Human Activities Found To Affect Ocean Temperatures

[BGoodForGoodSake]

How about bgood and Canuckster starting with a few paragraphs recounting, in English, what the paper says?

When will they be publishing this paper, and in which journal?

[Canuckster1127]

How about bgood and Canuckster starting with a few paragraphs recounting, in English, what the paper says?

When will they be publishing this paper, and in which journal?

Published already, online in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Don't have a link.

[sandy_mcd]

The paper. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0602861103v1.pdf

Another very similar one is in Nature - local effects of global temperature change in Europe. It seems to be much better written. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 05095.html

[David Blacklock]

Just to chime in - very interesting discussion here. BTW, Bart, this is syn-mo from the DDI thread. I read all the previous posts, and understand the rationale of suspecting socio-eco-Gaia-political agendae surrounding that article. I suspect the definitive nature of the conclusion was solidified more by the journalist than the scientists.

Anyway, I also don't think the reasoning was circular. I am trying to become more literate with the philosophy/logic mode, so bear with me, please.

From the article: “Using 22 different computer models of the climate system - We've used virtually all the world's climate models to study the causes of SST changes in hurricane formation regions - The bottom line is that natural processes alone simply cannot explain the observed SST increases in these hurricane breeding grounds. The best explanation for these changes has to include a large human influence.”

You said, “The conclusions are based upon comparison with a model based upon the very conclusions that it purports to show.”

So the various computer models — are programmed to show that the best explanation for departure from prediction — is human influence?

The computers are programmed with weather data from history to track weather and make predictions. The programmers are worried about hundreds of variables and are not specifically thinking about this issue. The issue is important, however, because increased SST's are believed to cause more numerous and stronger hurricanes.

The conclusion was that SST's were up, but the computer models couldn't explain why from their natural causes predictions. They then concluded that the best alternative reason for the increase in SST's was human causes.

Circular reasoning: the basing of two conclusions, each upon the other.

To be circular reasoning, wouldn't the computers have to be specifically programmed to prove human influence?

I'm also considering that historical trends should reflect human influence. I'm discounting that because the data reflects 1905 - 2005, and I think significant human influence would be only the last 20-30 years. Maybe I shouldn't discount that.

Note: I'm not arguing the other faults you're finding with the article. I do agree with the assessment that certain longer term predictions in weather are probably more reliable than short term predictions, such as on the nightly weather report.

[sandy_mcd]

Is Global Warming Causing Bigger Hurricanes?
The nasty scientific battle behind one of our most important weather mysteries.
By John McQuaid
Does global warming cause bigger and/or more frequent hurricanes? This was an intriguing hypothetical question several years ago. Since 2005, which not only brought us Hurricane Katrina but set new records (28 named storms, four of which reached Category 5 strength), it has become a grippingly real one. Al Gore treats the idea that warming spawns worse storms as gospel in An Inconvenient Truth, the poster of which depicts the swirl of a hurricane rising out of a smokestack.
...
The latest big global-warming study has buttressed the link between global warming and hurricanes. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, makes the case that man-made climate change is probably responsible for heating up tropical oceans—specifically, the two bands on either side of the equator where hurricanes form.
...
The hurricane-warming link isn't settled at all. Rather, it's a very contentious debate between two groups of scientists—computer-modeling atmospheric scientists versus meteorologists—who have very different methods, ideas, and priorities. The debate has been raging for months, with attacks and counterattacks—albeit very polite ones—appearing regularly in top scientific journals. Because the issue has massive policy implications and the particulars are difficult to understand and explain, the competing groups have also resorted to dueling press releases and other forms of media outreach. Their disagreement over hurricanes isn't just an academic dispute, but a conflict that has very real consequences for how America addresses climate change.
...
Enter the skeptics, led by Chris Landsea (yes, that's his real name), one of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association's top hurricane researchers. The group is made up of meteorologists—scientists who make their living forecasting the annual shifts in hurricane activity and the paths of individual storms. It includes Max Mayfield, the outgoing director of the National Hurricane Center, who famously warned President Bush that Katrina was likely to overwhelm the New Orleans levees. Most aren't global-warming skeptics, but they have attacked Emanuel's research, the Georgia Tech study, and others that suggest a hurricane-warming tie.
...
Practically speaking, the key difference of opinion is what will happen after that—whether the cycle will turn mercifully quiet again or whether the hurricane trend line will simply continue to climb. If the latter scenario comes to pass, our current levees-and-a-prayer approach won't be of much use.

Hmm, "levees-and-a-prayer" isn't much use even now.

[David Blacklock]

Most credible climate scientists will hedge instead of making dogmatic statements about global warming and its effect on the earth. It is an extremely complex system and they don't know what it's going to do. The current models are very carefully worked out, involving 3312 boxes (4 degrees latitude by 5 degrees longitude) that cover the earth. This pattern is repeated up to 20 times (depending on altitude on earth) moving up through the atmosphere. Each box is subject to mathematical calculations for its results, repeated every thirty minutes, and different models stress different effects. You get the idea — it's pretty complex. They test their models from historical data, to see how well they reproduce trends that have already been observed. This is a very challenging job.
While they hesitate to be forceful like Gore is, they almost unanimously think the rise in CO2 is bad, and want preventative action taken. Many states are taking action since the feds aren't — and big businesses are suing the states hoping to stall as much as possible, and hoping that the Supreme Court will decide the federal rules trump the state rules.
Some things we could do which would make a big impact are simple chip shots — which I might save for another post

[Canuckster1127]

Just to chime in - very interesting discussion here. BTW, Bart, this is syn-mo from the DDI thread. I read all the previous posts, and understand the rationale of suspecting socio-eco-Gaia-political agendae surrounding that article. I suspect the definitive nature of the conclusion was solidified more by the journalist than the scientists.

Anyway, I also don't think the reasoning was circular. I am trying to become more literate with the philosophy/logic mode, so bear with me, please.

From the article: “Using 22 different computer models of the climate system - We've used virtually all the world's climate models to study the causes of SST changes in hurricane formation regions - The bottom line is that natural processes alone simply cannot explain the observed SST increases in these hurricane breeding grounds. The best explanation for these changes has to include a large human influence.”

You said, “The conclusions are based upon comparison with a model based upon the very conclusions that it purports to show.”

So the various computer models — are programmed to show that the best explanation for departure from prediction — is human influence?

The computers are programmed with weather data from history to track weather and make predictions. The programmers are worried about hundreds of variables and are not specifically thinking about this issue. The issue is important, however, because increased SST's are believed to cause more numerous and stronger hurricanes.

The conclusion was that SST's were up, but the computer models couldn't explain why from their natural causes predictions. They then concluded that the best alternative reason for the increase in SST's was human causes.

Circular reasoning: the basing of two conclusions, each upon the other.

To be circular reasoning, wouldn't the computers have to be specifically programmed to prove human influence?

I'm also considering that historical trends should reflect human influence. I'm discounting that because the data reflects 1905 - 2005, and I think significant human influence would be only the last 20-30 years. Maybe I shouldn't discount that.

Note: I'm not arguing the other faults you're finding with the article. I do agree with the assessment that certain longer term predictions in weather are probably more reliable than short term predictions, such as on the nightly weather report.

David,

I knew who you were. I recognized the writing style and a few repeated phrases.

Welcome again to this board and thanks for your comments.

I understand that in one sense you have to set-up a baseline model with which to compare and by definition it is going to be speculation.

It just struck me as odd in one sense because in order to create that model, in one sense you have to either create a data base theoretically in some manner and then extrapolate out to suggest what today's climate should be sans humans, or you have to extract those influences from recent history that you determine to be human caused.

I probably would be easier with the actual scientific journal report. I have lower tolerance for jounalistic spin in this area than others.

Bart

[sandy_mcd]

I probably would be easier with the actual scientific journal report. I have lower tolerance for jounalistic spin in this area than others.

I posted links to two articles and could probably email the text if you are interested.

[sandy_mcd]

Most credible climate scientists will hedge instead of making dogmatic statements about global warming and its effect on the earth. ... they almost unanimously think the rise in CO2 is bad, and want preventative action taken. ...

Yes, it seems that the vast majority of climate scientists think global warming is real and has a significant human component. The article referenced in PNAS and the one I linked to in Nature claim that specific local effects (increase in hurricane numbers/strength and wider variability of local climate in Europe) are a part of this global change.

[August]

Decorated Scientist Defects From Belief in Global Warming — Caps Year of Vindication for Skeptics

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777

Excerpt:

Allegre's conversion to a climate skeptic comes at a time when global warming alarmists have insisted that there is a “consensus” about manmade global warming. Proponents of global warming have ratcheted up the level of rhetoric on climate skeptics recently. An environmental magazine in September called for Nuremberg-style trials for global warming skeptics and CBS News “60 Minutes” correspondent Scott Pelley compared skeptics to “Holocaust deniers.” See: http://www.epw.senate.gov/fact.cfm?party=rep&id=264568 & http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22 ... 1768.shtml In addition, former Vice President Al Gore has repeatedly referred to skeptics as "global warming deniers."

This increase in rhetorical flourish comes at a time when new climate science research continues to unravel the global warming alarmists' computer model predictions of future climatic doom and vindicate skeptics.

[sandy_mcd]

Reaching a consensus on such a contentious topic as global warming is clearly a pipedream, but it seems as though it is also impossible to agree on how many climatologists believe/disbelieve in global warming.

[David Blacklock]

heh, heh - you have really picked some bad boys to believe.

The only thing I would suggest it that you widen your reading patterns. These guys are really outliers. That rep from Oklahoma is not just anti-global warming...he seems anti science of any sort - but that's not really his beef. He buys into the whole free market thing so thoroughly that he is completely pro-business. For many issues, that means anti-science, so yes, this guy will hunt down a scientist who will agree with business agenda, no matter how far off the beaten track.

[Gman]

Hi David,

I'm with you on this one... As a Christian I believe or lean in a GW caused by humans.. (or partly caused in some manner..)

August and I have already gone over this in another thread. It just goes to show you that not all Christians think the same way.. By the way, I in no way believe having such divisions affects one's salvation. August is a very worthy Christian in my opinion.. I would never question that..

Basically it boils down to this...

It's these groups or orgs of scientists..

Supporters of the global warming theory

Organisations that support the global warming theory (or at least that have issued supportive declarations) include:

* The UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
* The national academies of science of the G8 countries and Brazil, China and India [20].
* The US National Academy of Sciences, both in its 2002 report to President George W. Bush, and in its latest publications, has strongly endorsed evidence of an average global temperature increase in the 20th century and stated that human activity is heavily implicated in causing this increase.
* The American Meteorological Society (AMS statement).
* The American Geophysical Union (AGU statement). John Christy, who is usually placed in the skeptics camp, has signed the AGU statement on climate change.
* The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). [21]
* The Union of Concerned Scientists

It should be noted that these groups, far from advocating an unusual position, represent the mainstream position (consensus) that is the scientific opinion on climate change.

Against these guys.. And the 60 more I guess..

Opponents of the global warming theory

Main article: List of scientists opposing global warming consensus

A small number of climate scientists and scientists in related fields have expressed opposition to the scientific consensus on global warming. Several of the most prominent are the following:

* Patrick Michaels from the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
* Robert Balling of Arizona State University
* Sherwood B. Idso of the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory [22]
* S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia
* Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
* Frederick Seitz (anti-global warming treaties, accepts the temperature rise as real, but not yet properly explained)
* William M. Gray, emeritus professor at Colorado State University and one of the world's leading experts on tropical storms. Claims that there is no link between increasing ocean temperatures and more intense hurricanes in recent decades and dismisses computer climate models. [23].
* Roy Spencer, known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work

Some prominent opponents from outside the climate science community have been:

* Kary Mullis, biochemist and inventor of PCR
* Andrey Illarionov, former economic advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin
* Ross McKitrick economics professor
* Michael Crichton, science fiction author and critic of the politicization of science, Global Warming is an issue in his 2004 novel, State of Fear
* David Bellamy, British environmental campaigner who has since decided to draw back from the debate on global warming.
* Ann Coulter, American syndicated columnist.
* Steven Milloy, FOX News columnist and Publisher of JunkScience.com.

Some organisations were formed to further the opponents' views:

* Information Council on the Environment (defunct): Michaels, Balling and Idso all lent their names in 1991 to the scientific advisory panel of the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), an energy industry public relations group.
* Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
* Science and Environmental Policy Project, founded by S. Fred Singer.

Many of these opponents to anthropogenic global warming theory have links to the fossil fuels industry. For example, Patrick J. Michaels and Frederick Seitz have both been linked to the George C. Marshall Institute--Michaels as a "visiting scientist" and Seitz as "Chairman Emeritus.".[24] The Institute has received numerous large grants from ExxonMobil and from petroleum-related organizations such as the Sarah Scaife Foundation and the Carthage Foundation. [25][26][27]Similarly, the Competitive Enterprise Institute has received several large grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, the Sarah Scaife Foundation, and from ExxonMobil.[28][29]The CEI website lists both S. Fred Singer and Robert Balling as "experts," while Ross McKitrick headed up a CEI project called the Cooler Heads Coalition.[30][31] Many observers critical of these connections between global warming contrarians and the petroleum and coal industries as suggestive of a conflict of interest, if not of outright corruption, since many policies which might be used to combat human-caused global warming might adversely affect the profits of these corporations.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38]

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy

[David Blacklock]

Pretty impressive lists, Gman - I'm glad you brought that up about the fact that so many of the naysayers have a financial stake in industry. I forgot to stress that in my post.

[Gman]

I'm also a Prop. 87 supporter... I plan to vote for it..

http://yesoncleanenergy.com/

Now why is it that California always leads the way on these environmental things?