By WorldTribune Staff- Researchers admitted to making a major mistake in a peer-reviewed paper claiming that the Earth’s oceans are warming much faster than thought due to climate change.
The Oct. 31 article in Nature claimed that, over the past quarter-century, Earth’s oceans have retained 60 percent more heat each year than scientists previously had thought. The study was led by Laure Resplandy, a geoscientist at Princeton University.
The article received widespread coverage from the major media, with headlines declaring:
“Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming” – The Washington Post.
“We’ve warmed up the world’s oceans way more than scientists realized, new research suggests – and time to avoid disaster is running out” – Business Insider.
Study co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, however, confirmed that mathematician Nic Lewis had discovered an error with the study’s calculations.
“Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that’s going on in the ocean,” Keeling told the San Diego Union-Tribune. “We really muffed the error margins.”
Keeling added: “When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there. We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.”
Lewis posted his findings last week on Climate Etc., a blog on climate science and research hosted by Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech.
“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,” Lewis said in his post. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and former NASA climate scientist, said the Lewis finding underlined problems with the peer review process.
“If the conclusions of the paper support a more alarmist narrative on the seriousness of anthropogenic global warming, the less thorough will be the peer review. I am now totally convinced of that,” Spencer said, according to a report by The Washington Times. “If the paper is skeptical in tone, it endures levels of criticism that alarmist papers do not experience.”
Other problems include the “increased specialization of climate science (and other sciences in general), so that there are relatively few peers who know enough about what they are reviewing to pass expert judgment on it,” Spencer said.
By WorldTribune Staff, February 5, 2017
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) used “unverified” data for a landmark study that claimed the planet was warming much faster than expected, a whistleblower said.
NOAA in 2015 made a “blatant attempt to intensify the impact” of global warming to eliminate the “pause” in temperature rise since 1998, Dr. John Bates, the former principal scientist at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, told the Daily Mail.
The NOAA made ‘decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation.’
The study was meant “to discredit the notion of a global warming hiatus and rush to time the publication of the paper to influence national and international deliberations on climate policy,” Bates said.
Bates said his objections to the study were ignored by his superiors, who let scientists make “decisions and scientific choices that maximized warming and minimized documentation” in advance of a major United Nations climate summit in Paris.
Texas Rep. Lamar Smith, chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, subpoenaed NOAA in late 2015 for records related to the study that adjusted global sea surface temperature upwards.
Smith was heavily criticized for subpoenaing NOAA scientists, and the agency refused to hand over any internal deliberations.
“Dr. Bates’ revelations and NOAA’s obstruction certainly lend credence to what I’ve expected all along … that the study used flawed data, was rushed to publication in an effort to support the president’s climate change agenda, and ignored NOAA’s own standards for scientific study,” Smith said in a statement.
NOAA has now “decided that the sea dataset used in the study will have to be replaced and substantially revised just 18 months after it was issued, because it used unreliable methods which overstated the speed of warming,” The Daily Mail reported, adding NOAA’s revised data will show “lower temperatures and a slower rate in the recent warming trend.”