The fast-warming ocean—oh, wait a minute
The time has come,’ the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing-wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.’
Recently there was a big climate change article published in the prestigious journal Nature that got a lot of publicity, because it found that, alarmingly, the ocean temperatures have grown hotter more quickly than was previously thought to be occurring.
Now we learn that mistakes—some of them rather obvious, apparently—were made in the researchers’ calculations [emphasis mine]:
The findings of the Resplandy et al paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media. 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.
That was published in a piece by Nic Lewis at Judith Curry’s blog, a site I’ve recommended several times before as being one of the best, and fairest and most well-balanced, on the entire issue of climate change.
The author of that quote says the errors were “surely inadvertent.” No doubt some of you may disagree, but I don’t. If someone was going to fudge results, the errors wouldn’t be so blatant that someone could find them so easily, on a quick perusal of the first page. My guess is that that wouldn’t be the way to go about a purposeful deception.
So, what happened? I think that set and expectations probably did play some role, but an unconscious one, in the researchers’ initial error. It’s not really all that surprising, although it’s something researchers must assiduously guard against. But to me the more interesting question is: what about the peer-reviewers who approved the article? They are the ones you might think ought to be more clear-sighted, more eager to spot errors, more objective about they were reading.
But they were not. And that was probably because they did not want to see them and therefore they got sloppy, a function of confirmation bias. People are less likely to question something that accords with their already-existing worldview. I don’t think they knowingly passed on an article full of obvious errors, because they would have known that opponents of their point of view would be combing the article for mistakes and would almost undoubtedly find them if it had been poorly done.
And perhaps they also knew that the state of human-caused climate-change science is such that all findings of its opponents are labeled unscientific hogwash put out by propagandist “skeptics.” However, at least the authors of the study have admitted their error, which just shows you how egregious it must have been.
Peer review with a bias vector is a first-order forcing of conforming science.
I am told, by someone recently in academia, that the best and sharpest people aren’t doing peer review. People who need publication credits, but don’t have articles for publication, are getting by partly by doing peer reviews. Only when something has been published and gets some attention will it be examined by other really qualified researchers.
Oh come on! You don’t HAVe to peer review what everybody knows.
You don’t HAVE to peer review The Narrative (Inc.).
n.n, LOL, good one!
However, at least the authors of the study have admitted their error, which just shows you how egregious it must have been.
Prospective authors of scientific journal articles are supposed to go over what they have written with the proverbial fine tooth comb. Not to mention the reviewers. Oh well.
Just wondering, do those who put the “In this house we believe…science is real” signs on their yards believe that science is, in addition to being real, also inerrant? Do they believe that it is anti-science to want to check the calculations that scientists make? 🙂
Who here among us does not know that the you must believe in global warming – climate change – extreme weather – CO2 is poisoning the planet charade is anything other than watermelon… green on the outside red on the inside?
Nature has been corrupt on the issue of AGW for many years now. They have published other articles that were “peer reviewed” that didn’t pass the smell test when held up to the slightest degree of rigor. It’s a racket. Judith Curry admits that in her most honest moments. She wants to be in the game so she mutes her opinions to a degree that makes her slightly les persona-non-grata in the academic world of climate science.
The state of Washington just dodged a bullet on carbon taxes designed to drive up the price of fossil fuels so people would cut back and use alternative energy. Isn’t that a good one? Buy a solar car. No, the lefties think it’s possible. The backers claimed that CO2 is a pollutant that causes asthma and heart conditions. No, I kid you not. The taxes would have gone into a fund to promote “Green Energy.” Is that an insane idea or what? Fortunately, enough people realized that the taxes would have driven up their utility bills and cost of driving that the initiative failed. During the entire campaign I saw no one, not even the oil companies, put the lie to the claims that CO2 is a dangerous pollutant that causes asthma and heart problems. The MSM propaganda machine is a hard thing to overcome.
Yesterday Ocasio-Cortez (Occasional-Cortex) joined a bunch of Green activists in invading Nancy Pelosi’s office. The next two years should be a hoot. Between the Greens/Climate change activists, Medicare for all, and free college for all we are in for a lot of activist theatre.
But, but . . . math is hard. 😉
“surely inadvertent.”
I had a colleague who built a complex experiment (a long process) and the very early measurements looked wonderful. Too wonderful, which didn’t keep him from running around with his hair on fire. He was exactly the kind of guy that was going to dash off a publication with what he had. Fortunately, he cooled off, re-ran everything and got accurate numbers similar to what everyone else was getting.
What would you call it, if he had published? Careless and slapdash? In this particular case, I wouldn’t call it dishonest.
Then when you are most busy and have a new class to teach, a long paper shows up in your in-box for peer review. In my experience, it was purely a charitable exercise, without any remuneration.
______
On the same topic, ocean warming, there was a paper put out by NOAA several years ago. They had at least two different types of thermometry. A newer one with high accuracy and low systematic error, and an older one known to have high systematic error. So they used the low quality data as the reference, and “fudged” the high quality data to fit in with the low quality data.
NOAA’s recently retired principal scientist blew the whistle on them.
What do you call that? They didn’t understand the differing qualities of their instrumentation? I doubt it. Somebody at the top knew what the conclusions needed to be, and the Obama admin. was watching.
Nature, Science, Lancet, and also Scientific American and even The New England Journal of Medicine have considerable form for this sort of thing, going back at least 15 years.
None of them are to be trusted without comparison of alternative sources, such as Anthony Watts’s What’s Up With That site on climate change and closely related topics — https://wattsupwiththat.com — which carries lots of postings on the more technical side of vearious climate-change studies and conclusions, and lots of views on same in the prolific Comment streams. There is also Dr. Craig Idso’s site http://www.co2science.org/ , which focusses on the effects (NOT “impacts”!!!) of more CO2 on the biosphere, especially on plants (which provide the basis of food for most animals) but also on marine life and coral formation, and which therefore also gets into questions of ocean acidification.
Then there is the awful, horrible, catastrophic imminent extinction of the poor, cute, cuddly Polar Bears. Dr. Susan Crockford’s metier is the study of polar bears in various climates past and present, but not, she notes, future. See her site at https://polarbearscience.com/ .
Drs. Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Patrick Michaels all have videos worth seeing on UT. In particular, I just found Dr. Lindzen’s talk “Global Warming for the Two Cultures,” presented in London on Oct. 13 to the Institute of Mechanical Engineers. (Haven’t watched it yet.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X2q9BT2LIUA
And for Dr. Curry’s fans who enjoy going to the movies, here’s a debate from 6/12/18 between Drs. Curry and Patrick Moore vs. Drs. Michael Mann and David Titley:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVXHaSqpsVg
Julie near Chicago on November 14, 2018 at 7:30 pm said:
“Then there is the awful, horrible, catastrophic imminent extinction …”
See The Catastrophe Narrative @ https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/14/the-catastrophe-narrative/
How about “surely inadvertently gobstoppingly stupid.”?
None of them are to be trusted without comparison of alternative sources
Multiple, independent sources (i.e. diversity). Otherwise, you accumulate redundant data (e.g. color), and no additional information (e.g. character). This reduces the likelihood of an accurate assessment.
The fast-warming ocean—oh, wait a minute
And how would they know that? How long have they been taking ocean temperature readings and in how many places?
Maybe it’s just a case (like with the Clintons) that they’ve lied so long & so often they just can’t help doing it again and again.
}}} (but surely inadvertent)
If someone was going to fudge results, the errors wouldn’t be so blatant that someone could find them so easily
Never underestimate the arrogance of the average liberal.
Other recent things where “errors” were pretty f***ing obvious —
1) Bret Kavanaugh
2) Jim Acosta I (“I never touched…”)
3) Jim Acosta II (“Doctored!! Doctored, I say!!“)
4) Broward County voting “improvements”.
Sponsored by Coca-Cola, no doubt.
Gerard, it’s good to hear from you. I know it’s been terribly difficult for you in more ways than one. But I was glad to read that your mother is still perky. A blessing for both of you.
.
As for your comment, one cannot but accept your restatement. Except to wonder if “inadvertently” is quite the mot juste.
. . .
ROPWA,
Clearly a very worthwhile essay by Dr. Curry, deserving a closer reading than I can give it right now. Thanks a bunch for the link.
The fast-warming ocean—oh, wait a minute
And how would they know that? How long have they been taking ocean temperature readings and in how many places?
About 15-odd years, assuming they’re referring to/using a “new” system they deployed at about that time. It is pretty effective, there is a “buoy” that raises and lowers itself regularly, taking a number of different readings at different depths, then rises to the surface and xmits the data for storage and analysis. Assuming this is the data pool it is based on, it’s probably the most legit “temperatures at depths” data obtained so far. So, I’m sure it’s a data measurement with thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of data points. Not sure of the dispersal process for them, so not sure how fine a grid it is making.
As for “The Narrative”…there’s always this illuminating article, NOT from “The Onion”:
(Put down yer coffee, first….)
https://spectator.org/judge-tells-new-citizens-to-take-a-knee/
OBloodyHell — Thought so. 15 years really gives you a good baseline to determine whether the oceans are warming, right? Sheesh!
And as we speak, “The Narrative” (Inc.) seem to be bending back on itself like a mobius strip….
In fact, it’s “deja vu all over again”, AKA, “Anyone who criticizes Soros MUST be an Anti-Semite”, revisited.
But with a twist: this time, it’s Zuckerberg who’s the Anti-Semite! Heh… (That is, if you can figure out what’s going on in this godforsaken comedy….)
https://www.foxnews.com/tech/facebook-new-york-times-fight-gets-ugly-social-network-slams-newspapers-inaccuracies
Richard S. & OBH,
I checked. It’s the Argo float system put out by a consortium of 30 nations and it’s not very old, but the data is very high quality. On the other hand, NOAA has been driving ships around the world for a very long time, and they have a long record of the water temp they drive through. Unfortunately, it’s not good data. Engine heat and solar heating of the hull’s paint job, and forward speed all impact the data.
TommyJay – you forgot to add “and they would fudge the ocean numbers anyway” just like they do with atmospheric and earth temperatures.
Regardless of anything else, since when is it Facebook’s job to “investigate Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election”? Surely the Telco had even more of a duty…. And of course the electricity companies, who after all provide the structure that Facebook (and the NYT) requires in order to function at all.
I hates ’em all, I does. (I’d like to add “and their little dog too,” but I just can’t bring myself to hate a dog. Especially not on the grounds of the nastiness of its owner.)