[ad_1]
Scientists behind a major study that Earth's oceans are warming faster than previously thought, say their work contains accidental errors that made their conclusions more certain than they they really are.
Two weeks after the publication of this highly publicized study in the journal Nature, its authors have submitted corrections to the publication. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, which hosts several of the researchers involved, also noted the problems encountered in the scientists' work and corrected a press release posted on its website. The latter had previously stated that the study explained how the Earth's oceans "absorb 60% more heat than previously thought.
"Unfortunately, we have made mistakes here," said Ralph Keeling, a Scripps climatologist, co-author of the study. "I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to correct mistakes when you find them."
According to Keeling, the central problem has emerged in the way researchers have treated the uncertainty associated with their measurements. As a result, the conclusions raise too much doubt to definitively support the conclusion of the document on the amount of heat absorbed by the oceans over time.
The central conclusion of the study – that the oceans retain more and more energy as more and more heat is retained in the Earth's climate system – is consistent with other studies that have led to similar conclusions. And that did not change much despite the mistakes. But Keeling said the authors' miscalculations meant that the margin of error in the results was much greater, meaning that researchers could weigh with less certainty than they thought.
"I take responsibility for what happened because it's my job to make sure that kind of detail is communicated," said Keeling.
The lead author of the study was Laure Resplandy from Princeton University. Other researchers were working for institutions in China, Paris, Germany and the US National Center for Atmospheric Research and Fluid Geophysics Laboratory.
"Maintaining the accuracy of the scientific data is of paramount importance to us, the publishers, and we recognize our responsibility to correct the errors in the documents we have published," Nature said in a statement released on Monday. Washington Post. "The issues related to this document have been brought to the attention of Nature and we are looking at them carefully. We take all concerns related to the articles we have published very seriously and will post an update as soon as further information becomes available. "
Questions asked
The first study, published on October 31, has developed a new method for measuring the amount of heat absorbed by the oceans. The authors essentially measured the volume of gas, in particular oxygen and carbon dioxide, that had fled the oceans in recent decades and were heading towards the warming atmosphere. They found that warming "lies at the top of previous estimates" and suggested that the rate of global warming itself could be more accelerated.
The results, the authors wrote, may suggest that there is less time than expected to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The study has attracted considerable media attention.
However, shortly after its publication, a UK-based independent researcher, Nicholas Lewis, published a long article on his blog stating that he had discovered a "major problem" in research.
"As far as I know, their method vastly underestimates uncertainty," said Lewis in an interview Tuesday, "as well as a significant increase of nearly 30% in the central estimate."
Lewis added that he tended "to read a lot of articles and that, having both a background in mathematics and physics, I tend to look at them carefully and see how they are doing." They have a meaning. And where they do not make sense – with this one, it's pretty obvious that it does not make sense – I look at them more deeply. "
Lewis has argued in previous studies and commentary that climatologists predict excessive warming because of their use of computer simulations, and that current data from the planet itself suggest that global warming would be less severe than expected.
It is unclear whether the authors agree with all of Lewis's critics, but Keeling said, "We agree that issues similar to those he identified have been identified."
[ad_2]
Source link
