Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming

[FreeWits]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...warming/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f3ec3a661dc

TL;DR: Scientists overestimated the uncertainty of global warming, and came up with a conclusion that vastly overestimates the impact of global warming yet again.

 

[Jack Hays]

Question now is whether the paper will be withdrawn.

 

[FreeWits]

Question now is whether the paper will be withdrawn.

I'm assuming it has been. The paper talks about how there at least were corrections, and the authors admit to making mistakes. That's good enough for me.

 

[Jack Hays]

I'm assuming it has been. The paper talks about how there at least were corrections, and the authors admit to making mistakes. That's good enough for me.

Formal withdrawal is a more elaborate process, I think.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Not sure there is much of an issue here. An error was made in the math impacting degree of the conclusion but the conclusion itself is still the same. Oceans are warming and the rate of warming has increased.

Further the OP's article points out those responsible for the study gave a "exemplary" response also recognizing the difficulty and "hostility" in this area of study.

 

[Jack Hays]

Not sure there is much of an issue here. An error was made in the math impacting degree of the conclusion but the conclusion itself is still the same. Oceans are warming and the rate of warming has increased.

Further the OP's article points out those responsible for the study gave a "exemplary" response also recognizing the difficulty and "hostility" in this area of study.

I suggest you read again. The authors cannot conclude the rate of warming has increased.

 

[Surface Detail]

I suggest you read again. The authors cannot conclude the rate of warming has increased.

I suggest you read again:

"The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors."

 

[Jack Hays]

I suggest you read again:

"The central conclusion of the study — that oceans are retaining ever more energy as more heat is being trapped within Earth’s climate system each year — is in line with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it hasn’t changed much despite the errors."

That's fine, but the sharp increase in warming ballyhooed in the initial release is now gone.

 

[Surface Detail]

That's fine, but the sharp increase in warming ballyhooed in the initial release is now gone. Moreover, since they are now in a public dialogue with Nic Lewis I doubt their basic trend line will survive the next round either.

It's interesting to note that real scientists actually acknowledge any errors that are found and correct them. Unlike the denier crowd, who keep repeating their numerous misunderstandings and mistakes ad nauseam and steadfastly refuse to be corrected.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's interesting to note that real scientists actually acknowledge any errors that are found and correct them. Unlike the denier crowd, who keep repeating their numerous misunderstandings and mistakes ad nauseam and steadfastly refuse to be corrected.

Blogger: 1 "Consensus": 0

Resplandy et al. correction and response « RealClimate


www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/.../resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/



4 hours ago - I, with the other co-authors of Resplandy et al (2018), want to address ... errors in the O2 measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation. ... L. Resplandy, R.F. Keeling, Y. Eddebbar, M.K. Brooks, R. Wang, ...

"We would like to thank Nicholas Lewis for first bringing an apparent anomaly in the trend calculation to our attention. We quickly realized that our calculations incorrectly treated systematic errors in the O[SUB]2[/SUB] measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation. This led to under-reporting of the overall uncertainty and also caused the ocean heat uptake to be shifted high through the application of a weighted least squares fit. In addition, we realized that the uncertainties in the assumption of a constant land O[SUB]2[/SUB]:C exchange ratio of 1.1 in the calculation of the APO trend had not been propagated through to the final trend."

 

[Surface Detail]

Blogger: 1 "Consensus": 0

Resplandy et al. correction and response « RealClimate


www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/.../resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/



4 hours ago - I, with the other co-authors of Resplandy et al (2018), want to address ... errors in the O2 measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation. ... L. Resplandy, R.F. Keeling, Y. Eddebbar, M.K. Brooks, R. Wang, ...

"We would like to thank Nicholas Lewis for first bringing an apparent anomaly in the trend calculation to our attention. We quickly realized that our calculations incorrectly treated systematic errors in the O[SUB]2[/SUB] measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation. This led to under-reporting of the overall uncertainty and also caused the ocean heat uptake to be shifted high through the application of a weighted least squares fit. In addition, we realized that the uncertainties in the assumption of a constant land O[SUB]2[/SUB]:C exchange ratio of 1.1 in the calculation of the APO trend had not been propagated through to the final trend."

LOL. You mean Blogger: 1 "Consensus": 6,598,256 and counting!

Bloggers are wrong so frequently that it's not news. But they never admit their errors.

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL. You mean Blogger: 1 "Consensus": 6,598,256 and counting!

Bloggers are wrong so frequently that it's not news. But they never admit their errors.

So, do you eat all that crow at one sitting? Or do you save some and have leftovers for days, like Thanksgiving turkey?

:lamo

 

[Visbek]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/ener...warming/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.3f3ec3a661dc

TL;DR: Scientists overestimated the uncertainty of global warming, and came up with a conclusion that vastly overestimates the impact of global warming yet again.

Your "TL;DR" is ... a bit off.

They made two small errors in handling the O2 figures. As a result, they slightly overcalculated the warming (not "vastly"), and underestimated (not overestimated) the uncertainty.

Note from co-author Ralph Keeling Nov. 9, 2018: I am working with my co-authors to address two problems that came to our attention since publication. These problems, related to incorrectly treating systematic errors in the O2 measurements and the use of a constant land O2:C exchange ratio of 1.1, do not invalidate the study’s methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based. We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error. We are redoing the calculations and preparing author corrections for submission to Nature. (Emphasis added)

The article will be updated soon. In the interim, a more in-depth explanation is here:
Resplandy et al. correction and response « RealClimate

The projections changed from this:


To this:



We should note that these types of errors are not common, and that most models are fairly accurate.

And of course, we should note that two minor errors in one paper, that aren't even serious enough to radically alter the conclusion (let alone require a retraction), does not exactly send the entire edifice of climate change crashing to the ground.

 

[longview]

Your "TL;DR" is ... a bit off.

They made two small errors in handling the O2 figures. As a result, they slightly overcalculated the warming (not "vastly"), and underestimated (not overestimated) the uncertainty.

Note from co-author Ralph Keeling Nov. 9, 2018: I am working with my co-authors to address two problems that came to our attention since publication. These problems, related to incorrectly treating systematic errors in the O2 measurements and the use of a constant land O2:C exchange ratio of 1.1, do not invalidate the study’s methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based. We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error. We are redoing the calculations and preparing author corrections for submission to Nature. (Emphasis added)

The article will be updated soon. In the interim, a more in-depth explanation is here:
Resplandy et al. correction and response « RealClimate

The projections changed from this:
View attachment 67244270

To this:
View attachment 67244271


We should note that these types of errors are not common, and that most models are fairly accurate.

And of course, we should note that two minor errors in one paper, that aren't even serious enough to radically alter the conclusion (let alone require a retraction), does not exactly send the entire edifice of climate change crashing to the ground.

It might just be me, but would not a systematic error only increase the error bar on one side?
A random error would be a symmetrical spread, but a systematic error would push all the data one way of the other.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your "TL;DR" is ... a bit off.

They made two small errors in handling the O2 figures. As a result, they slightly overcalculated the warming (not "vastly"), and underestimated (not overestimated) the uncertainty.

Note from co-author Ralph Keeling Nov. 9, 2018: I am working with my co-authors to address two problems that came to our attention since publication. These problems, related to incorrectly treating systematic errors in the O2 measurements and the use of a constant land O2:C exchange ratio of 1.1, do not invalidate the study’s methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based. We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error. We are redoing the calculations and preparing author corrections for submission to Nature. (Emphasis added)

The article will be updated soon. In the interim, a more in-depth explanation is here:
Resplandy et al. correction and response « RealClimate

The projections changed from this:
View attachment 67244270

To this:
View attachment 67244271


We should note that these types of errors are not common, and that most models are fairly accurate.

And of course, we should note that two minor errors in one paper, that aren't even serious enough to radically alter the conclusion (let alone require a retraction), does not exactly send the entire edifice of climate change crashing to the ground.

We'll have to wait to see whether Nic Lewis finds their work up to his standard.

". . . We would like to thank Nicholas Lewis for first bringing an apparent anomaly in the trend calculation to our attention. We quickly realized that our calculations incorrectly treated systematic errors in the O[SUB]2[/SUB] measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation. This led to under-reporting of the overall uncertainty and also caused the ocean heat uptake to be shifted high through the application of a weighted least squares fit. In addition, we realized that the uncertainties in the assumption of a constant land O[SUB]2[/SUB]:C exchange ratio of 1.1 in the calculation of the APO trend had not been propagated through to the final trend. . . .

The revised uncertainties preclude drawing any strong conclusions with respect to climate sensitivity or carbon budgets based on the APO method alone, but they still lend support for the implications of the recent upwards revisions in OHC relative to IPCC AR5 based on hydrographic and Argo measurements."

[h=3]Resplandy et al. correction and response « RealClimate[/h]
[url]www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/.../resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/
[/URL]

5 hours ago - I, with the other co-authors of Resplandy et al (2018), want to address ... errors in the O2 measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation. ... L. Resplandy, R.F. Keeling, Y. Eddebbar, M.K. Brooks, R. Wang, ...

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]High-profile ocean warming paper to get a correction | Science | AAAS[/h]
[url]www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/.../high-profile-ocean-warming-paper-get-correction
[/URL]

8 hours ago - ... it right," said Laure Resplandy, an associate professor of geosciences at ... The errorswere pointed out by British researcher Nic Lewis on the blog of ... Keeling said the team incorrectly assessed oxygen measurements.

 

[Media_Truth]

[h=3]High-profile ocean warming paper to get a correction | Science | AAAS[/h]
[url]www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/.../high-profile-ocean-warming-paper-get-correction
[/URL]

8 hours ago - ... it right," said Laure Resplandy, an associate professor of geosciences at ... The errorswere pointed out by British researcher Nic Lewis on the blog of ... Keeling said the team incorrectly assessed oxygen measurements.

Second link is broken. First link is a nothingburger. From the link:

"We have to just call it as we see it, do good science, put it out there, defend it and, when necessary, correct it. That's the legitimate scientific process, and it stands in stark contrast to the tactics employed by the forces of pseudoscience and antiscience," Mann said.

So now you are going to link to every error submitted in papers, and use that as proof against AGW? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Personally, I see an incredible amount of honesty, when one admits to mistakes. And I think this is the "stark contrast" that Michael Mann, of Penn State University, refers to...

 

[Jack Hays]

Second link is broken. First link is a nothingburger. From the link:

"We have to just call it as we see it, do good science, put it out there, defend it and, when necessary, correct it. That's the legitimate scientific process, and it stands in stark contrast to the tactics employed by the forces of pseudoscience and antiscience," Mann said.

So now you are going to link to every error submitted in papers, and use that as proof against AGW? Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Personally, I see an incredible amount of honesty, when one admits to mistakes. And I think this is the "stark contrast" that Michael Mann, of Penn State University, refers to...

Michael Mann is the most dishonest man in climate science.

 

[Media_Truth]

Michael Mann is the most dishonest man in climate science.

Of course you would say that. He is a college professor. You only listen to High Schoolers.

 

[Jack Hays]

Of course you would say that. He is a college professor. You only listen to High Schoolers.

There is a thread devoted to the malpractice his dishonesty bequeathed to paleoclimatology.

 

[Media_Truth]

There is a thread devoted to the malpractice his dishonesty bequeathed to paleoclimatology.

Let me guess - it was a thread you started, with a link to the High Schooler Watts?

 

[Jack Hays]

Let me guess - it was a thread you started, with a link to the High Schooler Watts?

Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit.
And Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph.

 

[Media_Truth]

Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit.
And Ross McKitrick, University of Guelph.

A Canadian Mining consultant and a professor of Economics. Wow, Jack, now that's what I call some Climate Specialists! Only a bunch of Scientific Deniers would latch onto this:roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

A Canadian Mining consultant and a professor of Economics. Wow, Jack, now that's what I call some Climate Specialists! Only a bunch of Scientific Deniers would latch onto this:roll:

The questions they raise are about statistics, datasets and sampling -- all areas where their expertise exceeds that of the paleoclimatologists whose work they have assessed. Indeed, McIntyre has said a fundamental problem in paleoclimatology is that too many in the field try to use statistics without understanding statistics.

Their initial work exposed the errors in Mann's original hockey stick. Claims that Mann's work has been replicated by others only demonstrate that Mann's malpractice has sadly become the field's standard. The thread about continuing problems with paleoclimate proxies makes this clear.

 

[Tim the plumber]

It's interesting to note that real scientists actually acknowledge any errors that are found and correct them. Unlike the denier crowd, who keep repeating their numerous misunderstandings and mistakes ad nauseam and steadfastly refuse to be corrected.

It is interesting to note that the crowd who you have characterised as know nothings are those who have spotted it.

Also interesting to note that today this correction is happening quickly whilst the older and very obviously wrong papers have never been acknowledged as wrong. Even though we all know they are so.