Human Activities Found To Affect Ocean Temperatures

[Canuckster1127]

Human Activities Found To Affect Ocean Temperatures In Hurricane Formation Regions

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 104432.htm

Interesting article.

Note that is begins with the assertion and then later down in the article it provides a description of the methodology that includes this.

“We don't have a convenient parallel Earth with no human influence on climate. This is why our study relied on computer models for estimates of how the climate of an 'undisturbed Earth' might have evolved."

The conclusions are based upon a comparison with what the researchers believe should have been the case if there were no human influence.

Hello? Does anyone else see the potential for a huge circular argument here?

This doesn't mean, in my opinion, that there isn't validity to some of what they are saying. I think it probable that human activity and greenhouse gases do impact the environment.

At the very least, the degree claimed here is based upon comparison with a model based upon the very conclusions that it purports to show.

[sandy_mcd]

The conclusions are based upon a comparison with what the researchers believe should have been the case if there were no human influence.

Hello? Does anyone else see the potential for a huge circular argument here?

[It took me awhile to understand what Canuckster was saying.]
I see a potential for error with no control and such a complicated system, but I see no circular argument.
The researchers are basically just trying to see if human influences affect the strength of hurricanes. It is no more circular an argument than the whole global warming issue.
For example, Jbuza might propose that balls of lead, iron, wood, and styrofoam will not all fall at the same rate due to air resistance. He does the experiment and they don't. If he subtracts the effects of gravity, without having a parallel world with no air to test his theory of what gravity alone would do, he can fit the differences with some theory of air resistance. His theory of air resistance would be wrong if gravity did not affect all balls the same, but that is not a circular argument.

[Canuckster1127]

I appreciate the explanation Sandy but I see problems here still.

The Logic seems to line up something like this.

Human Activity affects and intensifies Hurricanes.

We can't directly measure that affect, therefore we've created a model that represents what we believe a baseline climate would be absent human activity.

A comparison of the model projected with models showing the current reality demonstrates this distance.

The difference shown can only reflect the changes made to the base model by the scientisrts themselves so it is a simply a back door manner of making those assertions in the first place.

It's like firing an arrow at a target to show the affect of a cross wind and then deciding how much less of a cross wind there would be without human influence, artificially creating the situation, firing the arrow and then pointing and stating that this shows something real.

No way, it only shows what you determine it will show by the values and adjustments that the scientists themselves make.

This is not pure physics. This requires value and judgment that is in no way present with your counter demonstration.

Now, the fact that this is a faulty method doesn't invalidate the claim, but the whole basis of the experiment is hardly objective and all it can show is what they put into the base model to begin with.

I'm sorry if I'm not being technical or clear enough, but that is the best I can explain it.

[sandy_mcd]

I'm going to have to bail on this one. I find the paper too hard to read.
However, the external forcings on sea surface temperature do include
1) Well-mixed greenhouse gases
2) Sulfate aerosols (direct effects)
3) Ozone
4) Solar irradiance
5) Volcanic aerosols

So these are natural as well as anthropogenic. The effects seem to be calculated rather than just made up (as your crosswind on the arrow). If you observe a change in solar irradiance, you can calculate the effect on SST; the calculation may not give the correct answer and it is hard or impossible to know what the correct answer is, but it doesn't seem to be just arbitrarily deciding that such-and-such a change is due to solar irradiance. Perhaps it is all finagled. I don't understand enough to say.

[Canuckster1127]

I'm going to have to bail on this one. I find the paper too hard to read.
However, the external forcings on sea surface temperature do include
1) Well-mixed greenhouse gases
2) Sulfate aerosols (direct effects)
3) Ozone
4) Solar irradiance
5) Volcanic aerosols

So these are natural as well as anthropogenic. The effects seem to be calculated rather than just made up (as your crosswind on the arrow). If you observe a change in solar irradiance, you can calculate the effect on SST; the calculation may not give the correct answer and it is hard or impossible to know what the correct answer is, but it doesn't seem to be just arbitrarily deciding that such-and-such a change is due to solar irradiance. Perhaps it is all finagled. I don't understand enough to say.

I'm not an expert on this either by any means.

I'd be happy in my meteorologist could manage a 60 - 70% accuracy on the weather tomorrow, let alone factor in all the variables to climate over hundreds of years and differentiate accurately what yis "natural" and what is created by humans.

[godslanguage]

I'd be happy in my meteorologist could manage a 60 - 70% accuracy on the weather tomorrow, let alone factor in all the variables to climate over hundreds of years and differentiate accurately what yis "natural" and what is created by humans.

Good Point Canukster, at least 20-30 percent of the time meteorologists are wrong about the weather, im not saying I wouldn't rely on the weather network, but I wouldn't say its a bulletproof system either primarily due to the unpredictable nature of the environment itself.

[sandy_mcd]

I'd be happy in my meteorologist could manage a 60 - 70% accuracy on the weather tomorrow, let alone factor in all the variables to climate over hundreds of years and differentiate accurately what yis "natural" and what is created by humans.

[Slight redirection of topic.]I disagree with this. In many cases short term predictions are much more difficult than long term predictions: volcano eruption or earthquake, erosion or uplift of mountain or ice, stock price, sports team performance, coin toss, etc. Using short term uncertainty to suggest that the long term is even less predictable is not in this case a valid line of argument.

[Canuckster1127]

I'd be happy in my meteorologist could manage a 60 - 70% accuracy on the weather tomorrow, let alone factor in all the variables to climate over hundreds of years and differentiate accurately what yis "natural" and what is created by humans.

[Slight redirection of topic.]I disagree with this. In many cases short term predictions are much more difficult than long term predictions: volcano eruption or earthquake, erosion or uplift of mountain or ice, stock price, sports team performance, coin toss, etc. Using short term uncertainty to suggest that the long term is even less predictable is not in this case a valid line of argument.

Intended as humor, not particularly a line of argument.

My concern with the primary article remains that the primary differences yielded in the report can only be those assumptions and extrapolations that the creators of the model input in the first place to create their baseline model.

[sandy_mcd]

Intended as humor, not particularly a line of argument.

oops, Getting me back for that "ad hominem" I see!

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Intended as humor, not particularly a line of argument.

My concern with the primary article remains that the primary differences yielded in the report can only be those assumptions and extrapolations that the creators of the model input in the first place to create their baseline model.

These assumptions are not by any means baseless. Is your only objection that these differences are based on inference?

In other words do you see an error in logic in the actual calculations themselves, or is your objection the, very fact that calculations had to be made?

[Canuckster1127]

Intended as humor, not particularly a line of argument.

oops, Getting me back for that "ad hominem" I see!

Nope. Would not do that ...... I just have to remember to put smiley's and winks in heavier. Tone just doesn't always communicate the way you wish it would.

[Canuckster1127]

Intended as humor, not particularly a line of argument.

My concern with the primary article remains that the primary differences yielded in the report can only be those assumptions and extrapolations that the creators of the model input in the first place to create their baseline model.

These assumptions are not by any means baseless. Is your only objection that these differences are based on inference?

In other words do you see an error in logic in the actual calculations themselves, or is your objection the, very fact that calculations had to be made?

I didn't say the assumptions were baseless. I said earlier above,

This doesn't mean, in my opinion, that there isn't validity to some of what they are saying. I think it probable that human activity and greenhouse gases do impact the environment.

I don't dispute either that human generated emissions "could" and likely "would" have some impact on the overall environment.

This is taking things a little further my opinion.

Note the Headline:

Human Activities Found To Affect Ocean Temperatures In Hurricane Formation Regions

The article then builds an argument that infers that the fequency and strength of hurricanes recently experienced is tied into this.

After making these claims then the methodology comes in below in terms of a computer model designed to reflect what current reality would be without said influences (interesting placement too, by the way .... here's what you should believe, we'll tell you why at the bottom if you're interested ........)

So you have the following variables in place to reach this conclusion which all have to be true or reliable within reasonable specifications:

1. That their data is accurate and accounts not only for all emissions but also for all counter-processes absorbing and utilizing these emissions.

2. That their model has identified accurately all natural, non-human emissions as well as with all counter-processes absorbing and utilizing these emissions as well, with differences (if any) between these processes and mad made-one accounted for accurately as well.

3. That the model itself, absent a knowable control, which is non-existent by definition can be relied upon in structure, degree and accuracy to produce a baseline non-human affected listing.

And, I'm only being partly humourous, but I wonder if they factored in that this is not a zero-sum games and that human impact in other areas must be factored out as well. For instance, Buffalos would still be in herds of millions roaming North America and farting methane like there's no tomorrow.

There's just too many inter-related processes in my mind, that require adjustment and factoring in if you're going to be accurate in this kind of scenario.

In the end, the parameters you enter into the climate scenario, asre going to be the results themselves when you proclaim the difference.

There's no way there enough information in that article, and it is questionable that there's enough controls and peer review in the method and results to be making that kind of claim in the clear, uncompromising terms that I read there.

Does that mean I deny the possibility or even the probability of Global Warming and the human impact in accelerating it? No. I have little doubt there is impact. My concern is there appears to be a socio-political agenda at work here proferring this as sound science, and I'm just not convinced.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I see your point.

Yes I would agree that this type of analysis would not lead to the definitve conclusion that the article implies.

However I was reacting to your circular argument comment. I don't think that you could characterize this analysis as circular.

[Canuckster1127]

I see your point.

Yes I would agree that this type of analysis would not lead to the definitve conclusion that the article implies.

However I was reacting to your circular argument comment. I don't think that you could characterize this analysis as circular.

I don't always state things as precisely as i would like. I'm working on it. This master's degree work, even though it is in a soft science is helping me to hone in on things better. I'll keep working on it.

[sandy_mcd]

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