Ignorance is Bliss

The cool kids of the conservative movement have long since moved on to much more complicated rationalizations for why coal and oil companies should continue destroying the planet unabated, but National Journal's poll of members of congress (respondents are anonymized except for their party affiliation) reminds us that for most conservatives lying and ignorance are still the key to the politics of global warming. Note this staggering remark from one GOP stalwart: "If there's one thing poll after poll indicates, it's that the science is not settled on this issue."

Because when I want to understand whether or not science is settled, I leap straight for a public opinion poll! Are ghosts real? The science is unsettled!

Comments

Any guesses as to the 2 Dems?

Posted by Glenn | June 11, 2008 1:54 PM

The science is also not settled on the question of the earth, and the sun, and which is revolving around which: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by Jasper | June 11, 2008 1:57 PM

From the article on ghosts:
More than one in five Americans says they have seen a ghost themselves, or have felt themselves to be in the presence of one.

wow

Posted by MS | June 11, 2008 1:57 PM

Are ghosts real? The science is unsettled!

Time to call in Jason and Grant to investigate.

Posted by drjimcooper | June 11, 2008 2:02 PM

Al Gore drives around in air conditioned limousines, therefore global warming is a commie plot. Rush told me.

Posted by doughload | June 11, 2008 2:03 PM

Proven "beyond a reasonable doubt"? That's an awfully high standard.

Also, it isn't clear if the question is referring to whether any warming at all is caused by humans, or if warming is all caused by humans.

Posted by Al | June 11, 2008 2:09 PM

Amazingly, scientists haven't called it "case closed" - only liberals who want to stifle dissenting viewpoints as a category of hate speech.

When the environmental activists start acting like it's a crisis - instead of driving huge vehicles and flying private jets everywhere - perhaps I'll need to take a closer look. Right now, this looks an awful lot more like an attempt to push into place command/control policies under a friendlier looking guise.

Posted by James Robertson | June 11, 2008 2:10 PM

Yeah, I'm kinda with Al and Matt here--strange as that is to say. I doubt this poll proves that the Democrats in this poll are offering an enlightened and considered response while the Republicans are just ignorant. I think both Democrats and Republicans know how they're supposed to answer that question.

Now, the science is settled and it overwhelmingly supports the Democrats' position. Nevertheless, I would be very surprised if a majority of the respondents on either side were conversant enough with the relevant scientific literature to offer a sophisticated answer to this question. Both parties are following the leader.

Posted by southpaw | June 11, 2008 2:16 PM

This must be "interpret meaningless data to have significant meaning" day @ MY's place. Next up, studies show that temperatures are warmer in popular vacation destinations, therefore, lounging on the beach with a pina colada causes global warming!

Posted by mike | June 11, 2008 2:20 PM

Nevertheless, I would be very surprised if a majority of the respondents on either side were conversant enough with the relevant scientific literature to offer a sophisticated answer to this question.

No, but I bet most if not all of the respondents are at least knowledgeable enough to know that you have the vast majority of the world's experts in the area (e.g., the IPCC) on one side, and a few crackpots + ExxonMobil on the other. The choice they have made still speaks volumes.

Posted by Glenn | June 11, 2008 2:22 PM

Another thought: I could switch the labels, and change the question to something about the risks of leaving Iraq precipitously. Should I conclude that all Democrats are utterly irrational based on how they would answer that? If you want to pick hobby horses and polls as a way of figuring out policy alternatives, we can have a grand old time.

Posted by James Robertson | June 11, 2008 2:22 PM

the general scientific consensus is that there is a significant, but not exclusive, anthropogenic factor to global warming.

but I'm not sure what the heck "beyond a reasonable doubt" means in this context. there really aren't very many specific scientific mechanisms that don't have some relevant "reasonable" doubts.

Posted by Nathan | June 11, 2008 2:23 PM

How about we don't use the same standards we have for our criminal justice system to formulate our energy and environmental policy.

Posted by jack | June 11, 2008 2:26 PM

This must be "interpret meaningless data to have significant meaning" day @ MY's place.

Mike, that is every day at Matt's place. It is part of the fun in coming, to see what half-assed "study" Matt can wave around as proof-positive of his prior position.

Posted by Brad | June 11, 2008 2:28 PM

Matt's of course right that the GOP's smarter front face has moved through more rationalizations. We've gone from no proof of global warming to no proof it's anthropocentric (several variations of imagined other causes) to no proof it matters unless you love obscure species to changes won't pass cost-benefit muster to "the market will fix anything." They get to play sincere but "practical" environmentalists. If the shifts remind one of, oh, rationalizations for war, no surprise.

Yet it's not just Congress that can't keep up. The conservative rank and file doesn't bother to think this hard. Even the very smart ones I know still just think the science is all a liberal plot. One told me this winter about how a cold snap disproved global warming, and I lost my temper long enough to say that the conservative party line had moved on. She replied that she doesn't take her news from the party line. (Well, maybe from talk radio.)

Posted by John Haber | June 11, 2008 2:33 PM

How many times have I got to tell you? Democracy doesn't work.

Posted by Homer Simpson | June 11, 2008 2:36 PM

The amount of energy, year in and year out, that's added to the atmosphere as a result of the increase in the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activity has been calculated. That human activity warms the atmosphere in a calculable way is settled science.

This isn't hobby horse stuff. This isn't open to debate anymore than gravity or blood circulation or nuclear weapon explosions is open to debate.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 11, 2008 2:42 PM

From the article on ghosts:
More than one in five Americans says they have seen a ghost themselves, or have felt themselves to be in the presence of one.

Hardly a suprising statistics when you consider that probably more than nine out of ten Americans believe in the concept of a soul that continues its existence after the physical body dies, and that a slight smaller number believe in angels, devils and other magical disembodied spirits.

Posted by Stefan | June 11, 2008 2:46 PM

Should I conclude that all Democrats are utterly irrational based on how they would answer that?

No one said the Republicans were irrational, they are ignorant or lying. It is perfectly rational to lie or to remain uniformed about a position that serves your political interests but isn't supported by the facts.

Posted by ibid | June 11, 2008 2:46 PM

Jeffrey Davis:

I can tell you right now that no climatologist on the planet would make the statement you just made.

(and yes, I agree that there is a scientific consensus that there is a significant anthropogenic factor in global warming. not being a climatologist, I also assume that consensus is correct.)

but the field is way too complicated and the models way too complex for it to be "settled" to the same extent as the circulation of the blood. it's simply not possible.

to analogize, we're pretty sure that quantum mechanics, on the whole, is "correct" but it wouldn't beggar the imagination for it to turn out to be all wrong.

Posted by Nathan | June 11, 2008 2:47 PM

Odd way to phrase the question. Lighting a match warms the earth. The question is by how much and what the effects will be and that is certainly not settled.

Posted by Dave | June 11, 2008 2:50 PM

Nathan,

I think you're confusing the issue of climate sensitivity to the issue of the amount of energy that's involved. The issue of climate sensitivity isn't a settled one hence the range of temperatures offered in the IPCC report. And the inclusion of a measure of reliabilty. That greenhouse gases add energy to the atmosphere in a calculable amount is 19th century stuff.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 11, 2008 2:57 PM

Heard this on NPR this morning: "Golf Digest points out that an incredible 41 percent of golfers polled believe that global warming is a myth. "

not "science that is 'unsettled,' but myth.

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 11, 2008 2:58 PM

james robinson: "Another thought: I could switch the labels, and change the question to something about the risks of leaving Iraq precipitously. Should I conclude that all Democrats are utterly irrational based on how they would answer that? "

well if they said there were no risks, then yeah.
i doubt that's totally realistic.

however i don't think there's is anything irrational about answering. "it's time to leave iraq, and the quicker the better."

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 11, 2008 3:08 PM

james robinson: "Another thought: I could switch the labels, and change the question to something about the risks of leaving Iraq precipitously. Should I conclude that all Democrats are utterly irrational based on how they would answer that? "

well if they said there were no risks, then yeah.
i doubt that's totally realistic.

however i don't think there's is anything irrational about answering. "it's time to leave iraq, and the quicker the better."

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 11, 2008 3:10 PM

james robinson: "Another thought: I could switch the labels, and change the question to something about the risks of leaving Iraq precipitously. Should I conclude that all Democrats are utterly irrational based on how they would answer that? "

well if they said there were no risks, then yeah.
i doubt that's totally realistic.

however i don't think there's is anything irrational about answering. "it's time to leave iraq, and the quicker the better."

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 11, 2008 3:13 PM

JD:

oh, if you put it that way, then, well sure.

but the mechanics of feedback mechanisms..."environmental sensitivity"..as you put it, interaction with longterm climate trends, etc. none of that is settled.

all of the models point in one direction...but with quite large variances.

Posted by Nathan | June 11, 2008 3:13 PM

To analogize, we're pretty sure that quantum mechanics, on the whole, is "correct" but it wouldn't beggar the imagination for it to turn out to be all wrong.

Well, I guess you could have a definition of 'all wrong' that makes that statement work, but it's not really true on its face.

If observations about the world have any meaning at all, quantum mechanics as we understand it has to be basically correct. There's obviously room for more precise measurements, some extremes that remain unexplored, a few narrow areas that new particles and whatnot might be hiding, and of course some kind of underlying unification with large scale stuff like gravity. But fundamentally, we know what we know, and we know what we don't know, and finding out more about what we don't know is not going to retroactively alter anything we know we know.

It's like we've got a map of Ohio. We know it's mostly right, because we've already been there. We might have a lot left to learn about details of the underlying geology, or the soil types, or whatever, but we're just not going to find out it's all wrong, and that there is actually a huge ocean or mountain range or something in the middle of the state.

Global warming is, while maybe not in the same category as quantum mechanics, still much the same story. We know the models are not perfect, and there are some unknowns, but we also pretty much know you can't make a model that works that doesn't also show AGW.

Posted by jack lecou | June 11, 2008 3:26 PM

Nathan,

The mechanics of feedbacks are unsettled, but it would be an interesting problem to find a system to which you add energy that doesn't warm. The current energy imbalance amounts to 1.7W/m2 year in and year out over the globe. Added like compound interest. Without feedbacks I think the warming amounts to 1.5C per doubling of CO2. That's why, I think, that number represents the bottom range of the IPCC prediction.

(All of the numbers specified are quoted from an increasingly dicey memory.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 11, 2008 3:26 PM

Well ghosts ARE real... and so is Global Warming.

Posted by MNPundit | June 11, 2008 3:49 PM

"Golf Digest points out that an incredible 41 percent of golfers polled believe that global warming is a myth. "

Of that 41%, 95% are probably Republicans. Of course, if Republicans actually believed in science, empirical testing, due diligence, evidence, etc, we wouldn't have this issues (and we wouldn't be embroiled in this idiotic Iraq War.)These are the same Republicans who don't believe in Evolution....who believe sexual preference is a choice....who think throwing stem cells away is preferable to using them for research since using them in an affront to God / the sancity of life. These are morons. They may look like you, they may talk like you, they may act like you, and I'm friends with quite a few of them. In reality though, we tend to avoid substantive political discussions since I invariably end up thinking "are you insane?" when we get down to the patently absurd conspiracy theories it takes to deny something as obvious as global warming, or that your hairdresser couldn't be straight if he tried, or that throwing those stem cells in the garbage is an affront to my grandmother with Parkinson's - not to God.

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | June 11, 2008 4:06 PM

Might as well poll congress on which string theory is the most promising.
If you don't have a PhD and are currently working in climate science your opinion means NOTHING.

Posted by Jack H. | June 11, 2008 4:26 PM

Another thought: I could switch the labels, and change the question to something about the risks of leaving Iraq precipitously.

Note to self: Jim-Bob would make a terrible apple pie.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 11, 2008 4:35 PM

Anyone who has done even the most basic of biological surveys knows that the error inherent in the process is not insignificant. From instrument calibration and biofouling to bias in study design, it's almost impossible to make accurate assessments of any single biological activity. For example, what is the respiration rate of a single fish species in a given ecosystem? Let me tell you, no one can even accurately estimate the number of fish in the population, let alone accurately predict their respiration. To believe that science has advanced to the point where all we need to do is simply plug a bunch of known data into an agreed upon model is insane! The more complex the model, the more error and uncertainty are compounded. The models currently available are primitive. They serve only as a starting point from which to get more accurate.

The problem with global warming is that the scientists who push the models and theories of catastrophe the loudest get most of the funding. Claim everything is fine and you get no funding. Claim the Earth is days away from total ruin and you get the front page of Science and funded on every grant you write. Is there any wonder why consensus is building among scientists?

Anyone who says the science is settled beyond a reasonable doubt is an idiot. They also say things like Save the Planet and catastrophic climate change. They are only interested in regurgitating political slogans.

It's worth pointing out that Matthew supported the Iraq War simply because others told him he should. He seems to be showing a similar pattern with the science of global warming. He doesn't understand it, and therefore he chooses to put his faith into what others to tell him he should believe. It's very convenient that it happens to reinforce his beliefs in things like mass transportation, which I'm guessing has been longer held than his belief in global warming.

Posted by Just Karl | June 11, 2008 10:04 PM

but it would be an interesting problem to find a system to which you add energy that doesn't warm

I would imagine that such a system would have some way to transform energy into matter. Perhaps by using solar energy to fix carbon.

Posted by TW Andrews | June 11, 2008 11:04 PM

I think it's weird how a general public is supposed to have a view on these somewhat complicated scientific issues - like global warming and evolution. I have a pretty good handle on the science of both phenomena, but I'm also a biology major. You might say both concepts make sense. One can somewhat see Darwinian evolution in our daily lives. And the notion that pumping out all these chemicals from cars and smokestacks or dumping stuff into the ocean will change the environment seems kosher as well. But, when pressed, what percentage of the public, even the many who profess to believe in global warming and/or evolution, could give more than a sentence explanation of the underlying science? No way it's more than 15 percent. Seems like the public has to form an opinion by relying on the opinions of mainstream science.

Posted by Mike | June 11, 2008 11:32 PM

Just Karl-

In case you were actually being serious up there, I'd like to point out that whatever universe you are from, back here in the only slightly insane universe, where George Bush was (more or less) elected twice, but where not everyone has an evil goatee, climate models don't actually have anything to do with measuring the size of a fish breath, then multiplying by the number of fish......

For anyone out there who might have considered taking Karl seriously-

Climate models are not some kind of crazy house of cards. They're based on large scale models of the basic physics systems that drive the planet's climate.

They're designed to be pretty robust, and there is only a very small chance that global warming will turn out to be a fluke related to a misplaced decimal point in the North Atlantic mackerel count.

Posted by jack lecou | June 12, 2008 12:14 AM

"Might as well poll congress on which string theory is the most promising.
If you don't have a PhD and are currently working in climate science your opinion means NOTHING.

Posted by Jack H. | June 11, 2008 4:26 PM"

The problem is that PhD's don't vote on environmental legislation.

http://xkcd.com/154/

Posted by Reality Man | June 12, 2008 1:20 AM

but it would be an interesting problem to find a system to which you add energy that doesn't warm
I would imagine that such a system would have some way to transform energy into matter. Perhaps by using solar energy to fix carbon.
Posted by TW Andrews

The Earth is an open thermodynamic system, with basically solar and radiocative decay inputs and radiative energy dissipation to cold space as the output.
With hundreds of minor variables influencing the main imputs and dissipation to space that influence where the system lands up in equilibrium. But on our scale of just a few degrees Celsius having global significance to humanity - the bitch is understanding how those factors, like heat-retaining water vapor in arid areas changing with massive irrigation, ocean currents affecting cloud cover and over ocean moisture, city heat sinks, CO2, loss of forests, etc - all work together.

However, Jack Lecou is not honest if he thinks the FACT of recent global warming has been proven to come mainly, in significal part from CO2.

Climate models are not some kind of crazy house of cards. They're based on large scale models of the basic physics systems that drive the planet's climate.
They're designed to be pretty robust, and there is only a very small chance that global warming will turn out to be a fluke

It is a failure of the Global Warming activists and their subsidized scientists to extrapolate from the FACT of the earth being on another small temperature trend (relatively speaking) with their politics insisting on the FACT (based on no evidence) that CO2 from man is the only cause. And that only evil western high tech lifestyle od high per capita use with their evil SUVs is more significant than human population growing 700% in the last two centuries.

The truth is that while global warming is accepted as happening, no honest scientist will say any of the models shows the amount CO2 contributes to that. We do know that the CO2 generated by human activities likely doesn't help, but it can't be quantified, yet.

Posted by chris ford | June 12, 2008 1:47 AM

to analogize, we're pretty sure that quantum mechanics, on the whole, is "correct" but it wouldn't beggar the imagination for it to turn out to be all wrong.

Actually Bell's Inequality proved that quantum mechanics actually is correct, that the universe literally operates that way; there's not some hidden deterministic system behind the scenes that just makes it look like quantum mechanics is correct.

Posted by Chet | June 12, 2008 2:22 AM

"...but we also pretty much know you can't make a model that works that doesn't also show AGW."

You absolutely can, and the cosmic radiation/solar magnetic field/cloud model is indeed a superior model.

Alas, it doesn't get any air time in the catastrophy hunting media. If it did and its results were more widely published, the public (and thus the politicians) would flock to it.

The theory explains the larger fluctuations (millions of years) of earths climate with the solar system moving therough the galaxies spiral arms with smaller and larger amounts of cosmic radiation as a result.

The smaller fluctuations (centuries and decades) are based on how much cosmic radiation is repelled by the changing strength of the solar magnetic field.

The model is robust and the central thesis of it, how cosmic radiation helps the condensation of clouds, has been tested succesfully in laboratories. In the next years the process will be examined at CERN.

It's a travesty that the political process has corrupted science as it has in this case.

/Limagolf

Posted by Limagolf | June 12, 2008 3:46 AM

Climate models are not some kind of crazy house of cards.

Laughable.

Posted by Just Karl | June 12, 2008 7:59 AM

Jack Lecou will tell you that the only biological process that influences the climate models are cow farts, however the ocean is the earth's largest CO2 sink. The biological processes that occur in every single cell of algae in every corner of the planet affect the global climate. To make the arguments that a) the models are robust and b)we don't need that stinkin' biological data is to fundamentally misunderstand the science.

Posted by Just Karl | June 12, 2008 8:11 AM

You absolutely can, and the cosmic radiation/solar magnetic field/cloud model is indeed a superior model.

You're a loony.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 12, 2008 8:18 AM

"You're a loony."

Pray tell why! How is the CO2 sensitive climate models superior? How do they explain previous major changes in the earths climate? They can hardly predict the actual changes in worldwide climate a few years ahead.

/Limagolf

Posted by Limagolf | June 12, 2008 8:40 AM

Pray tell why! How is the CO2 sensitive climate models superior? How do they explain previous major changes in the earths climate? They can hardly predict the actual changes in worldwide climate a few years ahead.

In the first place, the models aren't divvied up like that. There is no "CO2 sensitive" climate model. The legit models use the available physics. Period. Second, your assertion posited that some goofball contraption you labeled the "cosmic radiation/solar magnetic field/cloud model" was superior. That's loony because the "cosmic radiation/solar magnetic field/cloud model" doesn't actually have any physics. It's nothing but specious correlations in search of a mechanism. If there were anything to cosmic etc. there'd be an 11 year "wow" in the temp record due to the 11 year sun spot cycle. There isn't. So even the specious correlations cited are derived by searching the record for something to fit an hypothesis.

Either somebody sold you a bill of goods or you're trying to sell some yourself.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 12, 2008 8:54 AM

"Climate models are not some kind of crazy house of cards.Laughable.
Posted by Just Karl"

Man, Just Karl - you really zinged 'em there. Got any more winners up your sleeve?

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | June 12, 2008 10:45 AM

The Heads of 13 National Academies of Science (all the G8 countries, plus China, India, Brazil, Mexico, S.Africa) urge immediate action on global warming:

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/climatechangestatement.pdf

However, the chairman of the Competitive Enterprise Institute wrote a letter in the FT today saying global warming was no big deal, so I guess The Controversy Continues.
I mean, only listening to what eminent scientists think about the topic, or the opinions of 98% of climatologists, and ignoring paid shills Would Be Elitist.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | June 12, 2008 11:46 AM

'to analogize, we're pretty sure that quantum mechanics, on the whole, is "correct" but it wouldn't beggar the imagination for it to turn out to be all wrong.'

"Actually Bell's Inequality proved that quantum mechanics actually is correct, that the universe literally operates that way; there's not some hidden deterministic system behind the scenes that just makes it look like quantum mechanics is correct."

The various physical laws that make up quantum mechanics are the most rigorously proven facts that correspond to physical phenomena. To find anything more well proven, you need to go to purely abstract ideas.

Posted by Njorl | June 12, 2008 1:44 PM

Jack Lecou will tell you that the only biological process that influences the climate models are cow farts, however the ocean is the earth's largest CO2 sink. The biological processes that occur in every single cell of algae in every corner of the planet affect the global climate. To make the arguments that a) the models are robust and b)we don't need that stinkin' biological data is to fundamentally misunderstand the science.

Except, of course, we don't need to take a census of algae to understand the capacity of various sources and sinks. We just need to model the basic chemistry (models are not sensitive to initial conditions). Plus we can do things like (gasp. shock.) measure CO2 flux directly and watch the trend lines, use isotopic analysis to attribute the excess to man-made sources, and check our models against the historical record. You know, science.

It's craaazy.

Posted by jack lecou | June 12, 2008 4:14 PM

Jack,

You're right, it's basic chemistry. How could I be so stupid as to expect climate prediction models to include calculations of the capacity of various CO2 sinks and feedback loops. I should have realized that CO2 flux equals climate change. Whether we cut down all the trees on the planet has no bearing on what the climate will be like 50 years from now. The model is not sensitive to initial conditions. Nothing can influence the rate of change because you've already projected your trendline, and the rate of climate change has no implications for the health of ecosystems, and ecosystem health has no bearing on CO2 concentration. I get it now. Thanks for helping me out. Please use your basic chemistry model to tell us where the next hurricane will make landfall.

Thanks again,

Karl

Posted by Just Karl | June 12, 2008 9:42 PM

Karl-

If you're interested in learning something about the subject, rather than just bizarrely parroting back my words (and denialist talking points), this might interest you:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/GCM.htm

Posted by jack lecou | June 13, 2008 4:14 AM

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/biota.htm#budget

You should read your own links if you are interested in learning something about the subject.

BTW, I do not deny global warming or even that it's man-made. My point, which is confirmed by your link, is that the climate models are shit driven by a primitive understanding of complex interactions and wildly inaccurate data. They tell us virtually nothing. To make alarmist claims about the future of all life on Earth based on this crap is highly irresponsible. It's driven by a political agenda, not science.

Posted by Just Karl | June 13, 2008 2:38 PM

My point, which is confirmed by your link, is that the climate models are shit driven by a primitive understanding of complex interactions and wildly inaccurate data. They tell us virtually nothing.

Oddly enough, I didn't read anything there about needing a moss census to understand the climate. Or about climate models being shit.

Looked like...scientists well aware of the remaining holes and limitations in the models, studying the biological systems and plugging the data back into the models. Gosh.

And of course so far all they're coming up with is small net POSITIVE feedbacks.

I guess you're hoping for some kind of huge new carbon sink that's going to start kicking in? Any day now? (See, that's where the carbon measurements come in - and there's clearly no big net carbon sink active so far.)

So, any actual idea what it might be?

Posted by jack lecou | June 13, 2008 4:37 PM

See, that's where the carbon measurements come in - and there's clearly no big net carbon sink active so far.

Honestly, you have no understanding of what you are saying.

From the link you sent me:

Statistics compiled by governments on the use of fossil fuels told how much CO2 was going into the atmosphere from industrial production. And Keeling's measurements showed how much of that remained in the air, to push the curve higher year by year. The two numbers were not equal. Roughly half of the gas from burning fossil fuels was missing. Where was the missing carbon going?

Exploring how sea water chemistry and temperature affected each important species, and the interactions among the myriad creatures, and the consequences for the movement of carbon, was a project that would take many decades.

From the late 1970s onward, it was clear that nobody could predict the future of global climate with much precision until they could say how the planet's living systems affected the level of CO2.

Through the 1980s, debates continued as scientists came up with a wealth of new data and new ideas, doing less to solve the carbon problem than to reveal ever more complications. The complications were not only scientific. Calling yet again for an end to deforestation, Woodwell pointed out that the goal collided with powerful economic forces, not to mention corruption. The necessary changes, he said, "require political advances rather than scientific or technical insights."

Looking to the future, experts still had not resolved such basic questions as whether tropical forests, by absorbing or releasing carbon dioxide, were more likely to retard global warming or hasten it....These changes [deforestation], one scientist remarked, “may be at least as important in altering the weather as changes in climate patterns associated with greenhouse gases” (if not globally than regionally, which is what most people worry about).(59) All these uncertainties raised severe problems for international negotiators when they tried to assign responsibility to particular nations for how much they added to the greenhouse effect or subtracted from it.

The final answer to the question of climate change would be a set of predictions for the levels of gases, temperatures and precipitation, and their impacts on ecosystems and human society. That could only come through calculations with a model that incorporated all the significant factors and their interactions.

This is hardly a basic chemistry model, as you so ignorantly described it. Since we still can't say exactly how the planet's living systems affect the level of CO2 (hint: it's massive), let alone begin to quantify the impact in any reasonably accurate way, I say there is little precision to global climate predictions (ie they are shit)

I guess you're hoping for some kind of huge new carbon sink that's going to start kicking in?

You're damn right I am.

Posted by Just Karl | June 13, 2008 11:10 PM

The existing GCMs aren't perfect, but that's a ridiculous standard. They've been remarkably accurate and have erred mostly on the side of underestimating positive feedbacks. (The geological record, for example, has much higher rises in ocean level.)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | June 14, 2008 1:27 PM

Yes, but the point is not that temperatures on Earth may change by 3 or 5 degrees. After all, we see that sort of change over night all the time and without catastrophic consequences to the planet. The point of concern is how the change in extreme climates will affect the world's ecosystems. The historical record is that a warmer planet is more biologically diverse, more productive, has longer growing seasons, and less disease. Without an understanding of exactly how the biosphere is affected by increased CO2, we cannot begin to predict what the consequences of global warming are going to be. Screaming risk! risk! risk! is great for headlines and magazine sales, but the fact is that we simply don't know what the consequences are likely to be.

Posted by Just Karl | June 16, 2008 12:11 AM

Karl-

I don't think those passages mean what you think they mean.

The first paragraph, for example, is talking about the fraction of anthropogenic CO2 that remains in the air. Now obviously there are enormous natural sinks for CO2. And some of the anthropogenic CO2 ends up absorbed by them. (Primarily in the oceans, according to this.)

Of course, there are also enormous natural CO2 producers. And man-made CO2 has added more to the total load than the system can handle. Thus the net surplus production of CO2, and atmospheric CO2 concentration is increasing steadily.

In other words, we can say how much the sum of all carbon sinks, plants, and animals and forests, and north atlantic mackerel contributes to reducing CO2 concentrations: about 10ppm/decade too little. No sign of your deus ex machina...

On top of that, all the evidence so far is that feedbacks are net positive, at least in the medium term (centuries). For example, the largest natural sink of CO2 is the ocean, but warming and acidification are already reducing it's absorptive capacity.

As for forests and land use, that's also more or less understood: the 2007 IPCC report places the net warming contribution of all land use changes at about -0.2 watts/m^2. That's a smallish cooling effect (for comparison, CO2 is contributing 1.66, and total GHGs about 2.6).

Of course, that's a global average. It' more difficult (or at least hasn't been done everywhere) to figure out local contributions with as much certainty. And likewise for details of local climate impacts. Which is what the last sections of your passage are talking about. Obviously an epic political problem for policymakers in Brazil and France or wherever as they try to figure out the local economic impacts and quibble over treaties, but it hardly throws the overall scientific conclusions into doubt.

Posted by jack lecou | June 16, 2008 12:31 AM

Yes, but the point is not that temperatures on Earth may change by 3 or 5 degrees. After all, we see that sort of change over night all the time and without catastrophic consequences to the planet.

Yeah. In some places, like deserts, it varies even more. And obviously it wouldn't make any difference if daytime temperatures lasted a couple centuries...

As for the rest, well I am quite sure that the planet will be getting along perfectly well with warmer temperatures in a couple millennia. Thriving jungles, teeming deserts and all that. Probably 41st century humans will be doing all right for themselves too.

I think most people's concern, however, is what will happen in the next 50-75 years or so, and what the adjustment might cost. Improved vegetable yields in Georgia will be small comfort to flooded, disease plagued Bangladeshi fishermen, their new neighbors next to the refugee camp, or to drought stricken farmers in Central California. Some people even have silly sentimental attachments to the planet's current species and vacation spots.

So, estimates definitely vary, and we're probably not talking apocalypse. But we still might well be talking a point or two off GDP. And that risk must be weighed against the fact that emissions abatement will probably cost quite a bit less than worst case, innovation being what it is. (After all, there's already an awful lot of low fruit hanging around: like if electricity cost a couple cents more, and CFLs a little less. Or if meat cost a touch more in the supermarket, and people ate a couple ounces less with dinner.)

Posted by jack lecou | June 16, 2008 1:06 AM