Well this sucks and I hate being right all the time. Ocean's heating waaay faster than thought.

[Paratus]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html

I'll continue to volunteer compute time to climate modelling even though methods and motives continue to be points of contention.

Don’t feel too warm and fuzzy about it. The 150 A bombs a minute number I quoted earlier comes from the Argo float data. This study used a different method to estimate the ocean heat content which came in higher.

It’s still a huge amount of heat.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Here you go. Yep, Resplandy made a boo boo. At least it's an admitted one.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/07/...resence-of-trend-and-scale-systematic-errors/

"
As mentioned in a comment by Judith Curry, Laure Resplandy now has a statement on her website http://resplandy.princeton.edu/ under her entry OCEAN WARMING FROM ATMOSPHERE GASES linking to her new paper, that reads:

We are aware the way we handled the errors underestimated the uncertainties. We are working on an update that addresses this issue. We thank Nicholas Lewis for bringing this to our​

attention"

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Missed a link to the first part of the response.
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/

 

[crashtech]

@Paratus , not sure what you mean by warm and fuzzy

Don’t feel too warm and fuzzy about it. The 150 A bombs a minute number I quoted earlier comes from the Argo float data. This study used a different method to estimate the ocean heat content which came in higher.

It’s still a huge amount of heat.

I never feel "warm and fuzzy" about research that turns out to contain serious errors, especially when the conclusions so potentially consequential.

 

[Paratus]

https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html

I'll continue to volunteer compute time to climate modelling even though methods and motives continue to be points of contention.

I’ll add that this is another example of the self correcting nature of science. They found an error and publicized it. It’s why these unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about climate sciences are so idiotic. Mainstream scientists always publish their work to allow for scrutiny.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I’ll add that this is another example of the self correcting nature of science. They found an error and publicized it. It’s why these unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about climate sciences are so idiotic. Mainstream scientists always publish their work to allow for scrutiny.

"“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ” Phil Jones "

Thanks for that laugh.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Everyday I am reminded that not having children was the right choice. There is no changing things. The majority of people on this planet are too busy trying to survive now to worry about 30 years down the road. Those that COULD affect change are too busy counting their money. Sounds apathetic, but frankly it's not worth worrying about because most of us won't be around when it actually gets bad, because as I said, it's not going to change - at least not until it's too late. Half the population or more needs to die off to begin to correct things.

 

[Paratus]

@Paratus , not sure what you mean by warm and fuzzy

I never feel "warm and fuzzy" about research that turns out to contain serious errors, especially when the conclusions so potentially consequential.

The error in this paper isn’t between a warming ocean and an ocean at steady-state temperatures.

It’s between a massively warming ocean and one that’s warming faster than that.

Science is a process of finding and eliminating errors. So finding errors doesn’t bother me that much and quite frankly I rather the problem be worse than much worse.

 

[Paratus]

"“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. ” Phil Jones "

Thanks for that laugh.

I’m sorry is this supposed to mean something?

 

[crashtech]

I’ll add that this is another example of the self correcting nature of science. They found an error and publicized it. It’s why these unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about climate sciences are so idiotic. Mainstream scientists always publish their work to allow for scrutiny.

My hope is that people working in the climate science field will realize that they must hold themselves to the highest standards of rigor and integrity, given the potentially momentous nature of their findings.

 

[HurleyBird]

Oh, the independent non-scientist financier who is a climate denier, making an unsubstantiated claim.

Bravo!

Don't forget Bigfoot!

https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/science-proves-bigfoot-is-real/

Don't get me wrong, I actually like a lot of your posts even if I don't think we see eye to eye on everything, but by God this is a great example of why one should avoid fallacious reasoning (in this case genetic/ad hominem). Hopefully you're able to learn from this one.

 

[brycejones]

My hope is that people working in the climate science field will realize that they must hold themselves to the highest standards of rigor and integrity, given the potentially momentous nature of their findings.

You do realize that is what happened here right?

 

[crashtech]

You do realize that is what happened here right?

Yes.

 

[Atreus21]

You do realize that is what happened here right?

Yes.

How was this able to get past peer review?

 

[DrunkenSano]

Hopefully internationally we can clamp down hard on how much Asia is fucking the Earth.

 

[CZroe]

Oh, the independent non-scientist financier who is a climate denier, making an unsubstantiated claim.

Bravo!

Don't forget Bigfoot!

https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/science-proves-bigfoot-is-real/

He is a mathematician who apparently found a math error.

To justifiably assert yourself over this, you must be some kind of Internet Forum scientist in the field of ”I hate being right all the time.”

Speaking of “unsubstantiated,” you have some explaining to do.

I’ll add that this is another example of the self correcting nature of science. They found an error and publicized it. It’s why these unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about climate sciences are so idiotic. Mainstream scientists always publish their work to allow for scrutiny.

Undeniably, some will take what they want to hear and unapologetically push back against any correction that contradicts the conclusion they strongly prefer. Case in point: Hayabusa Rider. I don’t seem him self-correcting or accepting the correction or genuinely scrutinizing the correction before just assuming it was unsubstantiated. He unironically pointed to the “climate denier” bias to justify his own. Don’t you have a problem with that?

 

[dank69]

He is a mathematician who apparently found a math error.

To justifiably assert yourself over this, you must be some kind of Internet Forum scientist in the field of ”I hate being right all the time.”

Speaking of “unsubstantiated,” you have some explaining to do.


Undeniably, some will take what they want to hear and unapologetically push back against any correction that contradicts the conclusion they strongly prefer. Case in point: Hayabusa Rider. I don’t seem him self-correcting or accepting the correction or genuinely scrutinizing the correction before just assuming it was unsubstantiated. He unironically pointed to the “climate denier” bias to justify his own. Don’t you have a problem with that?

Thanks for your concern.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

Everyday I am reminded that not having children was the right choice. There is no changing things. The majority of people on this planet are too busy trying to survive now to worry about 30 years down the road. Those that COULD affect change are too busy counting their money. Sounds apathetic, but frankly it's not worth worrying about because most of us won't be around when it actually gets bad, because as I said, it's not going to change - at least not until it's too late. Half the population or more needs to die off to begin to correct things.

I'd also like to vote that i'm happy you didn't reproduce.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

I’m sorry is this supposed to mean something?

Sorry, I thought you were better informed. It was the response from Phil Jones. of Climategate fame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
and his response to McIntyre of Climate Audit for withholding the Hockey Stick data.

https://climateaudit.org/2005/03/05/top-eleven-reasons-for-withholding-data-or-code/

So you can see why i'm amused at your little blurb.

 

[imported_tajmahal]

How was this able to get past peer review?

A "pal review" rubber climate stamp.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

He is a mathematician who apparently found a math error.

To justifiably assert yourself over this, you must be some kind of Internet Forum scientist in the field of ”I hate being right all the time.”

Speaking of “unsubstantiated,” you have some explaining to do.


Undeniably, some will take what they want to hear and unapologetically push back against any correction that contradicts the conclusion they strongly prefer. Case in point: Hayabusa Rider. I don’t seem him self-correcting or accepting the correction or genuinely scrutinizing the correction before just assuming it was unsubstantiated. He unironically pointed to the “climate denier” bias to justify his own. Don’t you have a problem with that?

Ok, almost always right. Better? I'm pleased we have a few more years.

 

[Paratus]

Sorry, I thought you were better informed. It was the response from Phil Jones. of Climategate fame
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Jones_(climatologist)
and his response to McIntyre of Climate Audit for withholding the Hockey Stick data.

https://climateaudit.org/2005/03/05/top-eleven-reasons-for-withholding-data-or-code/

So you can see why i'm amused at your little blurb.

I’m sorry. I know all about climategate. I’m wondering what your point was by bringing it up.

Must be because it’s another example of deniers being wrong.

 

[SlowSpyder]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/?utm_term=.037e2fe486af

Don't worry OP, looks like you won't have to hate yourself for being so right all the time.

 

[Paratus]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/energy-environment/2018/11/14/scientists-acknowledge-key-errors-study-how-fast-oceans-are-warming/?utm_term=.037e2fe486af

Don't worry OP, looks like you won't have to hate yourself for being so right all the time.

Didn’t bother reading the last 20 posts did you?

 

[imported_tajmahal]

When the Scientific Consensus Is Corrected by a Skeptic


"Where did Lewis debunk the doomsayers? No, not in the esteemed pages of Nature but in a blog post at a website called Climate Etc., a small, dissenting dot in the vast universe of online science discussion. Lewis wrote: “The findings of the…paper were peer-reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media.” He went on: “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results. Just a few hours of analysis and calculations, based only on published information, was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.”


https://www.commentarymagazine.com/...ientific-consensus-is-corrected-by-a-skeptic/