Scientists Acknowledge Key Errors in Study of How Fast the Oceans Are Warming (washingtonpost.com) 280
A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought. But researchers now say they can't necessarily make that claim. From a report: 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.
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. But Keeling said the authors' miscalculations mean there is a much larger margin of error in the findings, which means researchers can weigh in with less certainty than they 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.
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. But Keeling said the authors' miscalculations mean there is a much larger margin of error in the findings, which means researchers can weigh in with less certainty than they thought.
It's Called Science (Score:4, Insightful)
This is what science does. People find something and publish the results for everyone to look at. If there is something wrong, other people point it out, and they go back to the drawing board.
This is how science is supposed to work; although, ideally, the errors are caught prior to publication - the process still worked correctly.
Re:It's Called Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Peer review isn't about repeating the test or confirming the analysis, it's about checking whether the conclusion matches the groupthink. This did.
Re: (Score:2)
Peer review isn't about repeating the test or confirming the analysis, it's about checking whether the conclusion matches the groupthink. This did.
And your evidence for this view would be... what? That papers get published that disagree with what you've been told is the truth?
I'm not a scientist, but I've worked with scientists and have helped some of them respond to peer review comments. If you've ever actually seen peer review at work, it's the farthest thing from groupthink there is. You have to remember: scientists in a field are competitors.
Each reviewer has a distinctive persona or style. Some reviewers are obviously very nice people. The
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, Jeez! Really!?
https://www.chronicle.com/arti... [chronicle.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but it's a political agenda also to claim that there is a political agenda. If you yank the politics out of it, then there is still science occuring here. Whether or not the conclusions hold up over time has nothing to do with politics except for those intent on creating and inflaming culture wars.
Re: It's Called Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Why do you say this is political? What evidence do you have except that you don't agree with them? Their paper even after correcting still indicates that there is heating, it does not refute the climate change theories, all it means is that their "it's accelerating faster than expected" conclusion is now "it's still accelerating".
Re:It's Called Science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's Called Science (Score:4, Informative)
Nature is a peer reviewed publication. So, there were multiple, independent levels of error. That's not how it's supposed to work.
Ideally it works that way. However, it often fails in one way or another (skipped reviews, for profit models, no one wants to say a leader in a field is wrong, etc.) Which is why publication to a wide audience is, essentially, the final fail safe.
that's not what peer review does (Score:5, Informative)
If you think Peer review catches mistakes then you need to learn more about peer review because that's not what it does.
Peer review looks to see if the methods are reasonable to the task, if the authors show an awareness of the literature on the topic and by consequence know the pitfalls and problems others have overcome. It looks to see if the finding support the strength of the conclusions. And when possible it looks for gaps or alternative hypotheses that would have been reasonable to rule out given the strength of the conclusions.
it does not check the work in detail that's essentially impossible except for glaring errors. Many peers won't even fully understand the topic but are experience enough to know how to check reasonableness of the approach and support for conclusions.
In this case the retraction is not of the main finding. Their data are still fully consistent with the stated mean energy absorption. What they are retracting is the error bars on that analysis. It's the difference between saying the mean of a set of data is wrong, and the probability the mean of the data is different by 30% than the actual mean. They got the probability wrong. So their findings are less certain in strength.
Re:that's not what peer review does (Score:5, Informative)
It obviously doesn't always. I said it's supposed to, which is true. Nature's peer review policy specifically calls for reviewers to assess the "Appropriate use of statistics and treatment of uncertainties...Referees are expected to identify flaws..." You should have your posts peer reviewed to try and avoid further mistakes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Disclaimer: I have done vast amounts of peer review in my field (physics) but did not review this paper.
You've missed the point of what peer review actually does. It identifies errors of logic, and checks for feasibility. It does NOT redo calculations. In this case, the stats and uncertainties were treated appropriately, but calculated wrong. Peer review is NOT designed to catch that kind of error. If it were, it would take me as long to review a paper as many authors take to write it, or even longer as the
Re: (Score:2)
No, they claimed that the evidence they saw could occur with a probability different than what it should have been. They claimed that the apple was was redder than it actually was.
For the standard auto analogy, they handed out a ticket for going 50MPH over the limit when it should have only been for 25MPH over the limit.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't always find mistakes? This paper is relatively new. Is there a time limit that science puts in place before errors can be found? We have found errors in papers that are a century old. About the only time that mistakes aren't found given enough time is when a paper is ignored and no one looks at it, in which case an unread paper with errors isn't much of a problem.
Re:that's not what peer review does (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The only thing I'd like to add is a slight comment on this one sentence:
If you think Peer review catches mistakes then you need to learn more about peer review because that's not what it does.
To be fair, it does. The problem here is the assumption that peer review refers only to the reviewers who look at unpublished manuscripts before accepting them for publication. That's the first level of it, but it's only going to catch the most obvious issues with methodology, lack of sufficient literature review, conclusions that aren't well supported by provided data, etc. It's what you get when somebody in your basic field spends an hour reading your paper.
The bulk of peer review happens after the fact. The paper is published, it's read by a much larger pool of scientists in the field, many with competing theories that can offer a different viewpoint and analysis. Other research groups attempt to reproduce any experiments and can publish confirmation or inability to reproduce, etc.
It doesn't always go this smoothly: A lot of papers end up not getting published in prestigious journals like Nature, so not enough eyes look at every paper. Journals have a bias against negative results, so it's harder to publish papers that just reproduces somebody else's work and confirms they got the same result (unless it's a hot topic and/or controversial result), so not as much work gets done in that area as there should be done. That said, the basic process is sound, and the thing to take away from stories like these isn't, "climate scientists are wrong." It's, "climate scientists are the ones that point out when they are wrong after further review, because that's what scientists do. They're not protecting an agenda, and they're constantly looking for errors in each others' work."
Re: (Score:3)
Nature is a peer reviewed publication. So, there were multiple, independent levels of error. That's not how it's supposed to work.
No, this is how science works-- this is the perfect exemplar of science working correctly. The researchers published their results, they found errors, they acknowledged the errors and published the correction.
Kudos to them. Yes, it would be wonderful if scientists never made errors in the first place, but it turns out that science is done by humans, and humans make errors. The way science works is to acknowledge the errors: that is what makes it science.
Re:It's Called Science (Score:5, Funny)
The error was _not_ found by a 'climate scientist'.
From TFA.
Alarmists have repeatedly told me that non-climate scientist should shut the fuck up. Kudos to the journal and those of the authors that accept the mistake, but don't pretend that they found it themselves or that they are all accepting that they made an error.
Yes, I RTFA....Hangs head in shame.
Re:It's Called Science (Score:4, Insightful)
He certainly styles himself as such. Nicholas Lewis, an independent Climate Science Researcher, based in the UK. Quoting https://www.nicholaslewis.org/ [nicholaslewis.org].
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
So what? He is exactly the kind of 'unqualified outsider' that is repeatedly told to shut the fuck up by 'real climate scientists'.
Re:So what? So the claim was wrong! (Score:4, Informative)
No. You're just repeating the claim again.
People with 'physics and math' backgrounds are routinely told to shut up about climate and dismissed by 'climate scientists'.
Also it's _not_ just about error bars, the mean value is also wrong. Read TFA.
Re:So what? So the claim was wrong! (Score:4, Insightful)
How about Anthony Watts? He's repeatedly shouted down as "not qualified" even though he's a meteorologist. He's shouted down because he's a skeptic. I don't know how many times I've seen links to scholarly papers AND actual checks (like from Mr. Lewis, here), on his site dismissed because "Watts is a denier and not a climatologist!:
How about Dr. Roy Spencer, an actual NASA climate researcher, who is dismissed because he's also a skeptic and religious (in particular, Christianity). But because he's a "denier" and crazy "sky god" worshiper, he's dismissed - doesn't matter about the factual nature of his data or his research.
And that "slight fault with the error bars" is a shift from +/- 0.18 to +/- 0.72, a full 400% increase in the error (meaning the error window itself is greater than the magnitude of the underlying baseline - meaning it's little more than a guess).
Re: (Score:3)
The Dr. himself [drroyspencer.com]. NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal winner, and "Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil." Or the word of #random guy on /. - I'll take the Good Doctor versus your slander.
PS: you prove my case; you don't like his conclusions, so you slander the man, and ignore his NASA data (not models - DATA) which shows that the IP
Re: (Score:2)
it turns out that science is done by humans, and humans make errors
In fact, that's the reason why we need peer-reviewed science. If there were no errors, we could produce science by means oracles right off pronouncing perfectly accurate theorems.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please google peer review problems before genuflecting to it as a be all, end all. There are numerous articles by respected sources available.
For those too lazy to do so, the short answer is that much of what would ideally be peer reviewed just doesn't happen. The basic reason is that there's no money/glory in doing peer review. The people you'd want to be doing the reviewing are too busy doing their own science, and getting that published. Who's going to pay you to double check someone else's work..
Re: (Score:2)
OK: propose a process that would infallibly prevent errors from ever being published? What would that even look like?
Errors routinely get published in peer reviewed papers, even in prominent journals. How do we know this? Because they get caught by other scientists, usually pretty quickly. Scientists are world champion contrarians, and they're continually finding flaws in each others' work. Peer review is just the preliminary round of the pile-on.
This is why you should not pay too much attention to stud
Re: (Score:2)
Peer review is about reviewing the articles, the methodology, etc. It is not fool proof which is why you wait for later papers that help to improve the knowledge. Few papers stand on their own. Many of them just present evidence and are intended to encourage others to use that evidence or add to it.
If you wait until 100% certainty of conclusions before any paper is published then no papers will ever be published.
Re:It's Called Science (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. I don't see the "deniers" adjusting any of their claims.
For a start, the word "denier" is wholly inappropriate and highly prejudicial. It's the kind of word commonly used by religious fanatics to describe those who do not necessarily accept their dogma.
Furthermore, those who do not necessarily accept the dogma of person-made global warming do not need to to make any claims. They are merely accepting the null hypothesis until they see conclusive proof that it is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
And since that proof is they and they deny it exists, what should we call them?
Re: (Score:2)
This must have been the last remaining sampling error and from now on the science is settled.
As it turns out there is good reason to reserve judgement on any paper that challenges the consensus. A consensus that is built upon a consilience of evidence cannot be overturned by a single contrary paper.
Re: It's Called Science (Score:2)
consilience
I just learned a new word that's actually interesting and useful; thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you'll really like it when you read the book Consilience [wikipedia.org] by E.O. Wilson, who popularized the term. Great book.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll take empirical evidence, thank you.
That's good, but for consilience you need agreement between multiple lines of empirical evidence. For example, you may be satisfied that global temps are warming by looking at one of the instrumental record, but for consilience you need to confirm that all instrumental records agree, as well as satellite records. And in fact they do! [woodfortrees.org]
But on top of that you would want to confirm that sea level rise and glacial melt due to that warming is in line with expectations. Then you may also look at poleward migrat
Re:It's Called Science (Score:4, Insightful)
"deniers" only real scientists here (Score:2)
This is what science does. People find something and publish the results for everyone to look at. If there is something wrong, other people point it out, and they go back to the drawing board.
(A) You can only do that if you have the data to question, which climate "scientists" are not always forthcoming with, or have run through magical adjustment algorithms you cannot have or question.
(B) Anyone questioning the ocean-scare claims last week on Slashdot was called a denier - when all along it turns out they
Re: (Score:3)
This is what science does. People find something and publish the results for everyone to look at. If there is something wrong, other people point it out, and they go back to the drawing board.
(A) You can only do that if you have the data to question, which climate "scientists" are not always forthcoming with
To the contrary. All of the data is made publicaly available, as well as all of the computer codes.
or have run through magical adjustment algorithms you cannot have or question.
And all of the data adjustments are explained in detail, the reasons for data analysis explained, the codes made available, and the raw data available so you can do your own data analysis if you want. And at least five different groups on three continents do exactly that.
Re: (Score:2)
Boldly asserted lies.
Show us the link to the raw 'hockey stick data'. The best you will find are attempts to reconstruct it.
Show us the link to the adjusted historical data. The best you will find is records of previous years getting colder as time rolls forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Show us the link to the raw 'hockey stick data'.
Which one ? Can you provide a direct link to the paper ?
Re: (Score:3)
Which one what? The hockey stick data is a long discussed set, which you're not doubt fully aware of.
There have been several 'hockey stick' graphs published, by various people, using different kinds of data sets.
Re: (Score:3)
Easy. 'Hockey stick data' is at https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/... [uea.ac.uk] You will find raw station data at https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/h... [metoffice.gov.uk]
Like Geoffrey said, all the data is available. Your lack of searching doesn't mean it isn't there.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are the proxies. They never show how they got those from the raw data. You post links to both, but nobody can show how they got from 2 to 1.
Outsiders have attempted to redo Mann's work and have posted a reconstruction that produces similar results. Those reconstructions show lots of finagling.
Re: (Score:2)
They never show how they got those from the raw data. You post links to both, but nobody can show how they got from 2 to 1.
And you have read all the papers ?
Re: (Score:3)
Feeling has no place in Science (Score:3)
if being called a denier hurt your feelings
To be clear here Mr Coward, my feelings are never hurt being called a Denier, because I know what that really means - that I stand for true Science, for the right for anyone to question results even when everyone else claims the results are obviously correct and need no verification. It means the person trying to make someone else "feel bad" is coming from a weak position where they cannot argue on merits.
I am talking about science; I notice you seem to focus a
Re:It's Called Science (Score:5, Interesting)
This is how science is supposed to work; although, ideally, the errors are caught prior to publication - the process still worked correctly.
The problem isn't the science per se -- it's how hard it is to unring the bell outside the scientific community. The media, and therefore the public, got whipped into a hot lather over the initial study. Google "oceans warming faster than anticipated" (even in quotes) to see how pervasively it spread in both the press and social media.
I'm quite comfortable the retraction will not be trumpeted a fraction as loudly, and even if it were, that a large percentage of people who read the initial headlines and ran around screaming bloody murder would largely stay silent.
That's how the news cycle works (and it's well understood to work that way), and thus a supposedly reputable journal racing to publication with shoddy work like this is grossly negligent at best.
Re: (Score:2)
This! This is a phenomenon I've noticed happen quite often in social, and even professional media at times, lately.
I've dubbed it PNP, for "Persistence of Negative Perception". I think it's a very real thing and deserves it's own term.
Sometimes we'll see a news article (a badly biased, or hastily researched one), but more oftentimes, a Tweet, fueled by emotion and bias, which purports some event or claim which turns out ultimately to be false or badly flawed in accuracy. This initial, negative Tweet might
Re: (Score:2)
This does not compute.
I thought all the "scientists" were in a huge conspiracy to promote their false "global warming" agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
This is what science does. People find something and publish the results for everyone to look at. If there is something wrong, other people point it out, and they go back to the drawing board.
This is how science is supposed to work; although, ideally, the errors are caught prior to publication - the process still worked correctly.
I assume CNN will have hours about it this evening?
Re: It's Called Science (Score:2)
(If this confuses or frustrates the "low information" types that happen to identify as "conservative," it should be noted that it also confuses and upsets those who call themselves liberal when they find that I'm both a thirty-year vegetarian and a vocal advocate of the 2nd Amendment.)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, what!?! I didn't know that we were allowed to have non-party line opinions on individual topics anymore. You know, with all the RINO/DINO namecalling, you have to get in lockstep. Oh, the horror!!!
More seriously, thanks for the laugh. I'm of similar persuasion, except I'm a carnivore.
Re: (Score:2)
You left out the part about people, including scientists, generating panic from the results while claiming the only way to deal with them is to completely change our lifestyles.
Nope, only the deniers are telling you you have to completely change your lifestyles.
As a scare tactic.
Re: (Score:2)
My current lifestyle involves cars with 24 liter 12 cylinder Merlin engines you insensitive clod.
This just in: science is messy (Score:5, Insightful)
Quit trying to time your studies around US election dates and we'll all be better off. (E.g. many informed people already mostly ignore employment and GCP numbers because they always expect significant corrections to the just-announced figures just around the corner.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quit trying to time your studies around US election dates and we'll all be better off.
Since this is science we're talking about: Correlation does not imply causation.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, for pete's sake. Nature is a British journal; it's editor is a British biomedical researcher. The study's lead author is a French oceanographer working at an American university.
It's conspiracy theory thinking to believe this paper was somehow timed to coincide with the US election. How is that supposed to work exactly? Somebody who doesn't believe in global warming is going to have his mind changed because of a letter published in Nature?
Scientists do sometimes rush, but what they're worried about
Expedited results (Score:4, Interesting)
Same argument could be made for rushing out findings, perhaps under pressure?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who said anything about rushing? That's an assumption you're making because a mistake has been made. Rushing leads to mistakes, but not all mistakes are caused by rushing.
Too damn funny (Score:4, Funny)
There's one hell of a lot of slashtards that are wishing comments could be deleted today.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you default to people wanting to delete their comments rather than say simply changing their view given new information and standing by their original comment given the information they had at the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting given who it was that started with the name calling.
Thegarbz https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Interesting that you default to people wanting to delete their comments
If you are going to stalk me at least get some decent material
Re: (Score:2)
You can still afford this?
Then why are you complaining, things are looking great for you!
...and this will... (Score:4, Insightful)
...be used by Client Change/Science Deniers "to prove" that it's just a big hoax and a big conspiracy...
Climate change is fake! (Score:2, Insightful)
I think that captures a good portion of the posts we'll see here. The truth is that the IPCC studies are summaries of tens of thousands of studies [wikipedia.org], and they all point to the same problem and the same cause and the same predictions. Humankind is still largely fucked, whether this one researcher miscalculated uncertainty in this one study or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Always do your error bars properly. (Score:2)
"Assume a Spherical Cow" (Score:2)
That's the basic type of mistake they made with this one.
Re: (Score:3)
See, they didn't do their homework. Cows are better represented by parabolas according to the National Institute of Health...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
Alarmist climate prediction based on bad science (Score:2)
I am utterly shocked that an alarmist climate prediction would be made based on bad science. Shocked. What is this world coming to? So crazy. I've never even heard of such a thing. Everyone knows there is scientific consensus on this. It's solved science. I don't even understand why scientists still study climate since the science is so God damned settled.
Shocked...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Alarmist climate prediction based on bad scien (Score:2)
Math is a critical component of science. It's that whole "measuring" component of science that gets you. The science is bad. Any attempt to argue otherwise is silly. Any attempt to straw man this into something else is illogical.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Alarmist climate prediction based on bad scie (Score:2)
So you think the science that had faulty analysis and which drew faulty conclusions is good science? That's almost Trumpian. You have the greatest science, dude. Wonder why there's an issue with public trust in science...
I think this proves beyond a shadow of a doubt (Score:2)
(Climate) Science needs to be more careful (Score:2)
Given the political and public spotlight on climate science, researchers need to be extra careful and make sure their work is rigorous.
Why was this mistake made? Was there a rush to publish and people worked quickly?
Since this is such a (incorrectly) controversial area, instances like this linger in the zeitgeist.
Years from now, internet trolls and conspiracy theorists will point back to this one instance as an example of how climate science is wrong, benignly mistaken, or at worst, maliciously disingenuou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given the political and public spotlight on climate science, researchers need to be extra careful and make sure their work is rigorous.
Yes, it would be nice if all scientists were perfect and nobody made mistakes ever. In the real world, however, the way science works is that scientists are supposed to acknowledge it when they find errors, and correct the error. Which is what they did.
Why was this mistake made? Was there a rush to publish and people worked quickly?
The error was apparently in the uncertainty analysis. Uncertainty analyses turn out to be hard to do.
Question to /. (Score:2)
May I ask all those who gleefully go about "stupid scientists that keep on correcting themselves", "climate change conspiracy" and so on...
Do you know of any other system of acquiring knowledge about the world that is willing to disclose all its results and methods and corrects itself in the face of facts? Gazillion times. Until what remains IS the truth or the closest model to reality there can be. Do you know of any other system that has produced anything even remotely as useful as science?
WELL, DO YOU?
Fe
Philosophy (Score:2)
Just to save time (Score:2)
Just to save time and nip the inevitable anti-climate-change nonsense in the bud...
Nobody is disputing that the oceans are heating up. This is an argument over the details.
By comparison, it's like saying that the earth isn't spherical, which is correct. But the reason this is correct is not because the flat-earthers are right. The reason is that the earth is slightly egg-shaped. It is still for all intents and purposes, spherical. It's just a question of how specific you need to be.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Mistakes cost billions. (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't believe that global warming is a problem? But how exactly does switching to *economically competitive* wind or solar hurt things?
It might very well be a good idea, but the evaluation takes on a different tone when it's "this has many upsides and fewer downsides" rather than "do this or we'll kill you because we're all gonna die".
Many of the climate groups that have been the most effective are the ones that search for things that all parties can agree on rather than try to impose their (debatable) senses of conclusivity and morality upon the others.
Re: (Score:2)
Theory and models. (Score:3)
Climate Change, "theory" purports to predict all things.
Climate change "theory" is very straightforward. It "purports" that carbon dioxide has infrared absorption bands that are well known, well measured, and well understood, and we can use this absorption to model radiative transport of heat in the infrared.
Climate change models make predictions. They do not, however, "purport to predict all things". In fact, they predict a relatively small number of things. One thing they do predict global average temperature... but even here, this is with a quoted uncertainty
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. They have had to throw away all the most alarmist models/datasets.
Some of the early ones were so bad the first gnat exhale of CO2 would have led to inevitable venus like conditions. They just like to pretend they never published those now.
Not true (Score:2)
That's a lie.
Models working pretty good [Re:Theory and models.] (Score:2)
it could be easily falsified. Climate scientists compare data to models all the time to check how well the models do.So far, the models are holding up rather well.
Nonsense. They have had to throw away all the most alarmist models/datasets.
Some of the early ones were so bad the first gnat exhale of CO2 would have led to inevitable venus like conditions. They just like to pretend they never published those now.
The earliest of the convective-radiative models using accurate measurements of infrared absorption-- that is to say, the ancestor of today's GCMs-- was Manabe and Wetherald 1967. Over the fifty years of data since the model was published, guess what? the theory is pretty well matching measurements.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/ [forbes.com]
https://climategraphs.wordpress.com/2017/11/06/evaluating-the [wordpress.com]
it's all documented [Re:Theory and models.] (Score:2)
I skipped the third sentence because it is opinion unsupported by facts.
In fact, all the data adjustments are exhaustively documented, the reason for all the data analysis is discussed and justified, and the raw data and each step in analysis is available to the public.
Basically, you don't know anything about the subject, and can't be bothered to actually look up the data sources. But that's about par for the usual anonymous coward.
Re: (Score:3)
We recently had some spring flowers starting to bloom. And it's generally way too warm for the season.
Local weather means jack shit.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
"Truth is female, since truth is beauty rather than handsomeness; this, Ridcully reflected as the council grumbled in, would certainly explain the saying that a lie could run around the world before Truth has got its, correction, her boots on, since she would have to choose which pair - the idea that any woman in a position to choose would have just one pair of boots being beyond rational belief.
Indeed, as a goddess she would have lots of shoes, and thus many choices: comfy shoes for home truths, hobnail bo
Re: (Score:2)
Truth is beauty and beauty truth.
Henceforth all science will be evaluated as poetry by courts of law.
Para: The Hitchhiker's Guide...
that's right (Score:2)
Unfortunately, we will hearing about it for decades, because it's true.
Re: (Score:2)
Based on... what?
The authors have already admitted that their paper and math lack credibility.
Maybe somebody else will come along and support their conclusions.
If that were to happen, we'd call it "science".
Until then, however, unequivocally embracing the conclusion based on admitted flawed premises is something quite different than science.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
We'll be hearing about the oceans heating faster then expected for decades.
Unfortunately, we will hearing about it for decades, because it's true.
Based on... what?
If you looked at the link given in the summary [washingtonpost.com], you would have seen the statement "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."
So, yes: the post you are replying to is accurate, this is not new; their conclusion was in line with previous studies. The main difference is that they were using a different technique bas
Re: (Score:2)
Logic fail.
In line with previous studies [Re:that's right] (Score:2)
the post you are replying to is accurate, this is not new; their conclusion was in line with previous studies...
The authors have already admitted that [their uncertainty analysis was inaccurate, enough that] the uncertainty does not support their conclusion."
Logic fail.
No. Here it is detailed out
1. Earlier studies concluded the oceans were warming faster than expected.
2. This study attempted to evaluate that using a different technique that relied on different measurements.
3 The study concluded that the oceans were warming than expected.
4. But the reanalysis said that the uncertainty was too high to be able to assert statement (3) with confidence.
No logic fail.
The two statement are both correct. The conclusion of this study was indeed in line with previous studies; and th
Re: (Score:2)