"A range of different techniques has been used to measure muck pile movement but they have demonstrated mixed success. The methods range from an assortment of passive markers (such as sand bags, chain and poly-pipe) to expensive electronic sensors, but all of these systems suffer from either insufficient accuracy or poor practicality. A common technique used in the Australian gold industry is to drill additional holes within a blast area and insert long lengths of poly-pipe. The blast is then excavated in horizontal layers referred to as 'flitches' and the location of the poly-pipes can be monitored in relation to ore locations. The use of passive markers is typically not published in the open literature, but rather is done in an ad hoc manner by individuals as required" -- Thornton et al. 'Measuring Blast Movement to Reduce Ore Loss And Dilution' Calculate 10 Ma time flitches using W/R ratios of 10, 100 and 500 for the heat addition to the oceans, oceanic pH changes and CO2 additions to bottom waters by alteration of sea floor rocks to greenschist and amphibolite facies assemblages, the cooling of new submarine volcanic rocks (including MORBs) and the heat, CO2 and CH4 additions from springs and gas vents since the opening of the Atlantic Ocean. -- Ian Plimer (to George Monbiot).
As you can [see,] when you increase atmospheric CO2 this has the effect of increasing the acidity of the ocean [H+] which in turn decreases the carbonate [CO3 2-] concentration. Carbonate is what sea life builds shells from, and in the end coral reefs. If carbonate decreases that means fewer shells on the beach, no huge deal, no coral reefs, bad, but worse it means that the biological pump could be weakened. Eli Rabett Rabett Run
[6:16 PM] Show me your ocean pH study, with 6 sigma gage R & R for both temporal and spatial variation . Post it here, show the world.[6:17 PM] Heck, I'd even take 2 sigma gage R & R. Show me. -- Steve Sadlov
Since I suspect most people not interested in the auto industry or industrial quality control had no idea what the troll was babbling about, it's "6 Sigma™ Gauge Repeatibility and Reproducibility", a trendy bit of Motorola crap for industrial gauges (no, really, industrial gauges) pushed by the Automotive Industry Action Group.
. . .
Scientific data has the accuracy it has. Analysis of scientific data has the confidence it has. Statistical inferences have the confidence and accuracy THEY have. These are derived from the conditions under which the data is gathered as well as the methods.
To bring up a standard such as "we want your numbers to go out to 6 standard deviations according to calculations that don't even apply (hence the troll's bizarre use of inapt buzzwords) because Jack Welch at GE said so 15 years ago, and if not, we have the preemptive right to pollute the atmosphere and destroy as much ocean and land as we feel like" simply tags you as a downer troll with probable Troll Spongiform Encephalopathy.-- Marion Delgado
I assumed he was being sarcastic, because of the obvious stupidity of the question. -- guthrie of calcinations
No, guthrie, he's a quite serious nutbar troll. He is, OTOH, representative of a class of denialist commenters who believe that climate science is falsified unless it can be explained to engineers in engineering terms, which in turn is somewhat reflective of an apparently-common belief among engineers that they are really smarter than those know-it-all eggheads. -- Steve Bloom
Marion, you are correct.
Wikipedia has this to say about 6 sigma engineering standards:
Processes that operate with "six sigma quality" over the short term are assumed to produce long-term defect levels below 3.4 defects per million opportunities (DPMO)
Presumably, what Sadlov is suggesting is that the uncertainty of a scientific result would be known to within 3.4 parts in 1,000,000 or, in other words, with 99.99966% certainty.
With a standard like that applied to climate science, is it any wonder that these people deny that global warming is real?
It is kooky, but most of the people who push this crap have no clue how kooky they sound. -- (anonymous commenter)
Expecting manufacturing-level uncertainty from Earth sciences makes perfect sense provided that one believes that the Earth was created by an intelligent designer. -- Chuck Magee
Plimer, an Australian mining geologist, demands that climate science be explained to him in Australian mining geology terms or stand refuted. This is similar to a quality-control-engineering-oriented skeptic on the Rabett Run blog demanding that decreased ocean pH be shown "with 6 sigma gage R & R for both temporal and spatial variation."
Moreover, a million-year "time flitch" is an analogy of an analogy, since the Australian mining term derives from slices made in trees to obtain veneer. Furthermore, simultaneous presentation of all the variables of oceanic heat change, ocean pH, rock metamorphosis, ocean floor temperature change, etc. simultaneously against a background of million-year epochs of time since the opening of the Atlantic, defined by sideways mining extractions and crossed with 3 arbitrary ratios of water to rock (the W/R ratios in the problem) would clearly be too complex to present meaningfully even in an online debate, even if the problem was meaningful. Possibly the implied conclusion is that if an environmental journalist can't present an acceptable response to this, mining geologists like Plimer win the day and there is no anthropogenic climate change.
Similarly, the researchers who measure ocean pH have no customer target to add units of market value for without production unit failure, have measurements that are useful instead of precise to 6 places/accurate to 6 s.d.s (which they could be if, for instance, they used the mega-degree K as a base unit), and fully expect error as long as it's not biased. Moreover, those who do QC engineering don't get to define their failures on vaguely specified spatial and temporal charts, but as simple quantities; yet a climate-blogging physical chemist and his cited sources must figure out a way to do so or the oceans are not becoming more acidic.
Notice that both skeptics demand a response on their terms, in their terminology, and with very particular, if not eccentric, variables and parameters that they don't explain. This is quite similar to the debates between evolutionists and creationists.
<ref>tags exist, but no
<references/>tag was found