Oceans not warming faster

#1
Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming

A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought. But researchers now say they can’t necessarily make that claim.

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.”
...
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.


Rolleyes
Reply
#2
"Paul Durack, a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said that promptly acknowledging the errors in the study “is the right approach in the interests of transparency.”

But he added in an email, “This study, although there are additional questions that are arising now, confirms the long known result that the oceans have been warming over the observed record, and the rate of warming has been increasing,” he said."
Reply
#3
(Nov 15, 2018 02:07 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: "Paul Durack, a research scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said that promptly acknowledging the errors in the study “is the right approach in the interests of transparency.”

But he added in an email, “This study, although there are additional questions that are arising now, confirms the long known result that the oceans have been warming over the observed record, and the rate of warming has been increasing,” he said."

And the immediately following paragraph:

Gavin Schmidt, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, followed the growing debate over the study closely on Twitter and said that measurements about the uptake of heat in the oceans have been bedeviled with data problems for some time — and that debuting new research in this area is hard.



Why are there never climate change reports that have errors on the side of slowing or cooling changes? Rolleyes
Reply
Reply
#5
They needed the oceans to be warming faster to account for the lull in global warming. They had to overestimate the ocean's heat absorption by 30%, in error, to do that.

Again, why do these reports always make errors in one direction but never the other?
Likely because the fear-mongering feeds into leftist attempts at economic power grabs and helps researchers get grants from decidedly leftist sources.
Reply
#6
Scientists say the Earth, over the last 100 years or so , is coming out of a 600 year cooling period (1300-1900 AD), affectionately known as The Little Ice Age. I don't doubt hydrocarbons are contributing to global warming but it isn't unusual for the planet to warm up somewhat after a particularly cold period. It was once warm enough to grow crops and raise livestock in Greenland prior to the Little Ice Age. I think, like anything else, we need more information so I'm OK with funding studies.
Reply
#7
I would be fine with studies, if ANY of them ever made mistakes in the other direction. Since they never do, it really seems pretty rife with ideological bias.
Reply
#8
Syne Wrote:I would be fine with studies, if ANY of them ever made mistakes in the other direction. Since they never do, it really seems pretty rife with ideological bias.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc...-response/


Paul Pukite (@whut) says:
14 Nov 2018 at 5:05 PM

Nic Lewis has yet to respond to my criticism of his online comment to the paper where he states unequivocally “that all of the paper’s findings are wrong“.

Lewis neglects to consider that this paper is describing an independent and perhaps novel means of estimating ocean heat uptake, and which largely substantiates previous estimates. It’s the case that being less aggressive with the uncertainty propagation brings the estimates inline with published results, which is the only aspect that can be considered “wrong”.

It seems only fair that Lewis needs to retract his assertion, since it’s important to bring independent and novel analyses to the forefront, and so to speak, not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Much worse errors are being committed by Lewis’ colleagues. See for example, the WUWT post on the California wildfires by Willis Eschenbach a few days ago, who plotted the historical warming trend of California as being 10x less than that has been reported and peer-reviewed! We reported this egregious error and the post was modified, but by that time, the damage was done as the blog readers interested in reading about the California wildfires had moved on to another post, unaware of his mistake but further convinced that no warming is occurring in California.
Reply
#9
WUWT and blog posts are not academic papers. Neither author seems to have published any papers to that effect. Mistakes in posts do not speak to widespread academic bias. It's those in accepted academic circles who always err in one direction.
Reply
#10
I think I see where you are coming from.
I am going to assume we accept high school physics:-
More CO2 means more heat retained.
Virtually everything expands when heated - water,'land', everything.
I think we both (Syne and I) have enough High School Physics to take a fair stab at the se level rise (or fall) if we moved to an equilibrium (say) 1.5C above current temperatures. We probably ought to do the calculation and compare results. The politics of the situation isn't about the equilibrium position but instead revolves around the sea level rise in 2100 - far enough away to be off any balance sheet and for any politician to feel no guilt or responsibility for anything that happens 80 years time. The politics are that If 2100 has a problem they're going to have to solve it themselves.
I get the impression 'scientists' take a rather different view - a new equilibrium sea level between (say) 2 and 5 metres above the current level would be a 'bad thing' regardless of when (and to whom) it occurs.
Would you (Syne) be willing to make your best guess at equlibrium sea level rise given (say) 1.5C temperature rise?
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up? Syne 3 324 Jul 26, 2018 11:24 PM
Last Post: Zinjanthropos
  Global Warming My Ass! Yazata 3 357 Nov 19, 2016 10:20 PM
Last Post: RainbowUnicorn
  'Super Corals' Could Survive Warming Oceans C C 0 328 Nov 30, 2015 09:00 PM
Last Post: C C
  Scientists Ask Obama (etc) To Prosecute Global Warming Skeptics C C 3 620 Sep 20, 2015 06:54 PM
Last Post: elte



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)