08-23-2015, 08:26 PM
(08-23-2015, 08:10 PM)chuck white Wrote:(08-23-2015, 11:28 AM)solomon Wrote:(08-23-2015, 11:06 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:(08-23-2015, 10:38 AM)solomon Wrote: If the brand new argo buoys arent able to take accurate temperature readings and the data they return has to be "adjusted", then the people involved are either incompetent or liars. Either way, they should be marginalized.
One example of a failed (temporary) study does not an argument make.
I dont think they failed, seems to be working quite nicely. Smart guys can make an accurate fuel gauge for your car but cant make accurate thermometers? Seems like that calls into question their assertions, especially about the past.
can you provide more details, like how much are they adjusting and why?
Solomon, like all wise men retires early. So I'll post what he very well might have posted.
"David points out that the errors might be seriously miscalculated. A single ARGO buoy (which measures ocean temperatures down to 2000m) has an uncertainty of about 0.1C. But using 3,000 buoys doesn’t make that uncertainty dramatically smaller when all that data is combined together. It would, if the 3,000 buoys were all measuring the same swimming pool. But each buoy measures a different piece of ocean, and the ocean does not have one global temperature. Or it would if all the world’s ocean localities warmed by the same increment due to global warming, in each time period. But that would be a very brave assumption, because different parts of the world’s oceans probably warm at different rates due to global warming. So the measurement uncertainty is closer to the instrument error of 0.1C than the 0.004C as claimed by fans of man-made global crisis, and since the oceans have only warmed by about 0.02C (if that) since we’ve been measuring it with ARGO, that tiny amount of warming might just be noise. Going back further, the pre-ARGO data is so bad that longer datasets have much larger uncertainties."
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/05/ocean-t...gnificant/
(notice please that the heading reads, JoNova
Skeptical Science for dissident thinkers.
So, not exactly a "science site". Information is only as good as the source. Ah, the beauty of the Net: We keep searching util we find something that supports our argument.