An article in the latest issue of American Scientist argues against one of the more commonly disseminated global warming Doomsday Scenarios, that global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and deep-freeze Europe.
http://www.americanscientist.org/...
This research provides, perhaps unintentionally, an excellent example of how the actual practice of science differs from common perceptions of it. It immediately struck me, upon reading it, that here was the sort of research paper that opportunists seize upon to cast doubt upon global warming, the scientific consensus on it, and upon science in general. Often, this effect is not even intended, but it happens anyway. I'd like to discuss how this happens, and what it means for scientific ethics and practices.
Quick summary, for those without time or background to get through the article:
(Europe) is blessed with its pleasant climate courtesy of the Gulf Stream, that huge current of warm water that flows northeast across the Atlantic from its source in the Gulf of Mexico. That the Gulf Stream is responsible for Europe's mild winters is widely known and accepted, but, as I will show, it is nothing more than the earth-science equivalent of an urban legend.
The authors present their evidence and argue that other processes are primarily responsible for creating Europe's mild climate relative to the same latitudes in North America (compare the latitudes and climates of Boston and Rome, or NYC and Madrid). Their exact evidence and reasons are not relevant here, but their argument is that slowing or stopping the Gulf Stream
should bring on a cooling tendency of at most a few degrees across the North Atlantic
and thus have little real impact on Europe's climate.
What makes this of greater interest is the potential for such studies to be misinterpreted or actively misused. Within the scientific community, this is a thoroughly worthwhile paper, presenting a thoughtful analysis of a problem and challenging the status quo with new evidence. That's how science works. However, in doing so, the article leaves the door open for others to misuse the authors' words and arguments to attack or distort the greater issue. Consider the following quotes:
This abdication of responsibility leaves decades of folk wisdom unchallenged, still dominating the front pages, airwaves and Internet, ensuring that a well-worn piece of climatological nonsense will be passed down to yet another generation.
any slowdown in thermohaline circulation would have a noticeable but not catastrophic effect on climate... Instead of creating catastrophe in the North Atlantic region, a slowdown in thermohaline circulation would serve to mitigate the expected anthropogenic warming!
In the proper context, the former is specifically referring to the Gulf Stream/Europe connection, while the latter is simply pointing out a scientific reality. However, taken on their own, these are obvious candidates for misuse or distortion, either maliciously or through poor journalism, casting doubts on the greater truth and danger of global warming through a doubt about one specific impact of it. This sort of thing happens often; think of how often "gaps" in the paleontological record, or disagreements among scientists about a specific fossil, are cited as proof that evolution must be wrong.
One of the great strengths of the scientific process and community is its ability to rationally tolerate and consider dissent. At its best it is the ultimate expression of democracy, especially the American vision of meritocracy. Like any human enterprise, the reality falls somewhat short of the ideal, but the system still works. What fascinates me about issues like this are the ethical considerations posed; is it better to publish pure science and not worry about whether your words and/or research will be twisted or misused, or is it better to carefully temper your work to guard against such things? Should science be idealistic, producing pure research without regard to insidious outside influences, or should it be realistic and compromise itself somewhat to protect against larger issues?
I haven't noticed any mass media picking up on this article yet. If anyone has, please post a link so we can compare the reality of the reporting to my predictions/concerns as outlined here. I'm willing to make a prediction that at least some of the reporting will focus too much on the "Scientists say global warming impact in Europe won't be so bad/could be good" angle, rather than the more accurate "Scientists propose new model for global warming impacts".