Researchers return on their main results in terms of global warming | Earth

<! –

->

C & # 39; well new. It is less certain today that the Earth's oceans are 60% warmer than previously thought (though they may still be hot). As reported in Los Angeles Times Today (14 November 2018), researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of San Diego and Princeton University have had to go back on a widely reported scientific result – based on an article published in Nature last month – showing that the Earth's oceans are warming considerably faster than previously thought because of climate change.

The paper of October 31 Nature said the oceans had warmed 60% more than what had been described by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On November 6, the mathematician Nic Lewis published his reviews on the newspaper on the blog of Judith Curry. Lewis and Curry are both critical of the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and caused by humans.

In his November 6 blog post, Lewis reported loopholes in the Oct. 31 article. The authors of the October 31 document now say they have redid their calculations and – although they find that the ocean is always warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC – they agree to say that they have not "optimized" the range of probabilities. They can no longer support the previous badertion of a heat increase greater than 60% than indicated. They say now that there is a wider range of probabilitybetween 10% and 70%, as has already been shown in other studies.

A correction has been submitted to Nature.

The Los Angeles Times reported that one of the co-authors of the article, Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, had "blamed everything" and thanked Lewis for alerting him about this mistake . Keeling told the Los Angeles Times:

When we were confronted with his ideas, it immediately became apparent that there was a problem. We are grateful to report it quickly so that we can fix it quickly.

Meanwhile, today's Twitter feed has yielded the desired results in a situation like this one, where it was necessary to backtrack for a dramatic and widely reported climatic result. Many make comments like this:

We always knew it was bullshit, but will the globalists accept reality or deny it again? ** "We have really eased the margins of error": the report on global warming rendered worthless after scientists have identified a flaw in a study on global warming https: // t .co / uVzwS7UE36

– ?? Chuck Patriot Santa Dude Nellis ?? (@ NascarChuck336) November 14, 2018

But the more sensible people on Twitter and elsewhere in the media also intervene, stressing – as it has been necessary to recall again and again – that science is not a "set of facts". Science is a process. One of the reasons scientists publish is that other scientists may find errors in their work so that these errors can be corrected.

All scientists know it. The Los Angeles Times explained it as follows:

Although articles are subject to peer review before being published, new discoveries must always be reproduced before being widely accepted by the scientific community …

According to the Times, Gerald Meehl, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, Colorado, said:

Here is how the process works. Every paper that comes out is not infallible or infallible. If it's not subject to scrutiny, you look at the results.

Contrarian climates reveal a scientific error and thwart a major study on the warming of the ocean.
Scientists do not cry "false news", they accept blame, solve the problem and move on … https://t.co/kL09DHRjqz

– Scott Anderson (@Psychobiotic) November 14, 2018

Conclusion: an error was found in the article of 31 October 2018 published in Nature – showing an increase in ocean warming that is 60% higher than that estimated by the IPCC. The authors acknowledged the error and a correction was submitted to the Nature.

October 31st article in Nature: Quantification of the heat absorption of the oceans by changes in the composition of atmospheric oxygen and CO2

November 6th blog post by Nic Lewis: A major problem with Resplandy et al. ocean heat absorption paper