The writers of South Park are creative geniuses. Their new season started this week with an episode mocking “The Day After Tomorrow” by having people run back and forth trying to flee what seemed to be a very physical, if invisible, global warming. Of course the boys are walking around, completely fine, while the idiot adults cower in fear.
Why is the debate on global warming so heated? Why, back in college, was my class asked to give presentations on global warming, only to see those who disagreed that it was occuring literally silenced and told they’re idiots by my professor? Why are we told that there is a complete consensus of scientists that global warming is occuring and that any dissension is foolish and solely motivated by corporations?
I’m thinking there’s some kind of white guilt/self hatred behind it. Primarily this is driven by a need to correct our world and to feel as if we’ve been doing things wrong and that we can and must take corrective action. We see our social ills and need someone to blame. Global warming is caused by humans because if we can’t blame ourselves, we can’t fix it. My problem with global warming is that much of it is junk science. Oh sure, some of the observations are solid. I’m not going to argue with localized observations of certain effects, or even satellite imagery. I’m not obnoxious enough to believe that the scientists involved are idiots. I do believe them when they say that they truly believe that CO2 levels are causing global warming.
My central problem with this assertion is that it assumes that climatologists have a fully integrated understanding of Earth’s climate. Earth is one of the most complex systems known to man. It involves countless interactions, and I have trouble believing that any one climatologist, even less so a panel of climatologists, has the knowledge or mental capacity to incorporate all that is going on in Earth’s climate and make the conclusion that the high CO2 levels are directly causing global warming. The climate models that attempt to predict the future effects of global warming invite even more doubt.
Let me divert in order to explain how I can back up my doubts. My fear is that there is a lack of statistical rigour being applied to these predictions. Much of what we know about global temperatures is based on data going back to the 1800′s. I believe much of this data. Temperature was recorded based on mercury thermometers. Mercury is a chemical and once enclosed in glass there really isn’t terribly much that a recorder could do to screw up the recording of the temperature data. Any analysis of a plot of this data would certainly account for minor variations due to anything that may have happened that particular year, as well as much smaller variations attributed to measurement. Most of this data, once plotted, shows an essentially flat line. However, this data is still based on a measurement of less than 200 years. Do me a favor. Hold a magnifying glass to one of the keys on your keyboard. Now, based on that, make assumptions about your entire keyboard. You see my problem.
200 years of data is less than a hiccup in trying to understand global climate. So now we look to indicators we can use. Observations of environments. Deserts, lakes, etc. Observations of rocks. Hey, let’s look at the ice cores. We’ve drilled ice cores from Antarctica, and by correlating the amount of deuterium in the ice with the global temperature, we can chart the climate for several thousands of years. What does it show? The damn thing looks like a seismograph. Rapid climate change is built into the Earth’s history.
But CO2 does cause warming, right? Yes! It can be demonstrated in a laboratory. You shine a light on CO2 gas molecules and they absorb it and you have increased heat. CO2 also traps hot air, and it is alleged that it creates a feedback loop with the Earth, raising surface temperatures. So yes, increased CO2 does cause a greenhouse effect. The real question, however, is a matter of concentration, and cause and effect. The biggest mistake that is made is believing that a correlation between CO2 levels and global surface temperatures implies cause and effect. Still, most scientists are intelligent enough to know the difference. So why do I say I have a problem with the statistical rigour of global warming analysis?
Regression analysis. Let’s say you’re trying to account for three different factors. Atmospheric CO2 levels, Atlantic Ocean effects (gulfstream, hurricanes, something like that), and an estimate of total coverage of forests based on satellite imagery. If you ran the test and could somehow magically turn the knobs of these conditions, you would have to have different combinations of the levels of these factors. Let’s say you do a simple experiment, two levels. So your experiment consists of CO2 levels of 200 ppm and 600 ppm, Atlantic Ocean effects of 10 hurricanes with 150+ winds and 20 hurricanes with 130+ winds, and 30 billion acres of forest and 10 billion acres of forests. The “runs” of your experiment would look like this: a combination of 200 ppm CO2, 10 hurricanes, and 10 billion acres of forests, then a combination of 200 ppm CO2, 10 hurricanes, and 30 billion acres of forests, and so on. The last combination (the eighth) would be 600 ppm CO2, 20 hurricanes, and 30 billion acres of forests. You’d then look for the main effects and the interactions. So if your output was global surface temperature, would the number of hurricanes be the main driver of global surface temperature? Or would it be the CO2 level, the acres of forests, and the interaction between those two factors? The interaction is seperate from the main effects. The equation would look like this: A + BCO2 level + Cacres of forest + DCO2 levelacres of forests. The units would be different on the interaction, it’s a different beast. Or, what if the measurement is mostly noise on the main effects and only the interaction itself is important? I’ve had it happen before in regression analysis.
I’m doing a poor job of explaining the statistics, and I do apologize for that. I’m sure it strikes you that a true climate model would need to account for many more factors than these three. And I’m sure these factors have gone into the predictive models being run currently on supercomputers. The computer simulations cannot magically predict what will happen to the Earth’s climate. They must be fed predictive equations, which inherently may be confusing CO2 levels with the Earth’s surface temperature. The problem is that, again, we only have so much data. On the global time scale of the Earth, this is nowhere near enough data for us to predict climates. Any attempt to predict the climate is confounded by this correlation. Solar radiation levels actually correlate decently well with a rise in surface temperatures. I would imagine it would be very difficult to statistically determine which one of these is the primary cause of global warming. I don’t dispute that the temperature of the Earth is rising, that much is obvious.
Again, the problem has to do with the assumption that we can make predictions about the Earth’s climate. I read an article anouncing that global dimming is occuring, which I do believe because of the increase in SO2 and NOx, which is why new technologies such as recycled-stream coal are important to filter this crap out of our smokestacks. Then the article claims that although there’s some study saying that the Earth today is less sensitive to CO2 rises than in the past and the effect on temperature is less than we thought, that analysis may have been thrown off by global dimming, and therefore global warming is worse than we thought. Yeah, that caused a question mark to appear above my head, too. I’m thinking that what they meant is that it would be worse, if global dimming wasn’t occuring. I must again raise the point that it is next to impossible to un-confound all of this data. Essentially, any analysis of the rise in Earth’s surface temperature must begin with an assumption: is this caused by CO2 levels, global dimming, or solar radiation?
The problem with most of the climate models is that, without a fuller understanding of all the factors and interactions in the Earth’s climate, acceptance of these models must be based on our assumptions and what we can immediately observe. I get from wikipedia that the acceptance criteria for whether or not a model can predict climate is whether it accounts for specific observed effects, such as El Nino. The problem here is that it doesn’t get us away from basing our predictions on our assumptions. Any good scientist must make assumptions, sometimes even wild ones, in order to begin their work. However, the output data that confirms the predictive models is again dependent on our assumptions. Allow me to clear this up a bit by going through an example:
We make an assumption. CO2 levels are causing global surface temperatures to rise. We run a statistical analysis on global surface temperatures and find that only the main effect of CO2 levels is significant. We take the predictive equation from this analysis and perform a simulation. We see if our model accounts for El Nino. It does! We conclude that our model is correct and then look at our prediction for global surface temperatures. OH MY GOD! OCEAN LEVELS WILL RISE BY LIKE A BILLION FEET!
I’m simplifying and poking fun, but you see the inherent flaw in this analysis: we assume that because our model accounts for certain effects, such as El Nino, it must also be accurate in predicting the effect of CO2 levels on global surface temperatures. Now I’m pretty sure those two aren’t related. Other factors built into our simulation, such as volcanic activity or something, may be accounting for El Nino. I know that scientists must have some criteria for determining the strength of a model. However, in order to successfully predict an output the confirmation of a model must measure that output. So, again, any model will run into the CO2 levels being confounded with the rise in temperatures.
Personally I find solar radiation to be much more convincing. However, that goes with a huge grain of salt. I won’t deviate from my assertion that it’s all confounded as hell. So why are so many scientists trying to stick with the CO2 theory? Honestly I do believe CO2 levels have some effect on global warming. You’re seeing more of it now: the idea that this much of the warming is attributable to solar radiation, this much is attributable to CO2 levels, this much attributed to the number of rice patties in China. I’m serious, methane is a greenhouse gas. Not that I’ve heard any scientists blaming the rice patties. I feel kinda racist even saying the phrase “rice patty”.
I’m not naive enough to believe that people with Ph.D’s in statistics haven’t already worked on the global warming stuff. However I strongly believe that a rigorous statistical discussion is being shut out of the debate for political reasons. Global warming has become a movement now, with a life of its own, and as with any idea with enough backers, it will bite back. It will suppress facts and logic all in the name of proving itself true. The problem, I believe, has to do with the way the human brain stores information. The brain will rationalize certain thoughts in order to block conflicting information. I think someday we’re going to find that writing new thoughts into the brain requires some stupid chemical and the brain doesn’t have enough of it so it secretes it sparingly, which is why we so often get angry when our ideas are challenged. This issue is important, which is one factor making the argument so charged. Another factor is that we’ve all generalized the opposition. Those who support the CO2 theory must hate corporations. You saw it at the beginning of this post, I reasoned that those who think we’re the primary cause of global warming must necessarily be white liberal self-haters. You can also generalize my side of the issue, saying I’m an evil corporate fatcat American who cares nothing for the world or the future or mother Earth or the marijuana fields. See, I did it again, I generalized that those who support the CO2 theory are liberal idiot potsmokers. The fact is many idiot Republicans smoke pot too. Also lots of idiot Liberterians. They all smoke pot too.
So what should the discussion really be about? Well, we can figure out a better way to figure this one out, or continue the slap-fest until we decide that one side is right. We’ll all still probably be totally wrong.
66.67% of statistics are made up on the spot
The reason many scientists believe that the earth is warmer than “normal” may be because one of the many places they take ice cores from, the Larsen B ice shelf, broke apart and slid into the fucking ocean in 2002. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, researchers suspect that the Larsen shelf floated in the Antarctic for about 12,000 years, and can prove that it was over 400 years old. That’s a (definitely 400+/maybe 12,000) year old ice cube, suddenly melting in the last 35 years and breaking apart in spring of 2002. They don’t know why, exactly. There are just a few theories based on the assumption that, being made of ice, the shelf probably broke up because the environment got warmer. The alternate theories of ice gnomes with picks or alien terraformers with heat rays were probably dismissed out of hand by those pot smoking liberal white self hating sissy scientists at the NSIDC.
http://nsidc.org/iceshelves/larsenb2002/
November 1st, 2005, at 12:23 pm #Still nothing! Three weeks should have been more than enough time to compose a rebuttal, even if you had to go to the library for something, hulk. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you “just forgot” to check your posts for comments, even after begging for someone to have the balls to argue with you.
November 21st, 2005, at 12:12 pm #That was an argument? I’m sorry, I thought you were just babbling. I remember reading your comment and thinking…wait…what is that he wants? Fries and a shake? Well then he can go to a fast food drive thru.
You’ll notice that I discussed WHY global warming was ocurring.
Further, the Larsen B ice shelf composes a very tiny part of Antartica, the nearest to South America (I’m sure the South Americans have a name for whatever country is closest to South America, probably something like “Our plane crashed so we have to eat each other” translated into Spanish). What do we know about climatology in that area? Consider that.
I took a look at the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s website. It’s apparent that the analysis of the cryosphere is heavily biased towards the advent of global warming. This in itself is fine, we all need to make assumptions before beginning experiments. Let’s break down their analysis:
Snow-Snow cover has decreased 3-5%, while precipitation has increased, indicating global warming. I look at these lines and I’d love to see them put into a control chart. It appears that they would fall well within the control limits. http://nsidc.org/sotc/snow_extent.html
Glaciers-HOLY CRAP! GLACIERS ARE RECEDING! AUGH! The mass balance for glaciers is going down. This is not surprising, since glaciers have been receding for thousands of years. They take the time to point out that since glaciers move so slowly, global warming won’t be seen for several more years. Reasoned speculation, but speculation nonetheless.
Permafrost-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! The graph shows not much of anything, and the analysis says that permafrost is erratic, but IF IT DOES melt due to global warming, we’re all screwed. I’m willing to grant speculation, but it’s starting to get obvious…
Sea Ice-The data shows sea ice is decreasing. The artic has decreased by 3% per decade while the antartic has grown by about 0.8% per decade. That’s about a 1% loss. Score one for the NSIDC!
Ice Shelves-Larsen B fell off! Holy crap! It hasn’t done that in…12,000 years…huh. You can see my argument here, 12,000 years isn’t that long of a time. The NSIDC also clearly DESPARATELY wants to say something about the Ross Ice Shelf, but they can’t because the data shows it’s fine.
Sea Level-Glaciers are melting and contributing more to sea level. But wait! Climate models based on the increasing amount of CO2 show it will…sigh.
My biggest problem with most of this data is that it’s 1960-on. 40 years is not a lot of time in the global scale. Now, considering that humans have been doing a lot of industrialization during that time, who wants to make a bet that you can find a correlation between global climate behavior over the time span humans recorded things and at the same time built things/drove things/ate things/wore fur. The focus should be on more reliable methods of judging Earth climates over larger time scales.
In summary:
Global Warming is occuring The NSIDC is doing a crappy job of showing that The NSIDC is also doing that ad hoc ergo propter hoc thing, where they assume that a correlation proves causation This is not a coherent argument, because I left in contradictions. I left them in because they raise interesting questions, such as the relationship between correlation and causation, and science and politics. You should also see that it’s fairly easy to make data dance any way you want it to. The NSIDC would use the data to convince you to stop driving or we’ll all die. I use the same data against them. Consider that one.
November 22nd, 2005, at 6:08 pm #I am delighted to read that you were not picked apart by ravens, as I vividly imagined.
I think you might be right this time, damn you.
November 28th, 2005, at 2:05 pm #