In like a Lion, out like a Shoggoth.

[pfarley]

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

Comments

[eideteker]

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.

[mister_borogove]

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.

[drangnon]

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?

[mister_borogove]

And as CO2 concentration in atmosphere increases, I expect something will grow to take advantage of it.

[mister_borogove]

Like, weeds.

Seriously. CO2 isn't a magic elixir that will magically cancel out bad effects.

There has been a lot of research on how increased CO2 effects various sorts of plants. Some do marginally better, some a lot better. Corn grows faster, for example. BUT, because the stoma are open for a greater amount of time, the plants become much more susceptible to dry conditions.

Stefan

[mister_borogove]

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.

w00t...

[fierceawakening]

...all they'll have to worry about is smog. :)

e-trade oil investment program - accept PayPal

[mister_borogove]

The investment program - accept PayPal

Our program is intended for people willing to achieve their financial freedom but
unable to do so because they're not financial experts.
www.etradeoil.com is a long term private loan program,
backed up by Forex market trading and investing in various funds and activities.
Profits from these investments are used to enhance our program and
increase its stability for the long term.
Profit:
90 day 3.5% daily
90 days 25% weekly
30 days deposit. 150%
We accept PayPal

www.etradeoil.com
Thanks.

[akkmedk]

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.

[_w_o_o_d_]

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)

I'm not sold.

[eideteker]

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

Re: I'm not sold.

[greyaenigma]

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.

Re: I'm not sold.

[eideteker]

The finger-pointing discussions I've heard on global warming seem to center around it being a 100% human or 100% natural occurance. I'm not convinced it's either. What I am saying is that we need to do what we can to preserve our climate and make any changes thoughtfully-in either direction.

I'm not saying we have to be 100% to blame; you misread me. Patrick asked me if I believed in global warming, and I was trying to feel out or define what he meant by global warming, because even that's open to interpretation. But yes, the environment is good. Pollution is bad. Trees are nice. Breathable air is just super to have around.

What's more important to me, I guess, is not what people believe but that they rationally examine why they believe it. At the time I started writing my comment, there weren't many thoughtful-sounding comments. Of course, by the time I hit post, there were about 8 new ones that said the same thing I'd been typing for the last however many minutes.