Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
New method of calculating ocean heat
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17507

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 4:31 am    Post subject: New method of calculating ocean heat Reply with quote

Ignoring that it was botched, I'm wondering if anyone can explain the method, or reference some documentation for laymen. Specifically:
1 wrote:
calculated heat based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide rising off the ocean, filling round glass flasks with air collected at research stations around the globe.


The old method seems as if it would be more reliable (actual measurements vs. calculated "guesses"), but inconveniently requiring more effort:
1 wrote:
Much of the data on ocean temperatures currently relies on the Argo array, robotic devices that float at different depths. The program, which started in 2000, has gaps in coverage.


The error was found and acknowledged quickly, but initially thought to be minor (?) We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error. [2]

(1) Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

(2) Study: Ocean Warming Detected from Atmospheric Gas Measurements
(Initial Scripps article, updated with acknowledgment of error.)
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Marcih
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 19 Feb 2018
Posts: 129

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 9:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd just stick a thermometer in and save the funds.
_________________
Bones McCracker wrote:
It wouldn't be so bad, if it didn't suck.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrbassie
Guru
Guru


Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 508

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 10:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Who needs a thermometer? A simple dipped toe was sufficient for millenia.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 474
Location: The Maldives

PostPosted: Fri Nov 23, 2018 3:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I will wait till the end of the eve. Then noone will know I was reading here, and then I can, like a worm in a can, pop out and tell the truth ©

Truth be told, I have little faith in biased science.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 474
Location: The Maldives

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yup, biased

Might show another perspective of what the error is all about.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
zixnub
n00b
n00b


Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Posts: 67
Location: Brasschaat, Belgium

PostPosted: Thu Dec 06, 2018 6:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
Yup, biased

Might show another perspective of what the error is all about.


"One Man's Discovery Sinks Major Climate Study"

Scientists hate him!!
_________________
https://github.com/udevbe/greenfield
https://github.com/udevbe/westfield
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17507

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 5:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

patrix_neo wrote:
Yup, biased

Might show another perspective of what the error is all about.
Doesn't explain the measurement, or add anything. The date is Nov 15Th, after acknowledgment of the error.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 474
Location: The Maldives

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
patrix_neo wrote:
Yup, biased

Might show another perspective of what the error is all about.
Doesn't explain the measurement, or add anything. The date is Nov 15Th, after acknowledgment of the error.


Does this vid not tell a wrong?
You are in for a surprise, if you do not see it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17507

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It isn't relevant to the question I asked (and therefor not relevant to the thread). I didn't see that it added anything useful to what I had already referenced.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
patrix_neo
Guru
Guru


Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 474
Location: The Maldives

PostPosted: Fri Dec 07, 2018 9:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
It isn't relevant to the question I asked (and therefor not relevant to the thread). I didn't see that it added anything useful to what I had already referenced.


Then I am sorry. I thought some other perspective to the subject at hand could mean something....NOT being sarcastic...no...may...nope!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sugar
Guru
Guru


Joined: 07 Aug 2004
Posts: 579
Location: Morrinsville, New Zealand

PostPosted: Thu Dec 13, 2018 6:54 am    Post subject: Re: New method of calculating ocean heat Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
Ignoring that it was botched, I'm wondering if anyone can explain the method, or reference some documentation for laymen. Specifically:
1 wrote:
calculated heat based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide rising off the ocean, filling round glass flasks with air collected at research stations around the globe.


The old method seems as if it would be more reliable (actual measurements vs. calculated "guesses"), but inconveniently requiring more effort:
1 wrote:
Much of the data on ocean temperatures currently relies on the Argo array, robotic devices that float at different depths. The program, which started in 2000, has gaps in coverage.


The error was found and acknowledged quickly, but initially thought to be minor (?) We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error. [2]

(1) Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

(2) Study: Ocean Warming Detected from Atmospheric Gas Measurements
(Initial Scripps article, updated with acknowledgment of error.)


I'm not an expert.

We're not wanting to know temperature change, we want to know the thermal energy in the oceans, so we can work out the change in thermal energy over time. The oceans are not a consistent temperature throughout (i.e. it is not homogeneous), so we can get an idea of the total energy if we measure the temperature at number of points around the ocean, which we do, but we don't have enough sensors measuring this, and over time we've had less/more sensors, so there is a massive experimental error involved in this method.

We can measure oxygen very accurately in a sample. Also, the gasses in the atmosphere are a lot more homogeneous, and this is something we've been measuring already since the early 90s. Thanks to diffusion of soluble gasses in the ocean, we can get an indication of the ocean as a whole by just looking at O and CO.

Either way, this new method (after the correction) and other older methods seems to be in the same ball park, which helps validate the new and older methods.

actual study

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8.epdf?........&tracking_referrer=www.realclimate.org
(EDIT: Reformatted the url tag to present a much shorter portion of the url. --pjp)

if anyone knows more, please feel free to correct me.
_________________
He who calls for full employment calls for war!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 17507

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2018 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the response. I edited your url tag to make it a reasonable width (but left visible the important parts). Unfortunately nothing shows (I've drastically reduced the amount of js I allow to virtually none).

I "get" the 100k foot view of what they wanted to achieve, but I guess it depends on what they want to achieve with it. Is that thermal mass the same concept as with buildings? How much heat the ocean can store?

I'm not questioning the actual measurements... "this sample contains this percentage mixture." But it seems like surface measurements would be significantly affected by surface conditions. In the effort to gather more data, it seems possible to gather more data of lower quality.
_________________
It is what it is out there. So whatever it is, it is.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum