How data is gathered

[Botnst]

Atlantic yields climate secrets
By Richard Black
Environment correspondent, BBC News website

Scientists have painted the first detailed picture of Atlantic ocean currents crucial to Europe's climate. Using instruments strung out across the Atlantic, a UK-led team shows that its circulation varies significantly over the course of a year. Writing in the journal Science, they say it may now be possible to detect changes related to global warming.

The Atlantic circulation brings warm water to Europe, keeping the continent 4-6C warmer than it would be otherwise. As the water reaches the cold Arctic, it sinks, returning southwards deeper in the ocean.

Some computer models of climate change predict this Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation, of which the Gulf Stream is the best-known component, could weaken severely or even stop completely as global temperatures rise, a scenario taken to extremes in the Hollywood movie The Day After Tomorrow.

Last year the same UK-led team published evidence that the circulation may have weakened by about 30% over half a century. But that was based on historical records from just five sampling expeditions, raising concerns that the data was not robust enough to provide a clear-cut conclusion.

Rapid changes

The key for scientists, then, has been to measure and understand how the circulation varies naturally, making it much easier to pick out any changes related to man-made global warming.

Meridional Overturning Circulation and Heatflux Array) project; and its first results show that the circulation varies substantially, by a factor of eight, even during a single year.

"I think this is a major step forward for our understanding of ocean circulation," said Stuart Cunningham from the National Oceanography Centre (NOC) in Southampton, one of the project's senior scientists.

"The Atlantic Ocean carries a quarter of the global northwards heat flux, so having the information to plug into climate models will be a major adddition," he told the BBC News website.

But measuring long-term variation is, if anything, even more important. Man-made warming could drive the flow downwards, but so could natural climate cycles such as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. All five of the historical flow values documented in last year's paper, for example, fit within the range of variability measured here, making it very hard to argue that these observations found a long-term trend.

"We will measure very quickly any sudden shifts," commented NOC's Professor Harry Bryden.

"We already think we can define changes bigger than two Sverdrups (about 10% of the average flow; one Sverdrup (Sv) is defined as a flow of one million cubic metres of water per second).

"But the reality is that anything we measure over 10 years even is going to be labelled interannual variability at the moment."

Making the measurements has not been a trivial matter.

Early in 2004, NOC researchers deployed 19 sets of instruments during a voyage across the Atlantic at 26.5 degrees North, from the north-western coast of Africa to the Bahamas. US investigators subsequently installled further moorings on the western side of the ocean.

Each set of instruments is strung out along a cable which is tethered to the sea floor at the bottom end, and to a float at the top. The exact instruments used vary between moorings, but typically they measure flow, salinity, temperature and water pressure.

The instruments were left in place for just over a year, then the team made a second cruise to recover data. This has given researchers a real-time picture of water flows inside the ocean, from top to bottom and side to side. But this is just part of the mechanism transporting heat northwards from the tropics to the western shores of Europe.

At 26.5N, the Gulf Stream itself shoots along a narrow channel between the Bahamas and the coast of Florida. The strength of this has been measured for decades using a disused submarine telephone cable - as sea water, an electrical conductor, flows over the cable, it induces a voltage which is continuously measured by scientists in Miami.

A third component of the circulation is movement at the ocean's surface driven by winds, which can be measured nowadays by satellite. The scientists had to combine these three datasets to calculate the average flow northwards, and by how much it varies.

[TheDon]

Boring

[LaRondo]

Originally Posted by TheDon

Boring

Right.
Did you ever watch that 'debt-money' animation?

[TheDon]

I think so

[t walgamuth]

Interesting.

What have they found?

Tom W

[Matt L]

"How data are gathered."

[LaRondo]

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Interesting.

What have they found?

Tom W

Only Mr. B knows.

[POS]

In my short 38 years on this planet, one constant is that scientists are dumbasses - they think they know the answers even when they have limited data, then they blurt out premature conclusions. The earth's systems are far to complex for them to figure out, and they won't admit it.

[Botnst]

^^^ How long would you think it takes to acquire global data that are useful for evaluating global phenomena?

Should scientists NOT develop working hypotheses while gathering more data?

Take for example, evolution. Few scientists doubt that organic evolution is real. But constraints on collecting unambiguous, irrefutable data will likely result in logical ambiguities remaining in the theory. Perhaps forever probably not. Should the theory of evolution not be taught? Should scientists not use it as a framework for understanding life because it is not irrefutably proven to be true in all instances?

Let's say that the scientists eventually gather sufficient data to disprove the human cause of global warming. Does that mean the scientists wasted time and money gathering data?

We're all taxpayers and citizens of some country or other. We are the folks who ultimately pay for these things. Is it a waste of money? Who decides which projects are a waste of money?

B

[POS]

I didn't mean that they should stop what they're doing - your point is very valid. I probably should have said, never take anything a scientist says as fact.

[waybomb]

I just read somewhere the other day that NASA has edited their climate data from the time period since 1980 because of errors in collection techniques. I believe the total temperature gain since then was off by 0.15C. That is a significant error if the total rise was alleged to be 0.5C.

And no, I wasn't thinking of mercedesshop OD when I read it, so I did not keep the link to post here.

[mgburg]

Originally Posted by Botnst

...Should scientists NOT develop working hypotheses while gathering more data?...

I don't see any problem with sceientists developing anything, working or not working, as hypotheses...

Originally Posted by Botnst

...Take for example, evolution. Few scientists doubt that organic evolution is real. But constraints on collecting unambiguous, irrefutable data will likely result in logical ambiguities remaining in the theory.? ...

What ever the constraints on collecting the data are, BEFORE that data (lame or unambiguous it may be) should then be put to KNOWN litmus tests to be sure that what's being taught as "theory" is grounded in the substantial foundations of science, not mere conjecture being passed off as foundational science.

Originally Posted by Botnst

...Should the theory of evolution not be taught? ...

IMO, that genie has been out of the bottle for too long of a time to dismiss it as a hoax or puff...but, every so often, a little piece of litmus paper comes to light proving that there are a few kinks in the "evolutionary armour" of facts.

Originally Posted by Botnst

...Should scientists not use it as a framework for understanding life because it is not irrefutably proven to be true in all instances?...

Scientists should use it as an adjunct to other teachings, not as the only "true" teaching...faith and fact can equally be presented if the presenter him/her-self doesn't favor one over the other...much easier to type and say than to practice though...

Originally Posted by Botnst

...Let's say that the scientists eventually gather sufficient data to disprove the human cause of global warming. Does that mean the scientists wasted time and money gathering data?...

No. What it means is they did, and will continue to do, what scientists are suppose to do. The real question is: "Who is to pay?"

Originally Posted by Botnst

...We're all taxpayers and citizens of some country or other. We are the folks who ultimately pay for these things. Is it a waste of money? Who decides which projects are a waste of money? B

Waste of money? Each project is a petri dish waiting for the right "swab" to grace its "enclosure" - if you will. The waste of money part is really in the eye of the beholder. What is sacred to one is a waste to another. That argument will continue ad-infinitum, ad-nauseum...

The real litmus test for a project's validity in the world of science should be: No "government" handouts...let private industry do the "R & D" - the government has preverted the process so bad now that all the press has to do now is look around, just a little, and they'll find dozens of illogically-preceived projects just waiting for someone to take a base-ball bat to it, and its souce of funding, in a public forum.

Ex-Senator William Proxmire (D-WI.) made these things famous with his "Golden Fleese Awards" back in the 70s and 80s, before he "retired" before the onset of the Congressional Banking Scandal (He was the chair of the Senate Banking Committee at the time).

Talk about your timing...

Is all government funding of science projects full of fraud? I'm not saying that it is...but there should have been safe-guards in place where the public's money is concerned...and until that situation is corrected and vigorously, but fairly, enforced, I say "Stop the bleeding."

And, quit putting out press releases telling everyone on the planet that a cochroach stubbed its antenna - so IYOO, that little incident means that "Global Warming" is as close to being a terminal reality as Al Gore is to remaining a spokespersons (intended pluralization) for the "Carbon-Big-Foot-Prints-Tree-Hugger-Flower-Power-PETA" panic crowd.

Gawd knows he needs to be on TV and Radio more now than at any time in the past...

[Medmech]

Originally Posted by Botnst

^^^ How long would you think it takes to acquire global data that are useful for evaluating global phenomena?


We're all taxpayers and citizens of some country or other. We are the folks who ultimately pay for these things. Is it a waste of money? Who decides which projects are a waste of money?

B

I don't. Scientists are using data acquired by governments from long ago, who paid the oldest scientists? If Democritus of Abdera was not paid by the Greek GUV how much would we know about the atomic theory, Aristotle or Galileo's attempts to solve the Longitude problem?

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by POS

I didn't mean that they should stop what they're doing - your point is very valid. I probably should have said, never take anything a scientist says as fact.

That is wisdom. I wish more scientists would sign on to it.

B

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by Howitzer

I don't. Scientists are using data acquired by governments from long ago, who paid the oldest scientists? If Democritus of Abdera was not paid by the Greek GUV how much would we know about the atomic theory, Aristotle or Galileo's attempts to solve the Longitude problem?

Until the 19th century, most science was conducted by gentlemen-natural philosophers or by very worthy commoners (or poor nobility) who could ingratiate themselves with some prince or other who wished to be known as a patron of brilliant men who did great things.

With the advent of free market capitalism, entrepreneurs began hiring scientists in the 19th century. Some entreneuers (and some scientists and engineers who became rich from their inventions) endowed universities to defray the expenses of university scientists. These are called, "Endowed Chairs" -- which makes me think of a chair with big breasts. Then the land grant system really started kicking-in some serious cash to public universities and they began major research, mostly in agricultural and mechanical engineering (like LSU A&M, Texas A&M, etc).

Then WWII opened the federal treasury through the War Department which resulted in science (mostly chemistry and physics) and engineering (mechanical, electrical, & aeronautical) becoming increasingly funded for weapons projects of various sorts.

At the present time, I don't think anybody who does science or engineering in any university is without some taint from the funding source. And if you think about it, that taint has always been the case. Everybody except a few eccentric rich geniuses has to suck-up to some agency or some fatcat to get money for their research.

So when we say we don't trust science funded by say, oil companies, who do you think should fund the science, Greenpeace? The government? Some rich guy? Which of those sources is without a certain perspective that might influence the researcher?

B