Scientists admit to many errors in ocean warming paper
The uncertainty of science: The scientists who wrote a much heralded paper a few weeks ago claiming that the oceans are retaining far more heat than previously believed have admitted that their paper has many errors that make its conclusions far more uncertain.
Scientists behind a major study that claimed the Earth’s oceans are warming faster than previously thought now say their work contained inadvertent errors that made their conclusions seem more certain than they actually are.
Two weeks after the high-profile study was published in the journal Nature, its authors have submitted corrections to the publication. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, home to several of the researchers involved, also noted the problems in the scientists’ work and corrected a news release on its website, which previously had asserted that the study detailed how the Earth’s oceans “have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought.”
“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at Scripps, who was a co-author of the study. “I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.”
The central problem, according to Keeling, came in how the researchers dealt with the uncertainty in their measurements. As a result, the findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper’s conclusion about how much heat the oceans have absorbed over time. [emphasis mine]
To put it more bluntly, their conclusions are worthless, the data being too uncertain.
When this paper came out two weeks ago I looked at it, and found myself questioning its results. They seemed too certain. Moreover, their work was too perfect for confirming the theory that the oceans are retaining more heat and thus causing the pause in global warming that no global warming model predicted. It fit the model of most climate research these days, unreliable and unconvincing, which is why I did not post it on Behind the Black.
Now, only two weeks later, we find the researchers backing off from their certain conclusions. If anything is a perfect demonstration of confirmation bias, this story is it. These global warming scientists want desperately to prove their theories, and since their models haven’t been working they are desperately searching everywhere they can for explanations. In this case that search led them astray.
The truth is that maybe the climate field should take a step back and reconsider its entire assumptions about carbon dioxide and global warming. They might actually end up doing better science, and thus do a better job at getting us closer to the truth.
A side note: That this paper passed peer review, and was strongly touted by the media and the science community, illustrates once again how much that media and science community has allowed its biases to cloud its vision. This paper should never have been published with these errors. Period.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
The uncertainty of science: The scientists who wrote a much heralded paper a few weeks ago claiming that the oceans are retaining far more heat than previously believed have admitted that their paper has many errors that make its conclusions far more uncertain.
Scientists behind a major study that claimed the Earth’s oceans are warming faster than previously thought now say their work contained inadvertent errors that made their conclusions seem more certain than they actually are.
Two weeks after the high-profile study was published in the journal Nature, its authors have submitted corrections to the publication. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, home to several of the researchers involved, also noted the problems in the scientists’ work and corrected a news release on its website, which previously had asserted that the study detailed how the Earth’s oceans “have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought.”
“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at Scripps, who was a co-author of the study. “I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.”
The central problem, according to Keeling, came in how the researchers dealt with the uncertainty in their measurements. As a result, the findings suffer from too much doubt to definitively support the paper’s conclusion about how much heat the oceans have absorbed over time. [emphasis mine]
To put it more bluntly, their conclusions are worthless, the data being too uncertain.
When this paper came out two weeks ago I looked at it, and found myself questioning its results. They seemed too certain. Moreover, their work was too perfect for confirming the theory that the oceans are retaining more heat and thus causing the pause in global warming that no global warming model predicted. It fit the model of most climate research these days, unreliable and unconvincing, which is why I did not post it on Behind the Black.
Now, only two weeks later, we find the researchers backing off from their certain conclusions. If anything is a perfect demonstration of confirmation bias, this story is it. These global warming scientists want desperately to prove their theories, and since their models haven’t been working they are desperately searching everywhere they can for explanations. In this case that search led them astray.
The truth is that maybe the climate field should take a step back and reconsider its entire assumptions about carbon dioxide and global warming. They might actually end up doing better science, and thus do a better job at getting us closer to the truth.
A side note: That this paper passed peer review, and was strongly touted by the media and the science community, illustrates once again how much that media and science community has allowed its biases to cloud its vision. This paper should never have been published with these errors. Period.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
I don’t follow this stuff super close but it is promising that they admitted they were wrong and changed their conclusions. I have not heard of of this happening before in climate science.
If ignorance is bliss
There should be more happy people.
The earth is a net exporter of energy. Of course their slanted research got the wrong conclusions. Never trusted Nature since they published work from an old supervisor of mine. (Luckily only had him for a couple of months.)
Wodun, they didn’t admit they were wrong until called out on errors by a mathematician. My daughter is planning on going into oceanography/marine sciences, and I had sent her a different article on the same paper, was going to send it to Bob but he beat me to the punch.
The article I emailed my daughter is here:
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html
As I told my daughter, I can get better accuracy (60% range of probability in the study) with a blindfold and a dartboard.
They will never give up on carbon dioxide, if they do they’ll have to admit that water-vapor is the predominate factor in play.
The problem with many of these scientists is their egos will not let them say: “We don’t know”
Chris: The essence of science and western civilization is the willingness, nay the outright eagerness, to say, “We don’t know.”
I wish Richard Feynman was still alive.
He shut down this climate change foolishness in one paragraph.
Well said Mr. Zimmerman! May I add that it is essential for scientists to willingly chuck thier own pet theory out the window when the data/observations run against it.
They used only “three” areas of sampling with this new Hooksey method of determining water temperature by sampling the carbon dioxide and Oxygen present in the water. There are far too many variables of cause-and-effect to come close to getting the temperature right. A 60% error margin? The smartest people in China, England, United States and Europe, Who reviewed the findings, all missed this? Inconceivable… I smell an agenda that bet that they could get away with it. Now no one wants to be left holding the back of crap they created.
“The study is still the first to confirm that the ocean is warming using a method independent of direct ocean temperature measurements.”
It’s like determining if the turkey in the oven is done by how good it smells. Sure, the smell of burning flesh is distinctive and you know that it is too hot. But it takes a temperature probe below the surface of the skin to determine if it’s cooked all the way through to the inside.
Satellites can only probe surface and give accurate measurements of the daily and seasonal changes. It takes an actual temperature thermometer to determine ocean temperature at deeper depth. Which is fairly stable and unchanging below 100 m / 300 feet, over 80% of the ocean.
The temperature of the deep ocean is a -3.5 Celsius, below freezing temperature freshwater. (if the cold water below a 2000 ft depth was circulated to the surface, fresh water of humidity condensation could be collected cheaply to provide drinking water for citys)
Another way to monitor ocean temperature is the volume it expands when heated. If the ocean was to rise 1° in temperature, costal areas/all of Florida would be underwater.
Water is always a method of cooing, it is the most common cooling medium that we know of. In the atmosphere, water vapor can act as a blanket slowing down heat loss, pre-venting longwave radiation from escaping into space. It is never a source of heat, nor generates heat. The arrival of a storm always coincides with the loss of temperature.
In other words, ocean evaporation cools the planet. It does not absorb the heat so much as it removes the heat by evaporation, rises from the ocean and forms clouds which prevents more heat from reaching the ground as a “feedback loop”. The more the ocean heats up, the more heat is prevented from reaching the ground… Everywhere.