First concrete global warming proof emerges from ocean

February 18, 2005 10:27 AM

The strongest evidence yet that global warming has been triggered by human activity has emerged from a major study of rising temperatures in the world’s oceans. The present trend of warmer sea temperatures, which have risen by an average of half a degree Celsius (0.9F) over the past 40 years, can be explained only if greenhouse gas emissions are responsible, new research has revealed. The results are so compelling that they should end controversy about the causes of climate change, one of the scientists who led the study said yesterday. "The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people," said Tim Barnett, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. "The models got it right. If a politician stands up and says the uncertainty is too great to believe these models, that is no longer tenable."
Studies confirm global warming underway
posted by y2karl (80 comments total)

According to Barnett, the climate mechanisms behind the ocean study will produce broad-scale changes across the atmosphere and land. In the decades immediately ahead, the changes will be felt in regional water supplies, including areas impacted by accelerated glacier melting in the South American Andes and in western China, putting millions of people at risk without adequate summertime water.

Similarly, recent research by Barnett and his colleagues with the Accelerated Climate Prediction Initiative analyzed climate warming impacts on the western United States using one of the models involved in the new study. The earlier study concluded that climate warming will likely alter western snow pack resources and the region's hydrological cycle, posing a water crisis in the western U.S. within 20 years.

"The new ocean study, taken together with the numerous validations of the same models in the atmosphere, portends far broader changes," said Barnett. "Other parts of the world will face similar problems to those expected--and being observed now--in the western U.S. The skill demonstrated by the climate models in handling the changing planetary heat budget suggests that these scenarios have a high enough probability of actually happening that they need to be taken seriously by decision makers."

Scripps Researchers Find Clear Evidence of Human-Produced Warming in World's Oceans
posted by y2karl at 10:38 AM on February 18, 2005

Hmm, well I doubt that a scientist who conducted the study is really the most unbiased person to be listening too. That said, anti-global warming people seem to be as sensible as creationists.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 AM on February 18, 2005

Hmm, well I doubt that a scientist who conducted the study is really the most unbiased person to be listening too.

Apart from that facts thingie....
posted by y2karl at 10:51 AM on February 18, 2005

I doubt that a scientist who conducted the study is really the most unbiased person to be listening too.

Bloody hell. One post in, and already we're into the spin cycle.

I wish I knew how to say this in a way that would make it unassailable. Climatologists are not trying to sell you on global warming. They are not marketers, and they are not politicians. Their vested interest is in understanding the truth of how our planet's climate works. That is all.

Talk to a few, you'll see. They are troubled by their findings regarding climate change. Like most thinking humans, they desperately wish their research revealed that everything was A-OK. It is not, and a huge and growing consensus of climate research is building in support of the notion that we are, if anything, in deeper shit than we thought we were when scientists first began sounding alarms on this issue. Read Richard Wright's A Short History of Progress. I'll give you the last line for free: "Now is our last chance to get the future right."
posted by gompa at 10:51 AM on February 18, 2005

That's because they're largely the same people delmoi
posted by fshgrl at 10:52 AM on February 18, 2005

"According to Barnett, the climate mechanisms behind the ocean study will produce broad-scale changes across the atmosphere and land."

Good lord! All this time it was the STUDIES that were causing global warming?!
posted by gurple at 10:56 AM on February 18, 2005

That should be Ronald Wright's A Short History of Progress. Sorry.
posted by gompa at 11:02 AM on February 18, 2005

I doubt that a scientist who conducted the study is really the most unbiased person to be listening too.

Bloody hell. One post in, and already we're into the spin cycle. I wish I knew how to say this in a way that would make it unassailable. Climatologists are not trying to sell you on global warming. They are not marketers, and they are not politicians. Their vested interest is in understanding the truth of how our planet's climate works. That is all.

Granted, but an individual climatologist does have a vested interest in his own experiment/model. This study seems very credible to me, but I too would be interested to see confirmation from other climatologists that this study is as meaningful and rigorous as its authors claim.
posted by kickingtheground at 11:05 AM on February 18, 2005

For an idea of what the consequences of global warming might be, check out this column in grist for some info and direction.
posted by boymilo at 11:08 AM on February 18, 2005

Granted, but an individual climatologist does have a vested interest in his own experiment/model.

As well as more grant money to continue researching his/her experiment/model.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:23 AM on February 18, 2005

The profit motive truly does suck, does it not, S_a_L?
posted by hackly_fracture at 11:32 AM on February 18, 2005

I like how the last "strongest evidence yet" wasn't that strong. (reg req'd)

p.s. I am not a creationist.
posted by trharlan at 11:32 AM on February 18, 2005

Granted, but an individual climatologist does have a vested interest in his own experiment/model.

As well as more grant money to continue researching his/her experiment/model.

Fair enough, far as it goes, but - and this is the crux of it - the scientist's funding is contingent on his/her research being an important addition to the overall science of climatology, not on him or her finding out that climate change is caused by human activity. A scientist who fudged his/her data or lied about its implications would be in much graver danger of losing funding than one whose valid data showed that all was A-OK. I mean, who do you think funds research at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography - Earth First!?

Indeed the only really suspect research in this field is the stuff arguing that there's no serious connection between greenhouse-gas emissions and global warming, because that research is heavily funded by oil companies with deeply vested interests in a certain kind of result.
posted by gompa at 11:34 AM on February 18, 2005

As well as more grant money to continue researching his/her experiment/model.

Sounds like a pretty reasonable and fair-minded conspiracy theory to me: Armies of unshaven, chain-smoking climatologists in smoky backrooms, working around the clock to figure out ways to get grant funding. "Aha! Global warming models!"
posted by AlexReynolds at 11:35 AM on February 18, 2005

Also, there is *no* consensus that the Patriots won the last Superbowl. I've talked to a number of experts who maintain that Philly won. Not to mention that most of the people still talking about it are Patriots fans, with a vested interest in keeping everyone thinking "their way."

Love, the Philadelphia Sports Fans of Philadelphia
posted by hackly_fracture at 11:36 AM on February 18, 2005

I'm waiting to see how VP_Admin is going to work Bush's cock into this thread.
posted by spicynuts at 11:38 AM on February 18, 2005

Just finished reading "State of Fear"... odd to me that this post comes up the next day.

In the novel Crichton pointed out that (as of the time of publishing) no model had successfully predicted climate change. Predictive value is the key here - anything telling us what already happened isn't going to help much. We need some way of being able to ask "What will happen if we do this?" and know with a strong degree of certainty what the answer will be. So far, no model has been able to do that.

If this model does actually have predictive value, great. I would love to see some concrete, undeniable evidence to back up the opinion I have on this whole thing. Making decisions based on opinions without evidence to support them is a pretty dumb thing to do with anything as important as this. Right or wrong, I'd still rather see science prove this one way or the other while there's still time for us to do something about it.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:43 AM on February 18, 2005

Thanks for posting this.

Evidence has been clear to plants-people for quite awhile, gardeners in England, centers of horticulture history in the U.S., biodiversity experts in South Africa. A Stanford U. study has estimated that 1/5 of all wild plants will be extinct in 100 years.
posted by Julie at 11:44 AM on February 18, 2005

Breaking News: Emissions From Bush's Cock Are Major Contributor To Global Warming

On preview: Breaking News: Michael Crichton Revealed To Be Writer Of Formulaic Fiction, Not Climatologist
posted by gompa at 11:45 AM on February 18, 2005

spicynuts, that would have to be a very thin thread.

>p.s. I am not a creationist.

No, you're just anti-Earth by posting links to the running dog lackeys of the Capitalist Conspiracy.
posted by gsb at 11:46 AM on February 18, 2005

[yet another excellent, informative post from y2karl]

I truly wish I had the time to research and post links like y2karl does. Unfortunately, I do not. Thankfully, he does.
posted by HyperBlue at 11:47 AM on February 18, 2005

...no model had successfully predicted climate change. Predictive value is the key here - anything telling us what already happened isn't going to help much. We need some way of being able to ask "What will happen if we do this?" and know with a strong degree of certainty what the answer will be. So far, no model has been able to do that.

Right or wrong, I'd still rather see science prove this one way or the other while there's still time for us to do something about it.
posted by caution live frogs

The difficulty with that stance, clf, is that by the time we know if the predictions are right, it will be too late. This climate change is permanent and irreversible, the steps we can take now are relatively painless compared to the potential disruption caused by inaction. Don't you agree that a conservative approach is called for here, since the consequences are so dire?
posted by Floydd at 12:10 PM on February 18, 2005

Hmm, well I doubt that a scientist who conducted the study is really the most unbiased person to be listening too [sic].

Ok, I'll bite. This is single most inane comment I've yet to see on metafilter. Exactly why should we advocate any scientific study at all, delmoi? Everyone is of course entitled to an opinion, but you may want to think a bit more about what could possibly motivate scientists working in this field and others. Find a few at a local university and talk to them. There's a reason few scientists are businessmen and even fewer are politicians. With that in mind, consider who you'd rather trust.
posted by fatllama at 12:21 PM on February 18, 2005

This climate change is permanent and irreversible

I wouldn't go so far as to say irreversible, Floydd - it can be reversed but it'd probably take longer than we'd like.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 12:29 PM on February 18, 2005

Don't you agree that a conservative approach is called for here, since the consequences are so dire?

The consequences of stifled economic growth are also dire.
posted by trharlan at 12:29 PM on February 18, 2005

If I were a climatologist who was solely motivated by trying to get as much funding as possible and willing to make stuff up to do it I would make up stuff that showed that climate change might not be occuring. You would literally have money thrown at you. Of course if you were that unethical you'd probably have to establish your own institute as no-one else would want to be associated with you so you'd need a lot of money.

The reality is that it's easy enough to get funding to study climate change at the moment because there isn't a government on earth that sincerely believes it's not going to happen. Bush may be up there saying it's not happening but his govt. is spending a hell of a lot of money on research and development preparing to deal with sea level rises, water shortages and other consequences.

btw I think it's too late to "reverse" anything now. I don't think we're all going o die or anything but I think the concerns the media focuses on (sea level rise, more severe weather) won't be the things that will affect people the most in the end. The loss of snowpack, for example will be a far more severe impact.
posted by fshgrl at 12:35 PM on February 18, 2005

In the novel Crichton pointed out that (as of the time of publishing) no model had successfully predicted climate change. Predictive value is the key here - anything telling us what already happened isn't going to help much.

I don't want to get too in depth on philosophy of science issues here. Maybe someone who is more well-versed than myself can tackle this; I know we have a few MeFiers with pretty strong philosophy of science backgrounds. Suffice it to say that Crichton's criterion (valid scientific hypothesis must have predictive value) is, to put it mildly, simpleminded.

Historical sciences (geology, climatology, astronomy, basically any science in which you can't perform an experiment) operate by determining "what already happened" and applying the principle that the same fundamental physical mechanisms that governed past events govern the universe now. By making this assumption (which is a basic assumption underlying all science, unless you get into some really exotic theories in contemporary physics), scientists reach conclusions about the nature of the universe by studying how the universe has behaved in the past.

The idea that "anything telling us what already happened isn't going to help much" doesn't even pass a first-order common sense inspection. If you assume that the basic physical mechanisms underlying the climate remain constant, then what happened in the past is a very strong indicator of how the climate will behave in the future.

OK; that's all I want to say. I'm tempted to say more, but I'm afraid that if I start getting into the importance of predictions in hypothesis testing and into conditional vs. unconditional predictions I'll be in way over my head. Hopefully someone else can help me out...

The consequences of stifled economic growth are also dire.

Under most scenerios of global climate change, severe damage to developed economies is one of the (many) impacts.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:35 PM on February 18, 2005

The consequences of stifled economic growth are also dire.

A world without ice cube salesmen would truly suck.
posted by AlexReynolds at 12:36 PM on February 18, 2005

Read Richard Wright's A Short History of Progress.

Funny. I just saw him on TV Ontario's 'Big Ideas', a show I've just recently just discovered. I pvr it constantly now. Hosted by Lesbian-Muslim-Controversial Author Irshad Manji. Many fascinating lectures. Highly recommended.
posted by jikel_morten at 12:39 PM on February 18, 2005

I just love how someone uses Michael Crichton to argue a scientific point. He's the best you can come up with?
posted by Dantien at 12:45 PM on February 18, 2005

anything telling us what already happened isn't going to help much.

We can do Bayesian model comparison and find out which model is most likely to be correct.

The idea that we can't believe global warming is happening because "scientists might be biased" is laughable, or would be, if I didn't feel so depressed.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:47 PM on February 18, 2005

Hmm, well I doubt that a scientist who conducted the study is really the most unbiased person to be listening too. That said, anti-global warming people seem to be as sensible as creationists.

Re-reading that, I wasn't very clear. by "Anti-global warming people" I meant people who do not believe in global warming, not people oppose global warming. like "anti-evolution people" would mean people who don't believe in evolution, not people who want to stop evolution.

And what I meant specifically was, once a scientist does a study it's up to other scientists to figure out if it's useful. That's called peer review. There are a lot of times that scientists will over-estimate the importance of their own work.

Find a few at a local university and talk to them. There's a reason few scientists are businessmen and even fewer are politicians

I am a scientist. Durr.
posted by delmoi at 12:48 PM on February 18, 2005

Ok, I'll bite. This is single most inane comment I've yet to see on metafilter.

Well, keep in mind I made a "typo" which made the comment say the exact opposite of what I meant it to say with the second sentence.

By the first sentence, what I mean is that this one study might not be the end-all be-all of everything like this guy seems to think it is. Anyway, I’m not a climatologist so I really have no idea. I definitely think we should hedge our bets by trying to reduce greenhouse gass emission until we have the whole thing totally figured out.
posted by delmoi at 12:54 PM on February 18, 2005

delmoi has a point. According to the article, the study has not yet been submitted for publication, let alone subject to peer review. I'm wary about science by press release. That said, it seems they have presented at a major meeting, and it looks like a reputable team.
posted by mr_roboto at 12:56 PM on February 18, 2005

I wonder what a bird flu pandemic would do to oil futures?
posted by kuatto at 12:56 PM on February 18, 2005

In the novel Crichton pointed out that (as of the time of publishing) no model had successfully predicted climate change. Predictive value is the key here - anything telling us what already happened isn't going to help much.

Yeah. Everytime I stuck my fingers in a wall socket, I got shocked. But I can't predict if this particular one is hot or not, so I'll go ahead and poke again...
posted by c13 at 12:57 PM on February 18, 2005

I don't want to get too in depth on philosophy of science issues here. Maybe someone who is more well-versed than myself can tackle this; I know we have a few MeFiers with pretty strong philosophy of science backgrounds. Suffice it to say that Crichton's criterion (valid scientific hypothesis must have predictive value) is, to put it mildly, simpleminded.


Crichton definitely sounds pretty simpleminded when he talks, so It's probably a safe bet that he is.

That said, there is a bit of truth to what he's saying. The problem is that you can overfit your data. Meaning, you can come up with hypothesis that perfectly explains all the data you have, but it can't predict the future at all.

It's kind of hard to think of an example. I don’t know if you remember this, but before the election there had been all these long-running coincidences saying that if such-and-such baseball team won the series, then the incumbent president would lose, or the democrat would win, or something. looking back on the data, it had been a perfect predictor for like a hundred years or something. Last year, it predicted Kerry would win.

Just looking back doesn’t tell us anything about causation.
posted by delmoi at 1:06 PM on February 18, 2005

Yeah, except that climatologists also possess a mechanistic understanding. There's a big difference between a long-running correlation between baseball game winners and presidential elections and scientists who look at historic data, hypothesize a physical mechanism based on that data, and apply that mechanistic understanding to the current situation.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:13 PM on February 18, 2005

Good lord! All this time it was the STUDIES that were causing global warming?!

Ah, thanks for that gurple, that was funny.

Yours too, spicynuts.

caution live frogs:

In the novel Crichton pointed out that (as of the time of publishing) no model had successfully predicted climate change. Predictive value is the key here - anything telling us what already happened isn't going to help much. We need some way of being able to ask "What will happen if we do this?" and know with a strong degree of certainty what the answer will be. So far, no model has been able to do that.

Aside from Crichton being a hack writer who has ZERO expertise in this field and thus holds a fairly uninformed opinion, this thesis of his (?) shows a complete lack of understanding in what the hell a MODEL is.

The models talked about in the article have PREDICTED past events. That may not seem like much to an idiot like Crichton, but in the real world, one tests a model on known data points, and if it agrees well, you have reason to have some confidence that it will predict the future well.

Further, models were used to make predictions about the 700K measurements taken in this study. Guess what? The human caused greenhouse models were the ones that predicted the measurements correctly. So even with Crichton's blinkered world view, WE JUST GOT OUR PREDICTIVE MODEL. The time for his shit is over.
posted by teece at 1:18 PM on February 18, 2005

p.s. I am not a creationist.

No, but someone who gets their science news from the WSJ's oppinion section isn't much better.
posted by delmoi at 1:18 PM on February 18, 2005

In the novel Crichton pointed out that (as of the time of publishing) no model had successfully predicted climate change. Predictive value is the key here - anything telling us what already happened isn't going to help much.

Unworthy as Crichton's assertions are of serious rebuttal, I'm willing to expand on this because it's worth expanding on. It's true, in a very narrow sense, that climate models haven't "successfully predicted" climate change, in much the same way that weather forecasts rarely get tomorrow's weather 100% accurate. The variables affecting climate are almost innumerable, constantly changing, and (in some cases) only rudimentarily understood.

Here's an excellent example of why climate models, as staggeringly sophisticated as they've become, can't "successfully predict" the precise impact of climate change (nor absolutely-100%-for-certain say what's causing it). It was provided to me, IIRC, by Andrew Weaver of the University of Victoria's Climate Modelling Group as part a for-attribution interview for a story I was doing for a Canadian magazine. (I'm not pulling this shit outta my ass, is my point.)

Okay. Weaver's example: glaciers. Absolutely crucial players in global climate (and thus in climate change). Annual melting and freezing of glaciers affects ocean levels, which has a huge impact on global climatic conditions. Thing is: we've only just begun to study how this process works. In even the most advanced of climate models, the inputs from glaciers are guesswork - albeit highly educated guesswork.

Thus, while Weaver's model and many others do some pretty impressive recreations of known historical climactic patterns and can thus be used to make very plausible theories about the future conditions of our climate if, for example, CO2 emissions continue at current levels, they can no more "successfully predict" the exact future conditions of our climate than evolutionary theory can tell you exactly how you descended from Lucy the australopithecine. And this uncertainty permits ax-grinding hacks like Michael Crichton and myopic know-nothings like George W. Bush a tiny sliver of truth to spin into the catastrophically wrong-headed notion that the science of climate change is too poorly understood to take action upon. And it leaves legitimate, honest scientists like Andrew Weaver tearing out their hair like evolutionary biologists at a creation-science seminar.
posted by gompa at 1:20 PM on February 18, 2005

Yeah, except that climatologists also possess a mechanistic understanding. There's a big difference between a long-running correlation between baseball game winners and presidential elections and scientists who look at historic data, hypothesize a physical mechanism based on that data, and apply that mechanistic understanding to the current situation.

Sure, there's a difference. But how do you come up with the mechanisms? By looking at the data. There are an infinite number of models out there, and an infinite number of wrong models too. Some of those wrong models are going to be predictive of all the current data. That’s what I’m saying.

Anyway, this model-theory stuff is all very abstract and unimportant. You go to war with the models you have, not with the models you wish you had, as some people might say. Crichton is an idiot, and a bad writer too.
posted by delmoi at 1:26 PM on February 18, 2005

c13: So you're reading David Hume?
posted by leotrotsky at 1:30 PM on February 18, 2005

Sure, there's a difference. But how do you come up with the mechanisms? By looking at the data. There are an infinite number of models out there, and an infinite number of wrong models too.

I don't think it's that simple. The mechnisms are constrained not only by the data, but by our understanding of basic physical and chemical processes.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:34 PM on February 18, 2005

Just looking back doesn’t tell us anything about causation.

This and your other points are valid, delmoi, but it is only tangentially relevant to climatology. It is quite easy to do when the ONLY tool one has is statistics. A climatologist has a very big helping of physics with which to guide the model.

Thus, I would think that the pitfalls you point out are a lot less likely to nab a climatologist. Their problem is more one of enormous complexity and still poorly understood natural phenomenon. Thus the model is necessarily vastly simplified.
posted by teece at 1:35 PM on February 18, 2005

Some of those wrong models are going to be predictive of all the current data. That’s what I’m saying.

All models are not created equal, even if they predict past data equally well. Again, by doing model comparison, it is possible to decide which models are more likely to predict future data. For instance, simpler models are more likely to be close to the actual process than complicated models, all other things being equal.

Model theory is neither "very abstract" nor unimportant. Anyone who can multiply and divide can do it, and it's the correct way to discern between models.

Seriously, check out David MacKay's book, it's free online.
posted by sonofsamiam at 1:48 PM on February 18, 2005

The consequences of stifled economic growth are also dire.

Trharlan, when your grandchildren have to look at old movies to imagine a world with fish, animals, trees and snow, I'm sure they'll still think it was worth it because the fat-cat Industry Giants got to keep their caviar & whores.

Lord knows we don't want to deprive them.
posted by BobFrapples at 1:55 PM on February 18, 2005

Well, I really enjoy the ad hominem attacks on the article I cited. Anyone care to challenge the claims made therein?

The problem is that you can overfit your data. Meaning, you can come up with hypothesis that perfectly explains all the data you have, but it can't predict the future at all.

It's called spurious correlation, a product of an insufficiently robust model. But, hey, what do I know, reading the WSJ and all.

And it's not like fat-cat industry giants are the only ones who benefit from a healthy economy. Medicine, electricity, and technology are all products of economic growth-- these advances will slow if we adopt the policy recommendations of the fearmongers.
posted by trharlan at 2:49 PM on February 18, 2005

Medicine, electricity, and technology are all products of economic growth-- these advances will slow if we adopt the policy recommendations of the fearmongers.

The term "fearmongers" is a poor, inaccurate choice of wording, because it conjurs images of people who spread fears are based on irrational premises, which does not line up with the community of climatologists or their well-documented and analysed body of work.

Note that these folks are not policymakers. They're just telling us what's up. Its up to the rest of us to make adjustments in our behavior if we want to survive climate changes. The one thing we can't say is that we weren't told (repeatedly).
posted by AlexReynolds at 2:58 PM on February 18, 2005

And what I meant specifically was, once a scientist does a study it's up to other scientists to figure out if it's useful. That's called peer review. There are a lot of times that scientists will over-estimate the importance of their own work.

Well, delmoi, that's quite a bit better.

I am a scientist. Durr.

That, however, is not.
posted by fatllama at 3:14 PM on February 18, 2005

gomba! you are my new hero!

Guys, if climatologists where after the grants they would get models say that anthropogenic global warming is not taking/going to take place. I mean, really.

caution live frogs, FYI, the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change is working towards gathering and evaluating results from as many climate models (and there are not that many) as they can. Out in 2007. It's going to be a hit. Believe me. All models show global warming. Read online the previous report. 2001.

mr_roboto, sure. You are right that The mechnisms are constrained not only by the data, but by our understanding of basic physical and chemical processes. I assume you mean MODEL data. But, climatologists also work with observations. And now there is lots of it. Evaluating the models against observations reveals weaknesses in the assumptions originating in poor understanding of physical mechanisms. Through sofisticated techniques such as inverse modeling these observations are incorporated into the models reducing model error. Inverse models ALSO show global warming associated with increased greenhouse gases. Sorry.
posted by carmina at 3:21 PM on February 18, 2005

>Well, I really enjoy the ad hominem attacks on the article I cited. Anyone care to challenge the claims made therein?

I'd love to, if you could somehow grab the article and save it as a textfile or PDF, and pass it around. After that, I'll give it to a couple of overly-paranoid climate scientists I know. I'm sure they will have the right kind of conclusions that would allow for infinite growth with infinite possibilities.
posted by gsb at 3:50 PM on February 18, 2005

trharlan:

Growth will also "slow" if the "fear-mongers" are correct (and who was it that was just talking about ad hominem?).

The only question is, which slowing will be worse? Rational people understand that the slowing that occurs as our economy runs into the brick wall of radically altered climate is a wee bit more severe. The trick is to try and avoid the brick wall ahead of us while keeping the ramifications minimal.
posted by teece at 4:02 PM on February 18, 2005

This debate reminds me of the Creationist / Evolution debate for another reason... the two sides are arguing from different points in time. One side is completely unaware of where the other side is up to.

While creationists are still bitching about how "man is not a monkey", scientists are busy using mitochondrial DNA to measure the speed of evolution in different phyla.

While neolibertarian ostriches global warming skeptics are still bitching about the scientific philosophy of using models, and the natural fluctuations in the earth's climate (that last ice age was an entertaining little "fluctuation", wasn't it?), climatologists are creating higher and higher resolution GCMs taking into account more and more factors. Certainty about climate change is increasing not decreasing, and the skeptics are behind the times.
posted by Jimbob at 4:18 PM on February 18, 2005

The scientific consensus that human actions first began to have a warming effect on the earth's climate within the past century has become part of the public perception as well. With the advent of coal-burning factories and power plants, industrial societies began releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the air. Later, motor vehicles added to such emissions. In this scenario, those of us who have lived during the industrial era are responsible not only for the gas buildup in the atmosphere but also for at least part of the accompanying global warming trend. Now, though, it seems our ancient agrarian ancestors may have begun adding these gases to the atmosphere many millennia ago, thereby altering the earth's climate long before anyone thought.

New evidence suggests that concentrations of CO2 started rising about 8,000 years ago, even though natural trends indicate they should have been dropping. Some 3,000 years later the same thing happened to methane, another heat-trapping gas. The consequences of these surprising rises have been profound. Without them, current temperatures in northern parts of North America and Europe would be cooler by three to four degrees Celsius--enough to make agriculture difficult. In addition, an incipient ice age--marked by the appearance of small ice caps--would probably have begun several thousand years ago in parts of northeastern Canada. Instead the earth's climate has remained relatively warm and stable in recent millennia.

How Did Humans First Alter Global Climate?

So, if the invention of agriculture is enough to raise the concentration of CO2, how then the advent of coal-burning factories and power plants, industrial societies... releasing carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases into the air and later, motor vehicles added to such emissions raise it even higher ?
posted by y2karl at 4:45 PM on February 18, 2005

BTW, thanks for the links y2k.
posted by fatllama at 5:42 PM on February 18, 2005

Sorry, an article is not a homo and cannot be made the object of an ad hominem ("against the man") attack. For example, James D. Guckert *is* a homo and can properly be made the object of an ad hominem attack.

Michael Crichton's book seems remarkably lame for the work product of a highly educated individual who has made gazillions of dollars writing well-received imaginative fiction. Can anyone but an idiot suspend disbelief long enough to buy the thesis that evil environmentalists are staging fake global warming symptoms to maintain their *control* of the planet?

It is almost as if Crichton is recoiling from the possibility that the Cassandras of global warming might be correct because of the dire threat the consequences of global warming (if true) would pose to those (like him) with a hefty stake in the status quo. So, in the classic shoot-the-messenger mode, he offers an, dare i say it, ad hominem attack on the naysayers, painting them (fictionally, of course) as cartoon green bogeymen. Not unlike the "Left Behind' series, his book offers a comfortable fantasy for the convinced.
posted by rdone at 6:02 PM on February 18, 2005

Well, I really enjoy the ad hominem attacks on the article I cited. Anyone care to challenge the claims made therein?

by definition an "article" can't be subject to a "to the man" attack.

but really, trharlan, no one that's not a conservative takes the WSJ's Op-Ed page seriously. their straight news reporting is worthy of consideration, however. and by referring to the Op Ed piece you cited as an "article" it was confusing to me, at least, because i assumed you were linking to an actual news story.

but no, it was standard Captain Of Industry boilerplate about how we shouldn't be investing billions in minimizing our carbon output. from the article:

If climate scientists feel their careers might be put at risk by questioning some orthodoxy, the inevitable result will be bad science.

We realize this may all seem like so much academic nonsense. Yet if there really was a Medieval warm period (we draw no conclusions), it would cast some doubt on the contention that our SUVs and air conditioners, rather than natural causes, are to blame for apparent global warming.

if this suffices for reasoning among the global warming deniers, well, you deserve to be put in league with the deniers of evolution. ergo, you ARE a creationist, trharlan.

which is good, because really this is all building up to god's main project: Noah's Ark 2: The Legend of Curly's Gold.

on preview: fuck, what rdone said.
posted by Hat Maui at 6:20 PM on February 18, 2005

gsb: So in other words "no" ?
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 6:43 PM on February 18, 2005

The only question is, which slowing will be worse? Rational people understand that the slowing that occurs as our economy runs into the brick wall of radically altered climate is a wee bit more severe. The trick is to try and avoid the brick wall ahead of us while keeping the ramifications minimal.

This might be more believable if you quoted some figures comparing the cost of stopping global warming and the cost of global warming if it occurs.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 8:47 PM on February 18, 2005

Junk Science has an estimate of the costs of Kyoto.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 8:55 PM on February 18, 2005

The consequences of stifled economic growth

That is propaganda. Fixing the greenhouse gas problem does not mean "stifled economic growth" (except to a few well-placed oil-men and their cronies). In fact, it will (and is) creat technological innovation.

On preview, Milloy of Junk Science has no credibility. He is tainted. Do your research, he is extreme right-wing. Recently he publically stated that the media has overstated and over reacted to the dangers of Vioxx and that FDA holds no culpability, as just one example.
posted by stbalbach at 9:04 PM on February 18, 2005

I like how any source of information about global warming with a skeptical perspective is met ad hominem attacks.
posted by drscroogemcduck at 9:17 PM on February 18, 2005

c13: So you're reading David Hume?
Reading whom?
posted by c13 at 10:58 PM on February 18, 2005

Scratch that. I'm pretty drunk..
posted by c13 at 11:03 PM on February 18, 2005

Steve_.., actually, I would love to refute it, if it's necessary. I just can't be arsed to register with the WSj. To register is to say they're right!
posted by gsb at 11:54 PM on February 18, 2005

"The debate is not have we got a clear global warming signal, the debate is what we are going to do about it." - Dr. Tim Barnett, February 17, 2005

"First, we know the surface temperature of the earth is warming.". . ."There is a natural greenhouse effect that contributes to warming. Greenhouse gases trap heat, and thus warm the earth because they prevent a significant proportion of infrared radiation from escaping into space. Concentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have increased substantially since the beginning of the industrial revolution. And the National Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity.". . ."The policy challenge is to act in a serious and sensible way, given the limits of our knowledge. While scientific uncertainties remain, we can begin now to address the factors that contribute to climate change." - President George W. Bush, June 11, 2001

"I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and it's central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate.". . ."My administration is committed to cutting our nation's greenhouse gas intensity -- how much we emit per unit of economic activity -- by 18 percent over the next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions and, as science justifies, to stop and then reverse the growth of emissions." - President Bush, February 14, 2002

"The United States is taking prudent steps to address the long-term challenge of global climate change. We are reducing projected greenhouse gas emissions in the near term, while devoting greater resources to improving climate change science and developing advanced energy technologies. America has already made great progress in this effort: Between 1990 and 2001, industrial sector emissions were held constant, while our economy grew by almost 40 percent. Sustaining and accelerating this progress will help us meet our goal of reducing the greenhouse gas intensity of the American economy by 18 percent by 2012.". . ."A year ago, I challenged American businesses to develop new, voluntary initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I am pleased to announce today that 12 major industrial sectors, and the membership of the Business Roundtable, have responded with ambitious commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in the coming decade." - President Bush, February 12, 2003

Bush has been "confirming" that global warming is "underway" since he came to office. He's also been debating "what we are going to do about it." He's also been advocating and appropriating further research and studies just like this one.

Rejecting Kyoto and repudiating chicken-little nonsense does not equate with "denying global warming."
posted by techgnollogic at 12:12 AM on February 19, 2005

here's an intresting refutation of Crichton.
posted by delmoi at 12:33 AM on February 19, 2005

Seriously, check out David MacKay's book, it's free online.

No thanks, I've got my hands full with these [ ] two, which I have already paid for.

I'm definetly not saying "model theory" is unimportant, it certainly is for computers, but as others said, it's not as important for climatologists who have physics and chemical knowledge as well. I was only pointing out that in theory there was a grain of truth in what Crichton said.
posted by delmoi at 1:10 AM on February 19, 2005

I did read the WSJ opinion-editorial peice. A simple summary:

"One scientist said one thing, and then another scientist dissagreed. Therefore, we don't have to worry global warming at all."

There was just nothing there to debunk.
posted by delmoi at 1:30 AM on February 19, 2005

drscroogemcduck:

That link you sent me claims that kyoto has cost the world $1.2 billion in the past three days. I somehow find that hard to belive...
posted by delmoi at 1:31 AM on February 19, 2005

here's an article on realclimate that to explain the 'hockey puck' thing, which was the focus of the lame-ass WSJ opinion piece.
posted by delmoi at 1:56 AM on February 19, 2005

Never waste your breath arguing with conservatives about whether global warming is occurring. They can read studies as well as you can. They know it is occurring. They downplay or deny it because money always comes first to them. If you show them a way to admit global warming is happening without making them fear for their dollars, they will admit it.
posted by pracowity at 2:56 AM on February 19, 2005

delmoi, I think it's a claim for administrative costs, that $1.2 billion thing. That seems like the only logical answer. And thanks for the WSjism distillation.
posted by gsb at 2:59 AM on February 19, 2005

Good to see we can finally show that we are taking positive steps toward minimizing the effects of the next Ice Age. ;-P
posted by mischief at 7:47 AM on February 19, 2005

The estimates for losses in the potential economic output, as measured by potential GDP, due to Kyoto's impact on the US alone under various circumstances ranged from $24 to $64 Billion per year. The US accounts for around 20% of the world's GDP. The countdown clock is based on an estimate for the ratifying nations (all the developed economies except US and AU, right?) of $150 Billion per year. That clock is simplified in various ways but even if it's off by +100%, and the total impact is $75 Billion per year for the whole world, that's still over $200 Million per day.

Kyoto supporters will say that the economies and interactions and scales involved are big and complex and can be predicted only so well. That's true. They're kind of like climates.
posted by techgnollogic at 9:04 AM on February 19, 2005

The estimates for losses in the potential economic output, as measured by potential GDP, due to Kyoto's impact on the US alone under various circumstances ranged from $24 to $64 Billion per year.

What about the estimates for the opportunities created by new markets and new technologies?
posted by fshgrl at 9:26 AM on February 19, 2005

The estimates for losses in the potential economic output, as measured by potential GDP, due to Kyoto's impact on the US alone under various circumstances ranged from $24 to $64 Billion per year.

What about the estimates for the opportunities created by new markets and new technologies?

And what about the estimated cost (US$300 billion per year by midcentury) of damage wrought by global warming?

Oh, and techgnollogic, paying occasional lip service to an issue while rolling back the gains made in ecological stewardship by several generations amounts to more than just a denial of the severity of global warming; it amounts to spitting repeatedly in the face of the very notion of sustainability.
posted by gompa at 12:26 PM on February 19, 2005

Steve_at_Linnwood: Proposing that all of the global warming studies are just scientists who want more funding is obscenely ignorant.

Trharlan: Restricted economic growth is a big problem, which is why significant efforts to curb the problem should be developed, to avoid such a problem in the future.

I'm not an environmentalist, I really couldn't give a shit about trees, bears or dolphins, unless they're delicious. I do, however, want to avoid the massive economic fallout that will occur if global warming is allowed to continue unabated, with no viable fallback positions in place.
posted by mosch at 11:28 PM on February 19, 2005

The climatologists who met at the government's conference in Exeter this month heard that a rise of just 2.1 degrees, almost certain to happen this century, will confront as many as 3 billion people with water stress. This, in turn, is likely to result in tens of millions of deaths. But the same calm voice that tells us climate change means mild winters and early springs informs us, in countries like the UK, that we will be able to buy our way out of trouble. While the price of food will soar as the world goes into deficit, those who are rich enough to have caused the problem will, for a couple of generations at least, be among the few who can afford to ignore it.

Another reason is that there is a well-funded industry whose purpose is to reassure us, and it is granted constant access to the media. We flatter its practitioners with the label "sceptics". If this is what they were, they would be welcome. Scepticism (the Latin word means "inquiring" or "reflective") is the means by which science advances. Without it we would still be rubbing sticks together. But most of those we call sceptics are nothing of the kind. They are PR people, the loyalists of Exxon Mobil (by whom most of them are paid), commissioned to begin with a conclusion and then devise arguments to justify it. Their presence on outlets such as the BBC's Today programme might be less objectionable if, every time Aids was discussed, someone was asked to argue that it is not caused by HIV, or, every time a rocket goes into orbit, the Flat Earth Society was invited to explain that it could not possibly have happened. As it is, our most respected media outlets give Exxon Mobil what it has paid for: they create the impression that a significant scientific debate exists when it does not.

But there's a much bigger problem here. The denial of climate change, while out of tune with the science, is consistent with, even necessary for, the outlook of almost all the world's economists. Modern economics, whether informed by Marx or Keynes or Hayek, is premised on the notion that the planet has an infinite capacity to supply us with wealth and absorb our pollution. The cure to all ills is endless growth. Yet endless growth, in a finite world, is impossible. Pull this rug from under the economic theories, and the whole system of thought collapses.

And this, of course, is beyond contemplation. It mocks the dreams of both left and right, of every child and parent and worker. It destroys all notions of progress. If the engines of progress - technology and its amplification of human endeavour - have merely accelerated our rush to the brink, then everything we thought was true is false. Brought up to believe that it is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness, we are now discovering that it is better to curse the darkness than to burn your house down.

Our economists are exposed by climatologists as utopian fantasists, the leaders of a millenarian cult as mad as, and far more dangerous than, any religious fundamentalism. But their theories govern our lives, so those who insist that physics and biology still apply are ridiculed by a global consensus founded on wishful thinking.

And this leads us, I think, to a further reason for turning our eyes away. When terrorists threaten us, it shows that we must count for something, that we are important enough to kill. They confirm the grand narrative of our lives, in which we strive through thickets of good and evil towards an ultimate purpose. But there is no glory in the threat of climate change. The story it tells us is of yeast in a barrel, feeding and farting until it is poisoned by its own waste. It is too squalid an ending for our anthropocentric conceit to accept.

The challenge of climate change is not, primarily, a technical one. It is possible greatly to reduce our environmental impact by investing in energy efficiency, though as the Exeter conference concluded, "energy efficiency improvements under the present market system are not enough to offset increases in demand caused by economic growth". It is possible to generate far more of the energy we consume by benign means. But if our political leaders are to save the people rather than the people's fantasies, then the way we see ourselves must begin to shift. We will succeed in tackling climate change only when we accept that we belong to the material world.

Mocking our dreams
posted by y2karl at 3:40 PM on February 20, 2005