Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Ocean temperatures  (Read 9663 times)

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 702
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #50 on: August 23, 2020, 12:46:40 AM »
...
So what the hell are you doing bringing this guy as an authoritative source to this forum?


Geron, as I said in my original post 2018, this was percieved to be a Very Important Paper: "This is a really important research paper with enormous policy implications."
It was also picked up a lot in mass media!
It was published in Nature!

Then came Nic Lewis and in essence destroyed their results. It turns out that they didn't do their calculations correctly.
Paper was RETRACTED by Nature.
After retraction came recalculations, and now their results are basically in line with previous research, as there is no statistical significance to their claim that oceans are heating faster. "...after correction, the Resplandy et al. results do not suggest a larger increase in ocean heat content than previously thought"

Geron, do you have anything to say about the science here? About the critical analysis?
Seemingly not, You prefer to just throw your petty pebbles at the messenger, who actually did a great service to the science community here.

Why don't you want to discuss the science?

We should also mention the mass media. That research was big climate news, reported in I'd say all major mass media, here are some examples:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46046067
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/climate/ocean-temperatures-hotter.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/10/31/startling-new-research-finds-large-buildup-heat-oceans-suggesting-faster-rate-global-warming/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-oceans-are-heating-up-faster-than-expected/ https://edition.cnn.com/2018/11/01/australia/ocean-warming-report-intl/index.html http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-oceans-study-climate-change-20181031-story.html
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2018/11/01/oceans-more-heat-study-global-warming-climate-change-nature/1843074002/
https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-global-warming-ocean-temperature-heat-fossil-fuels-science-research-a8612796.html

How many have published the news about the retraction and that results are now in line with previous research?

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 702
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #51 on: August 23, 2020, 12:49:30 AM »
Agreed gerontocrat.
Nic Lewis is well known for hand waving away any research that finds global warming a risk.
Some suggested reading for those so inclined.
 https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2014/02/01/understanding-lewis-2013/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/02/marvel-et-al-2015-part-iii-response-to-nic-lewis/

And who is doing the hand waving here?

Do you have anything to say about the science here?
About the critical analysis?

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 135
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #52 on: August 23, 2020, 01:43:32 AM »
I never bother following links to whack fringe sites as it gives them  traffic they dont deserve .
Nic Lewis is not an authority and his blog posts are not science so do not need examination.
I did follow your links to the MSM.
According to you
Quote
How many have published the news about the retraction and that results are now in line with previous research?
From your first two links.
Quote
Errors have been found in a recent study suggesting the oceans were soaking up more heat than previously estimated.

The initial report suggested that the seas have absorbed 60% more than previously thought.

But a re-examination by a mathematician showed that the margin of error was larger than in the published study.

The authors have acknowledged the problem and have submitted a correction to the journal.
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-46046067
Quote
Editors’ Note: November 14, 2018

An earlier version of this article included a conclusion from a study about ocean warming that is now in doubt. The researchers are working to revise their study because of errors detected in their calculations and it appears unlikely that they will be able to support their original conclusion that the oceans have warmed an average of 60 percent more per year than the current official estimates by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The sections of the article dealing with that conclusion have been removed and the headline has been updated.

Update: Sept. 26, 2019: Nature, the journal which initially published the study last year, announced on Wednesday that it was retracting the paper.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/31/climate/ocean-temperatures-hotter.html

You have just been publicly Pawned for gibbering nonsense.
I will bet your list came unchecked from some fringe crank site and like many deniers you never bothered to check what your links actually said  instead believed your crank source unconditionally.

Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.

kinbote

  • New ice
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 25
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #53 on: August 23, 2020, 03:19:04 AM »
...
Then came Nic Lewis and in essence destroyed their results. It turns out that they didn't do their calculations correctly.
Paper was RETRACTED by Nature.
After retraction came recalculations, and now their results are basically in line with previous research, as there is no statistical significance to their claim that oceans are heating faster. "...after correction, the Resplandy et al. results do not suggest a larger increase in ocean heat content than previously thought"
...
High-profile ocean warming paper to get a correction
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/high-profile-ocean-warming-paper-get-correction

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.

"These problems do not invalidate the methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based, but they do influence the mean rate of warming we infer, and more importantly, the uncertainties of that calculation," said Keeling in a statement on RealClimate.org.

"The more important message is that our study lacks the accuracy to narrow the range of previous estimates of ocean uptake," Keeling said in an email. He thanked Lewis for pointing out the anomaly.

In the past, scientific debates about climate science have prompted skeptics to attack mainstream climate science generally. Some climate scientists said they are concerned that could happen again in this case and the outcome wildly misinterpreted.

When asked about the response of skeptics, climate scientist Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University in State College said, "We can't worry about that."

"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.

This morning the website Climate Depot, which frequently targets mainstream climate science, sent out an email with the headline, "Skeptic review dismantles study."


----

Sounds familiar. Also, I'm not sure I understand the argument that Mass Media ignored the retraction and resubmission of this Very Important Paper, particularly when I checked the first three links you shared and all had updates on the retraction, and two had links to updated stories with more information.


Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 702
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #54 on: August 23, 2020, 08:20:17 AM »
I never bother following links to whack fringe sites as it gives them  traffic they dont deserve .
Nic Lewis is not an authority and his blog posts are not science so do not need examination.

In this case he is, as it is only due to Nic Lewis' critical review that this Seemingly Very Important Paper got retracted from Nature, one of the leading science journals. On top of that Prof. Keeling himself taking the blame. At least he had the manners to thank Nic Lewis for his help in finding the faults in that research

Quote
I did follow your links to the MSM.

The links were just a sample to show how the results of the paper were widely published. The list was from Nic Lewis site.
In addition, I asked a question, how many of them that published a retraction notice. Yes, some of them did. Some of them certainly didn't.

Quote
You have just been publicly Pawned for gibbering nonsense.
I will bet your list came unchecked from some fringe crank site and like many deniers you never bothered to check what your links actually said  instead believed your crank source unconditionally.

Please, Kiwigriff. We are not in the Forum Decorum sandpit thread now! We are in the Science section, discussing a major scientific paper that has been retracted from a top notch journal due to the researchers not being able to make some rather basic calculations correctly. It's pretty scandalous what has happened, not least due to how widely publicized those results were!

You, however, have totally nothing substantial to say about the issue itself. You say that it is "nonsense". Indeed?
Your major quest seems to be to try to scandalize me for bringing this up.
That's pretty sad.
I think that there should be room for scientific discussions in the Science forum of ASIF?

Finally, you accuse me of being a 'denier'. No, I'm not a 'denier', I'm just a realist. I have my Ph.D. and my critical mind, and I don't believe in climate alarmism any more.

Simon

  • New ice
  • Posts: 37
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 110
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #55 on: August 23, 2020, 08:44:21 AM »

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 978
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #56 on: August 23, 2020, 09:51:42 AM »
So Lewis is a denier but he did play a role in the retraction of this paper.

I will remove the link to his site from the post above but i will leave the pdf attached.
Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 702
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #57 on: August 23, 2020, 01:35:49 PM »
So Lewis is a denier but he did play a role in the retraction of this paper.

I will remove the link to his site from the post above but i will leave the pdf attached.

The inquisitor came up with the verdict, and poor Nic's head is chopped. Why does this make me think about the queen of hearts in the Alice in wonderland fairytale?

Seriously, I don't think it's correct to define Lewis as a 'denier'. He has never denied AGW and the effect of GHG, afaik. He is a skeptic when it comes to how strong the climate feedbacks are, e.g. as measured by the ECS or the TCR, where he claims values are likely in the lower end of the ranges set by IPCC.
E.g. in this youtube talk, where he assigns ECS values somewhere around 1.7. Does that make him a denier?

I find everything he says in that presentation perfectly reasonable, and very interesting.

I don't think it should qualify anyone to be labeled a denier who just disputes the strength of feedbacks, when the discussion is still well within the limits set by the IPCC. At least as long as the IPCC is unable to narrow down the ECS range, and no-one in the science community can be very sure about the correct values.

So, what exactly is it that makes Nic Lewis a 'denier'?

Hefaistos

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 702
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 327
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #58 on: August 23, 2020, 02:14:40 PM »
....
You can add American Enterprise Institute and and and and..

So what the hell are you doing bringing this guy as an authoritative source to this forum?


While in the Science (!) forum, maybe it should also be mentioned that poor head-chopped Nic also had a paper published in a VERY well renowned climate science journal:

" An Objective Bayesian Improved Approach for Applying Optimal Fingerprint Techniques to Estimate Climate Sensitivity"
Nicholas Lewis
J. Climate (2013) 26 (19): 7414–7429.
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00473.1

« Last Edit: August 23, 2020, 02:20:22 PM by Hefaistos »

kassy

  • Moderator
  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2344
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1128
  • Likes Given: 978
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #59 on: August 23, 2020, 05:17:11 PM »
So Lewis is a denier but he did play a role in the retraction of this paper.

I will remove the link to his site from the post above but i will leave the pdf attached.
I find everything he says in that presentation perfectly reasonable, and very interesting.

So, what exactly is it that makes Nic Lewis a 'denier'?

His link to the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The YT talk is questioning if going zero carbon by 2050 is needed.

His general career.

Þetta minnismerki er til vitnis um að við vitum hvað er að gerast og hvað þarf að gera. Aðeins þú veist hvort við gerðum eitthvað.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 7750
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1124
  • Likes Given: 512
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #60 on: August 23, 2020, 06:13:26 PM »
Nic Lewis is a climate risk denier. There is no doubt about it. He believes there are no serious risks to global warming. He's not stupid, though.

Hefaistos is not a climate risk denier. He made his point, but there's absolutely no need to turn Nic Lewis into Galileo.

Does that about sum it up?
Il faut comparer, comparer, comparer, et cultiver notre jardin

Tom_Mazanec

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3340
    • View Profile
    • Planet Mazanec
  • Liked: 562
  • Likes Given: 261
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #61 on: August 23, 2020, 07:35:42 PM »
If you say there are no risks to AGW then I guess you are a denier.
On the other hand, I deny Sam Carana's projection of 18° C warming by 2026 and human extinction, but that does not make me a Denier.
SHARKS (CROSSED OUT) MONGEESE (SIC) WITH FRICKIN LASER BEAMS ATTACHED TO THEIR HEADS

KiwiGriff

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 805
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 402
  • Likes Given: 135
Re: Ocean temperatures
« Reply #62 on: August 23, 2020, 08:10:01 PM »
<Snip. Let's not make Hefaistos the centre of attention and stay on-topic; N.>
« Last Edit: August 23, 2020, 08:33:03 PM by Neven »
Animals can be driven crazy by placing too many in too small a pen. Homo sapiens is the only animal that voluntarily does this to himself.
Notebooks of Lazarus Long.
Robert Heinlein.