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

[Media_Truth]

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.

Yeah, they really exposed those nasty errors of the pHD Climatologists from all over the world. That Mining Consultant. That Economist. And let's not forget the High Schooler, Watts. They are a legend in your own mind.

 

[longview]

Yeah, they really exposed those nasty errors of the pHD Climatologists from all over the world. That Mining Consultant. That Economist. And let's not forget the High Schooler, Watts. They are a legend in your own mind.

The errors that Nick Lewis found were acknowledged by one of the papers authors, so yes, errors were found.
No nasty, but errors none the less.

 

[Jack Hays]

Yeah, they really exposed those nasty errors of the pHD Climatologists from all over the world. That Mining Consultant. That Economist. And let's not forget the High Schooler, Watts. They are a legend in your own mind.

Watts is really not part of this, although he supports their work. This is another area where the blogosphere will ultimately prevail. Why? Because the truth is powerful.

 

[Tim the plumber]

Yeah, they really exposed those nasty errors of the pHD Climatologists from all over the world. That Mining Consultant. That Economist. And let's not forget the High Schooler, Watts. They are a legend in your own mind.

Yeah, well..... they did.

 

[Media_Truth]

The errors that Nick Lewis found were acknowledged by one of the papers authors, so yes, errors were found.
No nasty, but errors none the less.

OMG! Fraud prevails.

 

[Media_Truth]

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.

If there is an error, it still doesn't undermine the fact that the oceans are warming. 1.2 deg F is the latest number. That's a lot of heat.



https://sealevelrise.org/causes/

1.2 degrees may not sound like much, but for something as massive as the surface of the world’s oceans, which heats up very slowly, 1.2 degrees is significant and has caused more than 6 inches of sea level rise.7 This is because warmer water expands, raising the sea level everywhere.

Recently, the ocean has been getting progressively hotter. Thermal expansion has increased, causing sea levels to rise 75% faster over the last 10 years, as compared to previous years.

 

[longview]

OMG! Fraud prevails.

Error is not fraud, it is just error


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ... - Phys.org[/h]
[url]https://phys.org › Earth › Environment
[/URL]

1 day ago - "Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of ... By comparison, Keeling and Laure Resplandy, a researcher at ...

 

[Jack Hays]

Resplandy et al. Part 3: Findings regarding statistical issues and the authors’ planned correction

Posted on November 17, 2018 by niclewis | 7 comments
By Nic Lewis
Introduction
The Resplandy et al. (2018) ocean heat uptake study (henceforth Resplandy18) is based on measured changes in the O2/N2 ratio of air sampled each year, compared to air stored in high pressure tanks originally sampled in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and in atmospheric CO2 concentration. These are combined to produce an estimate (ΔAPOObs) of changes in atmospheric potential oxygen since 1991 (ΔAPO). They break this series down into four components, including one attributable to ocean warming (ΔAPOClimate). By estimating the other three, they isolate the implied ΔAPOClimate and use it to estimate the change in ocean heat content. In two recent articles, here and here, I set out why I thought the trend in ΔAPOClimate – from which they derived their ocean heat uptake estimate – was overstated, and its uncertainty greatly understated. Continue reading →

 

[FreeWits]

If there is an error, it still doesn't undermine the fact that the oceans are warming. 1.2 deg F is the latest number. That's a lot of heat.

View attachment 67244386

https://sealevelrise.org/causes/

1.2 degrees may not sound like much, but for something as massive as the surface of the world’s oceans, which heats up very slowly, 1.2 degrees is significant and has caused more than 6 inches of sea level rise.7 This is because warmer water expands, raising the sea level everywhere.

Recently, the ocean has been getting progressively hotter. Thermal expansion has increased, causing sea levels to rise 75% faster over the last 10 years, as compared to previous years.

I agree that the climate is warming. That doesn't mean that human activity is causing the globe to warm at a rate that is going to get to a point that will be beyond repair for humanity. That's the claim. And the solution put forth often by climate scientists is that we allegedly need to switch over to renewables now to an extreme extent, harming our economy greatly in the mean time. That solution has not been justified, especially when we can solve the problem very quickly with nuclear fusion power plants, and may be able to solve the problem with nuclear fission power plants sooner rather than later.

EDIT: And btw, I wanted to add that you do no favors to climate change science when you blindly follow and defend work even when it's wrong. Sometimes it's best to say, "Yup, they got that wrong. Time to move on." It's okay to admit that!

 

[FreeWits]

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.

"...with larger margins of error". You claim the conclusion is not radically altered, but it actually is. The conclusion they came to can no longer be justified by the paper. And these kinds of errors are actually quite common, even though you alleged they aren't. How come if the errors are so rare the conclusions keep being wrong? The global freeze that never happened, Al Gore's movie with wrong prediction after wrong prediction including ice caps that aren't melted and coasts that aren't flooded, etc.? Now we have the prediction that humanity will be beyond repair by 2050, and the evidence is already starting to show that this was a false prediction.

 

[Jack Hays]

. . . They made two small errors in handling the O2 figures. . . . .

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.

Resplandy et al has been retracted. This was inevitable.

Resplandy et al. Part 5: Final outcome

Posted on September 25, 2019 by niclewis | 9 comments
By Nic Lewis
Readers may recall that last autumn I wrote several article critiquing the Resplandy et al. (2018) ocean heat uptake study in Nature, which was based on measured changes in the O2/N2 ratio (δO2/N2) and CO2 atmospheric concentration. . . . In four articles, here and here, here, and here, I set out why I thought the trend in ΔAPOClimate – and hence their ocean heat uptake estimate – was overstated, and its uncertainty greatly understated, essentially because of errors in their statistical methodology. The bulk of my criticisms were largely accepted by the authors of the study. However, it was evident from their related Realclimate article that in their submitted correction they had also made a change in an unconnected assumption, with the effect of offsetting much of the reduction in their ocean heat uptake estimate that correcting their statistical errors would have caused. . . .
Ruth Dixon has just spotted that the Resplandy et al. paper has today been retracted, at Nature’s request. This article at Retraction Watch covers the story. The Retraction Notice by the authors at Nature reads:
Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept. Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches. The revised paper, with corrected uncertainties, will be submitted to another journal. The Retraction will contain a link to the new publication, if and when it is published.
I believe that this saga, as well as showing how ineffective journal peer review tends to be in spotting problematic issues in papers, illustrates the need for a much closer involvement of statisticians in climate science research. That was a point also made in one of the articles highlighted in Judith’s latest Week in Review post: Climate science needs professional statisticians [link].
Nicholas Lewis 25 September 2019