Thursday , June 17 2021

Scientists acknowledge major errors when studying how fast the ocean warms.




The sun rises above sea ice floating in the Victoria Strait along the Northwest route of the Canadian Arctic archipelago in the summer of 2017. (AP Photo / David Goldman)

Scientists behind a major study claiming that the Earth's oceans are warming faster than previously thought, say their findings have included unintended errors, making conclusions more convincing than they really are.

Two weeks after the highland study was published in Nature, the author submitted corrections to the publication. The Scripps Institution of Oceanography commented on the problems in the research of scientists and revised the news on its Web site. This study shows how previously the ocean of the earth was "60% more absorbed than previously thought."

Scripps climate scientist Ralph Keeling said, "Unfortunately, we made a mistake here." "The main lesson is to work as fast as possible when fixing mistakes."

According to Keeling, the central question is how researchers deal with the uncertainty of measurement. The result is too much to support the conclusion of this paper on calories absorbed by the ocean over time.

The conclusion of this study that the ocean retains more energy as more heat is trapped in the Earth's climate system each year is consistent with other studies that have drawn similar conclusions. And it did not change much in spite of the error. However, Keeling means that the author's miscalculation actually has a much larger error in the results, which can be judged to be less certain than the researchers thought.

Keeling said, "I am responsible for what happened because it is my role to have confidence in the details.

The lead author of this study was Laure Resplandy of Princeton University. Other researchers have worked at the Institute of Atmospheric Research and Geophysical Fluid Mechanics Center in China, Paris, Germany and the United States.

"Maintaining the accuracy of scientific records is of utmost importance to us as a publisher, and we recognize our responsibility to correct errors in our published articles," Nature told The Post in a statement. "The issues related to this paper have attracted the attention of nature and we are investigating carefully and we will take all the concerns related to the paper we publish very seriously and will release updates with additional information."

This study, published on October 31, presented a new method of measuring the calorie absorbed from the ocean. Fundamentally, the authors have escaped from the sea in recent decades and measured the amount of gases, especially oxygen and carbon dioxide, that go to the atmosphere as the gas heats up. They found that warming was "at the peak of previous estimates," and as a result suggested that the pace of global warming could even accelerate.

The authors can suggest that the results are less time consuming than previously thought to curb greenhouse gas emissions. The study attracted the attention of many media, including The Post.

However, Nicholas Lewis, an independent British researcher, published a long blog post shortly after publication revealing a "serious problem" in his research.

"Their method, as far as I can see, underestimates uncertainty," Lewis said in an interview Tuesday. Lewis said in an interview Tuesday, "he just shifted closer to the central estimate of 30 percent."

"I tend to read a lot of papers and have a mathematical background and a physical background, so I tend to see them very carefully and tending to see if they tend to be – and where they can not figure it out – It is quite obvious that I do not understand, I look deeply into them. "

In his previous studies and comments, Lewis argued that climate scientists are predicting too much warming because of their reliance on computer simulations, and that the current data on the Earth itself is less severe than the fear of global warming.

It is not clear if the authors agree with all of Lewis's criticism, but Keeling said, "I agree that there is a problem as he says."

Paul Durack, a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, said, "I immediately acknowledged that this mistake was the right approach for transparency."

However, he added, "This study has long been known that the ocean is warmer and warmer than the recorded data," he added, adding that there are additional questions raised.

Gavin Schmidt, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that as the dispute over research on Twitter continues, measurements of ocean heat uptake have fallen into data problems for a while. It is difficult in this field.

Schmidt said in an e-mail, "Obviously, I get the help of a co-author and a commentator to figure out most of the problems.

Schmidt and Keeling agree that other studies support a higher level of ocean heat content than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Overall, the episode can be considered positive, Schmidt said.

"The key is not whether there has been a mistake, but how it is handled," Laure and Ralph's answer is exemplary, "and he wrote," There is no fear, but in spite of a hostile environment,

"So one plus one article for the post-publication review, plus one for the author who reviewed the whole calculation in a constructive way, all of us will be smarter."


Source link