WHEN CLIMATE RESEARCH IS WRONG OR INADEQUATE WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT POLITICIANS AND PUBLIC POLICY.....

WHEN CLIMATE RESEARCH IS WRONG OR INADEQUATE WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT POLITICIANS AND PUBLIC POLICY JUST-RESTING The research had everything … 1. The research strongly supported the general “consensus” of the climate alarmists as the authors’ work independently confirmed that the oceans were warming as previously thought and this information has implications for policy-relevant measurements involving climate change. Abstract The ocean is the main source of thermal inertia in the climate system1. During recent decades, ocean heat uptake has been quantified by using hydrographic temperature measurements and data from the Argo float program, which expanded its coverage after 20072,3. However, these estimates all use the same imperfect ocean dataset and share additional uncertainties resulting from sparse coverage, especially before 20074,5. Here we provide an independent estimate by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2)—levels of which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases—as a whole-ocean thermometer. We show that the ocean gained 1.33 ± 0.20 × 1022 joules of heat per year between 1991 and 2016, equivalent to a planetary energy imbalance of 0.83 ± 0.11 watts per square metre of Earth’s surface. We also find that the ocean-warming effect that led to the outgassing of O2 and CO2 can be isolated from the direct effects of anthropogenic emissions and CO2 sinks. Our result—which relies on high-precision O2 measurements dating back to 19916—suggests that ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases7 and the thermal component of sea-level rise8. 2. The research was conducted by a well-credential researchers from prestigious institutions such as Laure Resplandy of Princeton University, Ralph Keeling of the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and eight other authors (Eddebbar, Y.; Brooks, M. K.; Wang, R.; Bopp, L.; Long, M. C.; Dunne, J. P.; Koeve, W.; and Oschlies, A). 3. The research had an impressive title, “Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition.” 4. The research was published in one of the world’s most prestigious peer-reviewed journal, Nature. (Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition) 5. The mathematics surely “supported” the authors’ observations and calculations. 6. The mainstream media trumpeted the findings with implied certitude using the general headline, “Oceans have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought.” The Washington Post … Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming -- The findings mean the world might have less time to curb carbon emissions. The world’s oceans have been soaking up far more excess heat in recent decades than scientists realized, suggesting that Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted in the years ahead, according to new research published Wednesday. The Los Angeles Times … Oceans warming faster than anticipated, giving even less time to stave off worst impacts of climate change, study finds The world’s oceans may be heating up faster than previously thought — meaning the planet could have even less time to avoid catastrophic global warming than predicted just weeks ago by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. According to a study published Wednesday in the journal Nature, ocean temperatures have been warming 60% more than outlined by the IPCC. “The ocean warmed more than we thought, and that has serious implications for future policy,” said Laure Resplandy, a researcher at Princeton University’s Environmental Institute who coauthored the report. “This is definitely something that should and will be taken into account in the next report.” 7. Unfortunately, according to some researchers who read the article, the work appeared to contain significant mistakes which forced the authors to reconsider their work. From the authors… Note from co-author Ralph Keeling Nov. 9, 2018: I am working with my co-authors to address two problems that came to our attention since publication. These problems, related to incorrectly treating systematic errors in the O2 measurements and the use of a constant land O2:C exchange ratio of 1.1, do not invalidate the study’s methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based. We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error. We are redoing the calculations and preparing author corrections for submission to Nature. As reported in the Washington Post… Scientists acknowledge key errors in study of how fast the oceans are warming A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought. But researchers now say they can’t necessarily make that claim. Scientists behind a major study that claimed the Earth’s oceans are warming faster than previously thought now say their work contained inadvertent errors that made their conclusions seem more certain than they actually are. Two weeks after the high-profile study was published in the journal Nature, its authors have submitted corrections to the publication. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography, home to several of the researchers involved, also noted the problems in the scientists' work and corrected a news release on its website, which previously had asserted that the study detailed how the Earth’s oceans “have absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought.” “Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” said Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at Scripps, who was a co-author of the study. “I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.” The researchers’ alarming findings were uncritically reported by numerous mainstream-media outlets but Nic Lewis, a mathematician and popular critic of the consensus on man-made climate change, quickly identified errors. “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,” Lewis wrote in a critique of the paper. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.” Ralph Keeling, a climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography who co-authored the paper, said he and his partner, Laure Resplandy of Princeton, quickly realized the implications of their mistake once Lewis pointed it out. “When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” he said. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.” After correcting their mistake, Keeling said their research indicates oceans are warming only slightly faster than previously thought, not dramatically faster as they initially reported. Keeling said the miscalculation was made when they were calculating their margin of error, which had a larger range (10 to 70 percent) than they initially believed. “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 said. “We really muffed the error margins.” Bottom line… The primary reason that this paper was featured in the mainstream media is that it used an independent means to confirm a previous finding and was estimating even greater effects than the previous findings. After the paper is re-worked, the conclusion is likely to affirm the previous research findings but also note that there is a larger estimate of uncertainty associated with these findings. The purpose of this blog entry is three-fold. One, it is a departure from the malignant politics that seem to surround us on a daily basis. Two, it has nothing to do with mass shootings or wildfires. And three, it merely points out that this is the method of science in action. Where research is published for verification, falsification, or suggestions for improvement. Those that found the anomalous calculations are not “deniers” nor are they to be denigrated for their viewpoint. Likewise, the researchers published their work in good faith, and it should be accepted as such. The bottom line is that climate systems are chaotic fluid systems with a multiplicity of known and unknown factors, and to use questionable science to drive public policies and political agendas is wrong. We just do not know what we do not know. All of the speculative results come from imperfect computer modeling, and the underlying hypothesis cannot be tested in any timeframe that would be relevant to five to ten generations. We cannot measure man’s climate input amid nature’s variability. And, to use imprecise or bone-headed hypotheses to restrict man’s freedoms and liberties while engaging in wealth redistribution is wrong. The question that one should ask the researchers is a simple one: if the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide lags the rise in ocean temperatures, how can carbon dioxide be the cause of global warming? We are so screwed. -- steve