps fish knows that even a 1 degree temperature change can KILL very delicate corals. Warmer weather *can* also do a variety of things in salt water. It can cause the algae levels to increase (while red tides were a natural phenomenom I wonder if they've increased over the last 10-20 years...) as well as nitrate levels.

Yes, the ozone is very much like atmospheric skin, it *can* regenerate and heal itself, but *we* are not giving it enough time to do so.

I think the earth is just attempting to flush us all off the surface because we're too much of a contaminate :P (please note: End sentence is tongue in cheek)

(Reply to this)

janet_harvey
2006-04-01 03:28 am UTC (link)

The only thing I ever read that made me question the science of global warming was Kary Mullis' book "Dancing Naked in the Mind Field," which you might enjoy actually:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679442553/104-1873178-3779937?vi=reviews&n=283155

Mullis is a Nobel Prize winning biochemist, surfer and hallucinogenic drug enthusiast. Some of his views may be a bit wacky, but you can be reasonably sure he at least reviewed the latest scientific journals before he opened his mouth.

(Reply to this)

Observing the F.U.D. campaign
(Anonymous)
2006-04-01 04:53 am UTC (link)

I've been following both the science and the phenomenology of global warming for about a decade. Especially after joining the Viridian Design Movement:

http://www.viridiandesign.org/

It is pretty damn obvious that the public is the target of a F.U.D. (fear, uncertainty, and doubt) campaign, designed to keep people thinking that there's actually some doubt left.

It's been, uh, amusing and instructive to see how the excuses and sophistry from the Anti- side has changed through the years as evidence mounts and various talking points are shot down:

"Nothing's happening. There's no evidence of warming."

"The only people believe this stuff are tree-huggers who want humanity to be poor and ignorant."

"It only seems like it's getting warmer because of sloppy work by climatologists eager to get grant money."

"It's getting warmer, but it's a natural cycle."

"It's getting warmer and it's due to CO2, but it's a GOOD thing!"

"It's getting warmer and it's due to CO2 and we're in for a heap of trouble, but it's too late to do anything so quit pointing fingers!"

* * *

A mark of how thoroughly ignorant the public remains: The conflation of the greenhouse effect and damage to the ozone layer. The confusion was evident on this week's episode of South Park, and at least one post uptopic suggests it.

Another bit of sophistry: "So what if some species go extinct? New ones will evolve!"

Sorry, that's fucking pig-ignorance. Go read Edward O. Wilson's The Diversity of Life (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0393319407) to find out how species and ecosystems evolve and how incredibly easy it is to terminally screw them up.

There's a good debunking site, run by actual climatologists, that keeps track of the controversy:

http://www.realclimate.org/

Stefan Jones

(Reply to this)

	randwolf 2006-04-01 06:36 am UTC (link)
	Freeman Dyson thinks: "On the whole, the warming happens most where it does the least harm." He's just about the only credible person who takes that view, but he is very credible. Found on Bruce Sterling's Viridian (high-tech green) list, which I do recommend. (Reply to this) (Thread)

(Anonymous)
2006-04-01 07:58 pm UTC (link)

Like Patrick says, I'd be overjoyed if he's right.

Note that Dyson isn't saying there's no such thing as global warming, or that we're not responsible for it, or that it won't do any damage. He's saying it might not be that much of a priority given other environmental problems.

Dyson and his cohort were raising alarms about the greenhouse effect in 1978* . . . yes, this was when the F.U.D. crowd would have us believe that climatologists were all panicked about an ice age. That was a silly-season pop-sci story.

Stefan Jones

* "Carbon Dioxide in the Atmosphere and Biosphere," From Eros to Gaia by Freeman Dyson.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	How to Talk to a Global Warming Sceptic wilylojik 2006-04-01 08:24 am UTC (link)
	http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html I learned a few things. Not sure where I found the link. http://worldchanging.com/ keeps me pretty well informed. (Reply to this)

(Anonymous)
2006-04-01 05:45 pm UTC (link)

Give it another 30 years and see what "they" are predicting . I remember not too many years ago, predictions of the coming of the next ice age. I have lived long enough to have seen snow in the middle of June more than once,winters with snow up to my armpits, winters with no snow at all where and when there should have been, 75 degree weather in December, tornadoes and hurricane well out of season - and then there's the rain - not enough or too much. Would I be remiss in saying weather is unpredictable, as are the predictors.
I'd be more concerned about what's coming at us from outer space. And I could go on. Just ask Patrick

(Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2006-04-01 05:51 pm UTC (link)
	Another make work project. Call me, Pat. I can fill you in on this one. Love ya, Mom (Reply to this)

yakkette
2006-04-01 09:28 pm UTC (link)

Heh, I've been getting fatalistic about this weird weather too. I am firmly convinced that this bizarre heavy rain/breaks in the rain/more heavy rain/hey look, thunder! cycle is going to continue indefinately.

That said, I do believe that global warming is happening but I don't believe our weird weather is neccessarily a symptom of it. The way I understand climate change, even accerlated climate change wouldn't neccessarily be so noticable so quickly. It's more likely that it's just some weird fucking weather. Isn't this year a La Nina year or something?

I've lived in California my whole life and all I've come to learn is that there really doesn't seem to be any such thing as "normal for this time of year" here - things go in cycles. I grew up during the drought of the 80s and 90s thinking that winter was relatively mild. It certainly felt like some bizarre apocalypitic scenario when all of a sudden we had "normal" winters full of rain and rain and rain.

It's true this weather isn't normal for us, and it sucks. I'm hoping that in exchange for this shit karma will give us a gloriously warm summer, like the one we had a couple of years ago. Last year sucked, we only had one or two really nice SUMMERY days the entire time.

(Reply to this)

autopope
2006-04-02 09:37 am UTC (link)

I'll bite: I don't believe in global warming :)

What I do see is global climate change. Some areas get hotter, others get colder, extremes are more extreme, and so on. "Global warming" as a catch-phrase is a word shorter than "global climate change", hence catchier, but less accurate.

Here in Euroland nobody is a skeptic any more. Not after 15,000 Parisians died in a once-per-two-centuries heat wave, large numbers of towns along the Danube were flooded in a once-per-millenium flood, and we've just gone through an anomalously cold winter in which hundreds or thousands died in Eastern Europe and a major political crisis over gas supplies was triggered. Even Tony Blair -- GWB's biggest ally on this land mass -- rates climate change as a more serious threat than terrorism.

Someone up-thread commented that we've only been measuring temperatures for a century. This is flat-out untrue. We've been measuring them directly for closer to three centuries, and we have indirect measurement tools that go back thousands of years, albeit with less accuracy.

Meanwhile, the North Atlantic conveyor system that feeds the Gulf Stream seem to be slowing. And people wonder why the hurricane season in the Gulf last year was just unprecedented? All that solar energy the surface waters capture has to go somewhere, and if it isn't cycling through the Atlantic it's going to stay in the surface of the Gulf, where it's the major contributory factor in hurricane formation. Which probably helps explain the extra-chilly winter I've just been through up here in Scotland, which normally has a mild climate because of that Gulf stream.

So, no: I don't believe in Global Warming, but there's sure as hell something going on here, and I don't believe our coming on the scene at exactly the same time as the biggest mass extinction since the Cretaceous, and a huge and anomalous climactic blip, is a coincidence.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

	randwolf 2006-04-02 08:30 pm UTC (link)
	"Climate change" is the phrase the researchers use; "warming" is the popular press word and is roughly accurate, though the warming is a global average rather than uniformly distributed--locally it involves more intense weather and wider temperature variations. And damnit, if you want to see what the real experts think, mosey on over to realclimate.org, or www.ipcc.ch. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	yetra 2006-04-03 05:23 am UTC (link)
	Hey patrick, I ended up with a copy of that michael crichton anti-global-warming book from a work-xmas-gift-exchange last year. Never read it. You want it? (Reply to this)

	I just found this on the BBC. brainshrub 2006-04-07 05:50 pm UTC (link)
	Environmental issues are not my forte, but I do beleive in global warming. Here is an article that I'm sure the RW will be branding about until it gets debunked - again. "Scientists blame sun for global warming" http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm (Reply to this)

Page 1 of 2
<<	[1] [2]	>>

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs