Here we go: I don’t buy that global warming is caused by what we’re putting into the atmosphere. It may very well be possible that human activity is indeed responsible for it, but no-one’s really proven it yet. Call it an unfortunate side effect of my skeptical brain and my desire to critically evaluate things.
I certainly take what the doomsayers tell us with a large grain of salt, yet if you read on I’ll establish that we’re mad if we don’t back their play.
One of the basic premises of science is that it seeks to find the formulae that describe the way the universe works. To put this in the lingo of the everyman, science is trying to find the stories that explain how things work. Once you know the whole story, you can change one part of it and successfully predict how that one change alters the whole story. For instance, once you know the formula for speed (velocity = distance / time) and an object’s speed, you can alter the amount of time travelled and find out how the change in duration alters the amount of distance travelled at that speed (or the amount of time it takes to travel the original distance) using your formula, rather than actually changing the object in the real world and making more measurements.
That’s essentially what scientists on both sides of the global warming debate are doing when they tell us how things are going to turn out if we do/don’t change our input into the environment. Their respective formulae calculate the Earth’s temperature by filling in the known values of time and carbon emissions and use that data to to estimate the Earth’s tempurature. All without us sending a time travelling thermomter to 2050.
In the terms of global warming, the formulae being proposed are much (much, much) more complex than our formula for calculating an object’s speed. Nonetheless, they can be explained in fairly basic terms; we have the scientific majority telling us their story (of SCIENCE!) which says that there is a relationship between the amount of CO² into the atmosphere and the rise of global temperature. By way of example I gesture now to Al Gore waving his pointed stick at a giant chart. Armed with a formula that fits existing data they say they’ve extrapolated the following about the future: we’re fucked.
The other prevailing theory (also, of SCIENCE!) is the one presented by anyone anti-green (let’s say, for instance, heavy industry lobbyists and white supremacists, but I’ve picked those groups out at random). “No!” they shout, waving at the far end of Al Gore’s chart. “WTF? Your pretty graph has all these spikes in global temperatures at regular intervals, and it sure as sam hill looks like we’re due for another.” And they’re quite right, there. But, then, the greenies reply, “You r-tard. Do any of the historical spikes look anywhere as beefy as this one we’ve in now?” The last retort, though, goes the other way, “Er, hang on. Your chart seems to be a bit small, don’t you think?”
And therein lies the problem with both sides of this battle of scientific stories.
The amount of time we’ve been collecting verifiable data on the atmosphere isn’t really that shit-hot when you look at the complexity of a system like the Earth. We don’t have enough of the facts to declare either one or the other of these theories a 100% accurate description of the relationship between greenhouse gasses and global temperature.
But there are other things going on in the realm of environmental science…
The media has carbon dioxide tunnelvision lately. Anyone remember the other greenhouse gasses? A methane particle contributes 20 times as much towards the greenhouse effect as a carbon molecule – but there aren’t nearly as many methane molecules floating about. We’re doing our damnedest to make more, though, and I don’t see the masses rising up against cow burps.
To get really crazy, maybe we need to make sure we’ve got enough CO² in the atmosphere to keep us growing enough food to feed the planet through the mini-Ice Age that’s potentially due quite soon. We can devote our science to figuring out how to scrub the atmosphere later, when the big chill is nearly over. Assuming there is an ice age due, that is.
A bit of Googling turns up more zany schemes. In the end, though, one really ought to pay heed to experts in the field, since they’re the only people will the skill set necessary to make heads or tails of the situation.
Until we have enough data to gather enough information to accurately model our home planet’s weather patterns and prove any model correct (or at least disprove the others incorrect), surely the smartest course of action is to act as if either of the most accurate ones are correct. In that situation, wouldn’t you want to err on the side of caution and make sure you try to reddress the worst predictions of each theory?
(Also, I like this stand because, frankly, most of the evangelists on either side of this debate are kind of scary – like all extremists.)
(No music today. Back to audio pleasures next post.)
5 comments
Comments feed for this article
September 27, 2008 at 04:49
skepticsglobalwarming
Should be err on the side of caution and address the worst predictions of each theory? I think this is one of the problems those skeptical of global warming take issue with because it will cost so much money to reduce carbon dioxide on a planetary scale (I’m talking single-digit percentage of global GDP here). And it’s especially troubling that there’s no concrete proof that carbon dioxide emissions cause temperatures to rise – especially when there’s been no net warming since 1998 and 2008 is shaping up to be one of the coolest on record just like 2007.
September 27, 2008 at 08:03
Viper Pilot
Dude, are you really trying to tell me that two years worth of cooling is vaguely significant enough, when we’re talking about cycles that are in the tens or hundreds of thousands of years long?
Global temperatures rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C between 1905 and 2005 – that’s a far more significant figure.
I’m not saying that it necessarily means anything, but eventually we’ll collect all the data we need to model the climate, and I’d prefer to still have a home by the time we figure out.
September 27, 2008 at 12:01
Coyote
Watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ
Next, to be brutally honest, FUCK global warming. The issue is not that we’re saving the planet. We’re saving our own sorry asses. I hate this debate because it gets lost in the minutae and people miss this basic fact: We’re not getting healthier. The incident of disease, famine, natural disasters, and various other phenomenon are increasing.
And part of that is the nature of our energy use. It’s slaving us to damaging forces. Not to mention the mass rank consumerism that is fuelling that same use of energy. The problem is a lot more than global warming folks.
I’m not going to debate all of this, and everyone can write all the words they want on it but here’s the way I see it:
1) Capitalism has failed. The only reason it hasn’t been overthrown is because the people it benefits keep the power to continue with the system, and have figured out how to keep us all complacent. Watch The Story of Stuff at http://www.storyofstuff.com/
2) Global warming is an interesting debate, and if you watch that first video the same guy does a lot of interesting videos on it. And the fact remains we’re in the freakin’ test tube as he puts it.
3) Human beings have not been taking care of each other for a very long time. The real begining to the solution is each of you starting to step up and make a difference within first your family and friends, and then your community around you. Do it. NOW.
Feel free to tell me I’m wrong and why. I doubt most can tho.
September 28, 2008 at 23:33
Viper Pilot
Coyote, as always, your wisdom pleases my ears.
I’ve reported back to C&C with your findings, and they’re quite pleased. You can expect a field commendation, soldier.
Off the record…
#1 – Yup, sure has. When a bank posts SIX BILLION DOLLARS PROFIT and that money goes into the hands of a few executives and shareholders, you have to wonder how on earth that’s good for society as a whole. It’s only going to get worse until governments start putting the resources (people, natural and fiscal) of a country back in the hands of the country’s populace.
#2 – “In the test tube” Heh. I dig that.
#3 – You’re so very close to being a humanist, Coyote. Tack somewhere in there ‘Resolve the problems faced by your family, friends and community through application of rational thought.’ and you’re close enough for government work (or gay porn).
October 9, 2008 at 14:08
Fred R.
I hate the idea that the science on either side of this debate gets thrown out of the window to support “the cause”. Science takes time. Good science takes at lot of time. It needs to be subject to debate, refutation, confirmation, grad students staying up 20 hours a day finishing off thier research, stodgy old professors insisting on the status quo. The science of global temperature control is too infantile to base any real economic policies on it. Al Gore’s graph there is incorrect. Its actually false. It mathematically has no correlation to actual observed data. It took 6 years for this fact to be published in scientific journals.
Anybody ever play SimEarth? The game included a map of how all of the planetary weather factors affected each other. There were near 1 hundred factors, and the simulator was designed to run on a 386 intel chip. Focusing on CO2 is like studying one ant to determine the entire social structure of an ant colony, its engineered make up, and its exact position in a local ecosystems food web.
I personally think that yes, there are too many humans who are too resource hungry for the earth right now, and we have triggered Gaia’s Eraser, which is a terrestrial equivalent of WW2 carpet bombing to get one house in a city. People need to learn to live with less resources, and realize their impacts on the earth. CO2 emissions should be reduced, not because it is the magic bandaid of the earth, but because it represents being more responsible.
I would have argued the whole “Capitalism has failed” point a decade ago, saying that it is only through capitalism that sufficient resources can be harnessed to solve huge problems, like space flight, and exploration. But these banks take too much, with too little return. Its disgusting.