• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Warming is Worse than we Thought

Threegoofs said:
Not quite a bomb...

From the article:

“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”
Click to expand...

Enjoy your crow.


Resplandy et al. correction and response « RealClimate


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



11 hours ago - L. Resplandy, R.F. Keeling, Y. Eddebbar, M.K. Brooks, R. Wang, ... Part 2: Regression in the presence of trend and scale systematic errors

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.
 
  • Resplandy et al. Part 2: Regression in the presence of trend and scale systematic errors

    Posted on November 7, 2018 by niclewis | 135 comments
    by Nic Lewis
    In a recent article I set out why I thought that the trend in ΔAPOClimate was overstated, and its uncertainty greatly understated, in the Resplandy et al. ocean heat uptake study. In this article I expand on the brief explanation of the points made about “trend errors” and “scale systematic errors” given in my original article, as these are key issues involved in estimating the trend in ΔAPOClimateand its uncertainty.
    Continue reading →

    From the comments:
    • stevefitzpatrick | November 14, 2018 at 9:23 pm | Reply
      dpy6629,
      I agree it ended well, but probably because Ralph Keeling is a stand-up guy, no other reason. I very much doubt Princeton is going to retract their press releases. Where I have seen any MSM commentary at all, it is that the thrust of the paper remains “correct” or “important”. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. The paper was very wrong in a purely technical sense, for clear and (at least to Nic Lewis) obvious reasons. Many will try to salvage the paper and its results, of course, but really, it was an interesting approach done badly. As noted upthread by frankclimate, I suspect the paper would never have been published in Nature had the correct calculations been done from the first, confirming that earlier estimates of ocean warming are probably about right, or at the very least well within the rather broad uncertainty of this evaluation.
      In their revision at Nature, I do hope the authors walk back all the discussion of the need to reduce ‘cumulative emissions’ to maintain warming under 2C. That was arguably political grandstanding before; now it is just factually wrong and should not be in the paper.

  • Pingback: Bits and Pieces – 20181111, Sunday | thePOOG

kenfritsch [FONT=&quot]| November 14, 2018 at 5:51 pm | Reply[/FONT]
I think an important point made by Nic Lewis’ analysis/critique of the paper in question and the responses by the authors of that paper to which Nic was critical was that Nic was able to get that response by posting his analysis via a blog. Authors of that paper have thanked Nic for his efforts and are making corrections to an article that was published by a most prestigious outlet for scientific peer reviewed papers.
That point might stick in the craw of those whose answer to critiques such as these has been we will take you seriously if you can publish your criticism – and even when made at a blog like Real Climate. Nic Lewis can obviously get his worked published, but his immediate reaction was to post his criticism on a blog.
I am most interested in how Nature will handle these corrections.
 
Jack Hays said:
This is ignorance on parade. TSI is not the important measure.
Click to expand...

I notice the graph doesn't show the pause that happened from 1996 through 2012, that cooling trend that forced The Climate Profiteers to change the term from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Or the 1970s cooling trend so severe that these same Climate Profiteers were predicting an Ice Age.
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
I don't wager or make predictions but my sense of the situation is that the authors are in more trouble than Keeling is letting on. In addressing the two problems to which Keeling has admitted they will no doubt create other loose ends requiring correction. Those corrections in turn will lead to others, etc. And btw, having opened up what amounts to a public dialogue with Nic Lewis, the authors will very much need his acceptance of their solution.
Click to expand...

You nailed it. Three goofs swallowed Keeling's assurances hook, line, and sinker. Hopefully he has the character to feel shame-faced, and admit his over-reach.
 
Casca XV said:
I notice the graph doesn't show the pause that happened from 1996 through 2012, that cooling trend that forced The Climate Profiteers to change the term from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change".

Or the 1970s cooling trend so severe that these same Climate Profiteers were predicting an Ice Age.
Click to expand...

Graphs are flexible tools.:mrgreen:
 
Let this be a lesson to the guardians of climate alarmism, your uncritical mouthing of any paper that is churned out of the press mills of the climate panic mongers has backfired - big time. 3Goofs, calamity, Media_Truth conducted themselves with the decorum befitting that of rabid shrews, not serious posters.

But for all the vituperation against Jack (and others) smeared as liars and full of BS, for all the dismissal of "denier blogs" of talented outsiders, for all the aspersions against Lewis and Curry as cranks, and for all the lap dog press agentry by the thread's gang of three it is clear: Jack, the bloggers, and Lewis (and Peilke) were correct - the paper was a mess.

That a peer reviewed paper could go to press with so many fundamental errors, and be lauded by a blindered press, tells us all we need to know - climate science is not to be trusted.
 
maxparrish said:
Let this be a lesson to the guardians of climate alarmism, your uncritical mouthing of any paper that is churned out of the press mills of the climate panic mongers has backfired - big time. 3Goofs, calamity, Media_Truth conducted themselves with the decorum befitting that of rabid shrews, not serious posters.

But for all the vituperation against Jack (and others) smeared as liars and full of BS, for all the dismissal of "denier blogs" of talented outsiders, for all the aspersions against Lewis and Curry as cranks, and for all the lap dog press agentry by the thread's gang of three it is clear: Jack, the bloggers, and Lewis (and Peilke) were correct - the paper was a mess.

That a peer reviewed paper could go to press with so many fundamental errors, and be lauded by a blindered press, tells us all we need to know - climate science is not to be trusted.
Click to expand...

LOL.

Take it to CT, dude
 
Jack Hays said:
High-profile ocean warming paper to get a correction | Science | AAAS


www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/.../high-profile-ocean-warming-paper-get-correction



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.
Click to expand...

Unlike some folks who supported their paper, it is gratifying to see Keeling man-up to the major blunders. So much time and effort has been spent by others prior to Lewis to get climate scientists to act with half the integrity of Keeling - the multi-year denial of Mann over his methodology and lack of full disclosure being the most prominent.

Sadly the embarrassment is not as much as the author's fault (although his co-author fanned some of the findings) as that of his reviewers and the scientific press. Their inability or unwillingness to even notice major trend and uncertainty computation errors spotted by a statistically talented blogger only highlights what McIntyre and others have said for the past 15 years, too many climate researchers are the second rate of more rigorous programs. They don't know statistics, their math skills are dubious, and their methods cloistered and unvetted.

Things have gotten better, and data disclosure has slowly increased. However, the habit of sloppy work and uncritical acceptance of politically correct results continues to infect this quasi-science.
 
Jack Hays said:
[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.
Click to expand...

First link was broken. Second 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 said:
There is no need for me to understand it, only to note their need to correct earlier work, as they are correcting now.
Click to expand...

Jack, you should explain these links. Otherwise you are doing exactly the same thing as the religious types who direct you to some too long to read drivel.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Jack, you should explain these links. Otherwise you are doing exactly the same thing as the religious types who direct you to some too long to read drivel.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you buddy.... but your cut and paste hero understands his cut and pastes about as well as you do.
 
maxparrish said:
Unlike some folks who supported their paper, it is gratifying to see Keeling man-up to the major blunders. So much time and effort has been spent by others prior to Lewis to get climate scientists to act with half the integrity of Keeling - the multi-year denial of Mann over his methodology and lack of full disclosure being the most prominent.

Sadly the embarrassment is not as much as the author's fault (although his co-author fanned some of the findings) as that of his reviewers and the scientific press. Their inability or unwillingness to even notice major trend and uncertainty computation errors spotted by a statistically talented blogger only highlights what McIntyre and others have said for the past 15 years, too many climate researchers are the second rate of more rigorous programs. They don't know statistics, their math skills are dubious, and their methods cloistered and unvetted.

Things have gotten better, and data disclosure has slowly increased. However, the habit of sloppy work and uncritical acceptance of politically correct results continues to infect this quasi-science.
Click to expand...

A fine, fair post.
 
Media_Truth said:
First link was broken. Second 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...
Click to expand...

First link works just fine.

Not every paper, just the spectacular failures like the OP of this thread. In this case interest was heightened because the errors were called out by an independent researcher in two blog posts. This led to a lot of snide remarks which have now morphed into large meals of crow for some of our fellow posters.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Jack, you should explain these links. Otherwise you are doing exactly the same thing as the religious types who direct you to some too long to read drivel.
Click to expand...

Those who think it's "too long to read drivel" should not be in the discussion.
 
High-profile ocean warming paper to get a correction | Science | AAAS

It’s almost the definition of ‘Tempest in a Teapot’.

Calculation errors discovered in paper- calculations corrected, conclusions still stand with an impact upon uncertainty.

The main conclusion, that ocean warming is greater than previously understood, is still reality. Further studies will expand on this idea to confirm it. And those studies won’t be done by bloggers.
 
Threegoofs said:
High-profile ocean warming paper to get a correction | Science | AAAS

It’s almost the definition of ‘Tempest in a Teapot’.

Calculation errors discovered in paper- calculations corrected, conclusions still stand with an impact upon uncertainty.

The main conclusion, that ocean warming is greater than previously understood, is still reality. Further studies will expand on this idea to confirm it. And those studies won’t be done by bloggers.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but after corrections the result is merely warming consistent with other research, not the acceleration initially claimed. And uncertainty is now significantly greater. In other words: meh.

More interesting will be to learn whether Nic Lewis will think they've corrected enough to pass.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but after corrections the result is merely warming consistent with other research, not the acceleration initially claimed. And uncertainty is now significantly greater. In other words: meh.

More interesting will be to learn whether Nic Lewis will think they've corrected enough to pass.
Click to expand...

I realize that YOU say that.

But the researchers actually dont say that.

The overall conclusion that oceans are trapping more and more heat mirrors other studies and is not inaccurate, but the margin of error in the study is larger than originally thought, said Ralph Keeling, a professor of geosciences at Scripps and co-author of the paper.
Click to expand...

Nic Lewis will whine about it, because he’s a denier and thats what he does.
 
Threegoofs said:
I realize that YOU say that.

But the researchers actually dont say that.



Nic Lewis will whine about it, because he’s a denier and thats what he does.
Click to expand...

You merely restated my point (and cited the passage I would have cited). As for Nic Lewis, whether the authors (or you) like it or not they are now in a public dialogue and they cannot restore their credibility until he accepts their work.
 
Global warming is a controversial issue. In fact, the truth lost because politicians are running a scientific debate, not the scientists. Global warming turns into some kind of cult or new religion.
 
stan1990 said:
Global warming is a controversial issue. In fact, the truth lost because politicians are running a scientific debate, not the scientists. Global warming turns into some kind of cult or new religion.
Click to expand...

We have been telling them something similar for years.
 
Threegoofs said:
I hate to break it to you buddy.... but your cut and paste hero understands his cut and pastes about as well as you do.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Just like I understand that you have no clue at all I understand that Jack does understand all of it but is used to dealing with people who are extremely advanced in such topics and general physics ability.

That is clear when he links to very appropriate information.

When you try your best you just manage to link to a randon bit.
 
Threegoofs said:
I realize that YOU say that.

But the researchers actually dont say that.



Nic Lewis will whine about it, because he’s a denier and thats what he does.
Click to expand...

The overall conclusion that oceans are trapping more and more heat mirrors other studies and is not inaccurate, but the margin of error in the study is larger than originally thought, said Ralph Keeling, a professor of geosciences at Scripps and co-author of the paper.
Click to expand...

That sounds like nothing new at all then.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom