Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday August 21 2019, @12:25AM   Printer-friendly
from the that's-science-for-you dept.

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/scientists-have-been-underestimating-the-pace-of-climate-change/

Recently, the U.K. Met Office announced a revision to the Hadley Center historical analysis of sea surface temperatures (SST), suggesting that the oceans have warmed about 0.1 degree Celsius more than previously thought. The need for revision arises from the long-recognized problem that in the past sea surface temperatures were measured using a variety of error-prone methods such as using open buckets, lamb's wool–wrapped thermometers, and canvas bags. It was not until the 1990s that oceanographers developed a network of consistent and reliable measurement buoys.

[...] But that's where the good news ends. Because the oceans cover three fifths of the globe, this correction implies that previous estimates of overall global warming have been too low. Moreover it was reported recently that in the one place where it was carefully measured, the underwater melting that is driving disintegration of ice sheets and glaciers is occurring far faster than predicted by theory—as much as two orders of magnitude faster—throwing current model projections of sea level rise further in doubt.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Troll) by qzm on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:16AM (15 children)

    by qzm (3260) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:16AM (#882912)

    No, you dont seem to understand..

    Old people are stupid. They could never read a thermometer correctly.
    In fact, the further you go back, the more stupid they were, and they got the reading more and more wrong.
    The interesting bit is that they always got the reading wrong in one direction - they always read a higher temperature.
    So, the only way to fix this is to assume that since older people are more stupid, and they always over-read.. An adjustment MUST be required, and the real temperature was colder the further back you go.

    How do they prove this? Models of course! If it wasnt true, then their models wouldnt show what they do.. so it MUST be true.

    And if the models dont match next years measurements? More adjustments! Not to the models, but to the historical data - thats the ticket!

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=2, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:33AM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:33AM (#882915)

    Must not feed the trolls...

    Old people may not be as stupid as you appear but technology is always
    evolving and getting more accurate. In the old days we all used
    analogue weight scales which are accurate to plus or minus 1 lb, now
    we use digital scales accurate to .01 pound, and my cheap digital
    calipers are (reasonably) good to .001 mm. It is entirely possible
    that earlier measuring techniques were .01C high, that's the
    definition of bias in measuring, and happens all the time. In, fact
    it's not even hard to check the two tools side by side.

    Meanwhile we have record heat waves with temperature increasing on the
    order of .05 C EVERY summer, so the whole point about .01 C is moot.

    • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:41AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:41AM (#882917)

      According to:

      https://time.com/5635062/europe-heatwave-temperature-records/ [time.com]

      The average U.K. summer temperature between 2008-2017 has risen by 0.7ºC

    • (Score: 1, Offtopic) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday August 21 2019, @04:39AM (4 children)

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @04:39AM (#882965) Journal
      • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 21 2019, @05:42PM (1 child)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @05:42PM (#883241) Journal

        Wow, impressive, a double-cherry-pick!

        1: Heatwaves can decrease while the average increases.
        2: The US is not the globe.

        • (Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Friday August 23 2019, @06:50PM

          by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Friday August 23 2019, @06:50PM (#884285) Journal

          The post I was responding to said

          Meanwhile we have record heat waves with temperature increasing on the
          order of .05 C EVERY summer..

          My link regarding heatwaves was on-topic and not a cherry-pick at all. Their post said nothing about region. There's a good chance they meant the US. Anyway, a lot of US people are unaware of the long-term heat wave trend, so I posted the link for them to check it out.

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 21 2019, @05:46PM (1 child)

        by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday August 21 2019, @05:46PM (#883242) Journal

        From your link:

        The frequency of intense heat waves (4-day, 1-in-5 year events) has generally increased since the 1960s in most regions except the Midwest and the Great Plains. , Since the early 1980s (Figure 6.4), there is suggestive evidence of a slight increase in the intensity of heat waves nationwide as well as an increase in the concurrence of droughts and heat waves.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @06:39AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @06:39AM (#882993)

      ..In the old days we all used analogue weight scales which are accurate to plus or minus 1 lb, now we use digital scales accurate to .01 pound..

      Oh FFS, having spent a hell of a lot of time in chemical labs weighing all sorts of stuff to fractions of grammes using analogue mechanical balance scales, that statement is just so full of shit I don't know where to start, does the name Sartorius (the name I'm most familiar with) mean anything to you?, if not, google them..and while you're doing that, find the Wikipedia page on Weighing scales and have a read.

      ...and my cheap digital calipers are (reasonably) good to .001 mm.

      And, how would you know? Ever checked them out against a certified thickness standard ?
      There is a world of difference in the real vs stated accuracies of cheapo calipers and those of their more expensive bretheren (I've always liked those made by Mitutoyo, can't afford them for home abuse though)

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @07:10AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @07:10AM (#883003)

        Just how accurately do you need to measure the size of your penis?

        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @11:26AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @11:26AM (#883055)

          Just how accurately do you need to measure the size of your penis?

          Well, using the smallest apposite available units, that'll be to the nearest treble digit whole multiple of the size of your fully erect member...thanks for asking..or were you meaning the erect size?....be more specific.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @11:39AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @11:39AM (#883058)

          The dangers of posting using a mobile phone with a borked touchscreen...that was supposed to read

          '..home workshop abuse..'

          (But, as you've now mentioned it.....)

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:55PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 21 2019, @02:55PM (#883151) Journal

      Oh, please - they were weighing grams in the 17th century. Molar weights and masses were understood by a guy who died in 1910 . . .

      History of the atomic mass unit

      Stanislao Cannizzaro (1826�1910), the pioneer in this field, adopted the hydrogen atom as a standard of mass and set its atomic weight at 2. Others accepted the idea of using a specific atom as a standard of mass, but preferred a more massive standard in order to reduce experimental error.

      As early as 1850, chemists used a unit of atomic weight based on saying the atomic weight of oxygen was 16. Oxygen was chosen because it forms chemical compounds with many other elements, simplifying determination of their atomic weights. Sixteen was chosen because it was the lowest whole number that could be assigned to oxygen and still have an atomic weight for hydrogen that was not less than 1.

      The 0=16 scale was formalized when a committee appointed by the Deutsche Chemische Gesellschaft called for the formation of an international commission on atomic weights in March 1899. A commission of 57 members was formed. Since the commission carried on its business by correspondence, the size proved unwieldy, and the Gesellschaft suggested a smaller committee be elected. A 3-member International Committee of Atomic Weights was duly elected, and in 1903 issued its first report, using the 0=16 scale.5

      https://chemistry.oregonstate.edu/courses/ch121-3s/ch121/Answers%20to%20interesting%20questions/history_of_the_atomic_mass_unit.htm [oregonstate.edu]

      Let us note that small measurements like the gram were discovered/invented in France in the 17th century, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the Egyptians, Babylonians, Chinese, or some forgotten culture didn't have something like it first.

  • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @03:02AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 21 2019, @03:02AM (#882922)

    I see you inherited your stupidity from your parents.