"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

[snip]

You're talking about one measurement path, a Great Circle, which may
or
may
not cross numerous currents, the initiation site for El Nino, and so
on.
From that you're trying to draw a conclusion about global warming. You
don't
know if the pattern between here and NZ is pro-cyclical or
counter-cyclical
to the earth's temperature as a whole. You are talking about a
measurement
taken over a short span of years, while the data being looked at by
serious
scientists is data from decades at least, and hundreds of years in
some
cases.

Well, I don't have a dog in the debate from which this is taken, but I
will add
that it is not impossible to disentangle all those things. What is
done
is the acoustic equivalent of computerized tomography.

Here is a random article dredged up by google:
http://jjap.ipap.jp/link?JJAP/40/5446/.

Joe Gwinn

Joe, I'm going to skip the article, because there are 2,000 or 3,000 that
I'd have to read first.

Not if the intent is to understand the method.

Hey, Joe, I got curious and took a look at it. What in the hell are you
talking about here? Of COURSE temperature differentials result in sound
velocity differentials. That wasn't the question. Nor are statistical
sampling methods part of the question.

The question is, what is the effect of all of the variables upon ocean
temperature, current temperatures and paths, and their cyclical or
countercyclical relation to worldwide global warming? What's causing warming
or cooling along that linear path, and how does it relate to the overall
effect?

The article doesn't touch upon that. What it DOES do is explain a method for
measuring temperature with the velocity proxy. They've been able to do that
for 100 years, by my guess. This is just a quick and simple method, as the
article's title describes.

--
Ed Huntress