4 ms·
The lede is buried at the end of the article: > Much of the data on ocean temperatures currently relies on the Argo array — robotic devices that float at diffe
by anothergoogler 8y ago
The lede is buried at the end of the article:
> Much of the data on ocean temperatures currently relies on the Argo array — robotic devices that float at different depths, surfacing roughly every 10 days to transmit readings to satellites. There are about 3,800 such pieces of equipment in waters around the globe that provide the publicly available information...
> By comparison, Resplandy and Keeling calculated heat based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide rising off the ocean. Filling round glass flasks with air from research stations in the Canadian Arctic, Tasmania and La Jolla, San Diego, researchers analyzed the samples to determine the aggregate temperature of the ocean.
On what grounds is three samples of a novel measurement preferable to a few thousand direct temperature measurements? I mean in terms of reliability, not ability to generate clicks.
- nikdaheratik 8y ago1. There's more than 3 samples. And they picked the locations for taking these samples very carefully. 2. They're measuring different things, obviously. One is measuring the mixture of gasses, the other is pure temperature. The gas measurement is good for getting a picture of the entire system because it allows us to use basic chemistry, which is well understood, to gain a picture of the overall temperature change by looking at how much gas has escaped the ocean. The ocean temperature data, while very useful, can still be subject to both sampling errors and problems with the analysis as far as how to interpret it in aggregate. Especially since you have to put overall weather patterns, like El Nino / La Nina, etc. into your analysis. There's always going to be uncertainty into how you should do analysis of the data over so many disparate points.