PDA

View Full Version : Do the models work for the oceans?



Glom
2005-Sep-23, 10:28 PM
Apparently. (http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666)

Thoughts?

The article doesn't give us much to work with. As valid as his results may be, the article seems to be trying to make too much of a smoking gun out of it, which seems anti-scientific. If they had simply said his work provided validation for climate models, it may have come across better. There is the issue of why the models should work for the oceans and not the atmosphere.

Fred Singer commented on it here (http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2005/Feb.%2026.htm) although I'm not sure what to make of that either.

jkmccrann
2005-Dec-14, 12:39 PM
Scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, and their colleagues have produced the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world's oceans, a finding they say removes much of the uncertainty associated with debates about global warming.


I find that a very interesting statement to make, I suspect no matter what their results say there's still a fair bit of debate out there about exactly this topic.

Still, they're obviously well-versed in the ways that the oceans transfer and convect heat, so I wouldn't dismiss their study, it sounds like a valuable contribution to the whole debate. But claiming the removal of uncertainty given the results of their study does sounds like a little bit of hyperbole.

Hugh Jass
2005-Dec-14, 06:06 PM
I think this is a great example of how good science can be political. What thread was that? fundamentalism in science? Any way like I said there, science isn't just an accumulation of evidence that speaks for itself, the evidence needs interpretation within the interpretation there is room for personal opinion and belief to slip in. I personally don't doubt their models, SCRIPPS knows oceans, but I'll wait till this is critiqued and reviewed by others before I got spouting it off as some fact I came across somewhere.

On that note, why does this happen so often when there is mounds of contradictory evidence out there supporting either side of a debate, someone comes along and thinks “Hey I’ve found it, the one bit of evidence that will put this whole thing to rest, I’m right!” When in fact it is just one more piece to the pile.

dgruss23
2005-Dec-14, 06:18 PM
I think this is a great example of how good science can be political. What thread was that? fundamentalism in science? Any way like I said there, science isn't just an accumulation of evidence that speaks for itself, the evidence needs interpretation within the interpretation there is room for personal opinion and belief to slip in.

Well said!


On that note, why does this happen so often when there is mounds of contradictory evidence out there supporting either side of a debate, someone comes along and thinks Hey Ive found it, the one bit of evidence that will put this whole thing to rest, Im right! When in fact it is just one more piece to the pile.

I think your previous point is part of the answer. The empirical evidence is what it is. It is in the arena of interpretation (within the uncertainty of the empirical data) where the debate lies. And in the area of interpretation personal opinion can creep into the debate.

However, I think you have to keep in mind that not everyone finds the results of a new study and concludes that the new piece of data puts the debate to rest. What more often will happen is a person will point out that a new study seems to add support to the theory they believe is more correct at the expense of the alterative(s). This is a completely reasonable approach to take with new results as long as the comments can be logically defended.

Taks
2005-Dec-14, 10:21 PM
i have seen the scripps paper (it was posted somewhere in the latest and greatest GW thread) but have not seen any analysis of the conclusions. actually, i haven't seen the paper, i saw the "press release" or whatever that mentioned it (glom's link is the same as the previous link).

in essense, it looks like they've created a model that shows how warming penetrates into the ocean. now, i'd like to see a model that is capable of replicating past cycles as well. also, it would seem they are only showing correlation with warming and ocean trends, not really anthropogenic influence... perhaps their conclusions are a bit premature?

taks

Taks
2005-Dec-14, 10:25 PM
btw, singer hit the nail on the head... how did barnett manage to rule out solar activity since the oceans are a heat sink for such things... hmmmm.

his final comment is "I am curious to see if this paper is published with its conclusions intact."

is it published yet?

taks