Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
    The OP posted by Cow Poke seems to be science working. An independent researcher finds an error in a new report in early circulation, the original team verifies the flaw and retracts the problem.

    Am I missing something especially controversial about the report?
    That it passed peer review and got published.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
      That it passed peer review and got published.
      That seems to be a symptom of confirmation bias.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
        "Scientists look at the big picture, not today's weather, to see the impact of climate change".

        https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...arsher-winter/
        When the weather supports AGW then it is called 'proof.' When it doesn't, it is called 'weather, not climate'

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
          That it passed peer review and got published.
          Yes, that happens. Scientists aren't perfect. The peer review process isn't iron proof. I don't know any scientist out there in their right mind who would claim this. An error was pointed out by an independent researcher. Those involved and others verified and the paper was retracted.

          Its really just a demonstration of science working as it should.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            When the weather supports AGW then it is called 'proof.' When it doesn't, it is called 'weather, not climate'
            In scientific journals or by journalists?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              I’m not aware of “heat waves” being seized upon and "used as evidence for AGW by many of the same folks, who point that out”, i.e. scientists. Scientific indicators of global warming are long-term warming trends observed in the historical record. They include increasing numbers of heat waves and increased forest fires, sea-level rise, melting glaciers and warming of the poles etc.
              Oh please. The recent fires in California are being called proof of global warming. Every hurricane is called proof. Every heatwave is called proof. Every drought is called proof. But every blizzard or cold spell is just 'weather'

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                Here's another thing, Leon.... those who are really promoting AGW in the public theater don't really seem willing to make the personal sacrifices they want to demand of others. It's a legitimate question "ok, you believe this, what are YOU personally doing about it".

                With respect to that, I'm personally doing more "green" things myself than the people I personally know who are 'preaching' AGW, and I'm a skeptic!
                Well you could also as a conservative start to make climate change an issue conservative politicians should take seriously. Or at least as an individual demand something of an answer out of them. Right now conservatives have led liberals in the US basically run with the narrative, painting the conservatives as staunchly resistant to doing the right thing.

                Which sometimes makes me wonder if global challenges are something the ideologies of US conservatives can really deal with.

                At any rate I've slowly begun to understand that you can't look at what goes on in Washington to find out what's going on in the US. A lot of individual states, Texas no less, are doing great things to slowly build up a renewable energy system. Solar panels are being put up, battery production is being increased at an exponential rate, wind turbines are being built where its cost effective. Its looking pretty good.

                Though I think we can and should be doing more.

                As for politicians they're hypocrites, and I can understand your point, and I can see you've been scandalised by their behaviour. Still I don't think that changes the problem we face, or the need for solutions.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  Oh please. The recent fires in California are being called proof of global warming. Every hurricane is called proof. Every heatwave is called proof. Every drought is called proof. But every blizzard or cold spell is just 'weather'
                  Do you have any official reports from scientists using weather to support global warming in that sense, using the word 'proof'?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                    I have never used heatwaves as arguments for global warming. The main evidence for AGW comes from the temperature records.

                    Don't mistake what journalists and commentators are writing about for what the scientists are writing about.
                    it's the politicians and pop-scientists too. Everyone who is in the public eye. I have no idea what the regular scientists in the background do or say, since they don't make public comments, but you can watch any show on climate on the discovery channel or the science channel and see them interviewing scientists and saying how things like heatwaves, hurricanes and wild fires are proof of AGW, etc. Or just watch the news, or read various articles.

                    https://www.sfchronicle.com/science/...l-13128585.php
                    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clim...ry?id=56937704
                    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/2...records-broken
                    https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...first-west-and

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                      Yes, that happens. Scientists aren't perfect. The peer review process isn't iron proof. I don't know any scientist out there in their right mind who would claim this. An error was pointed out by an independent researcher. Those involved and others verified and the paper was retracted.

                      Its really just a demonstration of science working as it should.
                      This seems to have been an obvious error on the first page of the report. That it passed peer review is evidence of confirmation bias. They didn't expect to see an error so they didn't bother to check it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        it's the politicians and pop-scientists too. Everyone who is in the public eye.


                        I have no idea what the regular scientists in the background do or say, since they don't make public comments, but you can watch any show on climate on the discovery channel or the science channel and see them interviewing scientists and saying how things like heatwaves, hurricanes and wild fires are proof of AGW, etc.
                        The scientists are surprisingly balanced. Figuring out how the weather, statistically, is going to be affected by is harder than figuring out whether or not the climate is actually getting warmer, or what mechanisms drive that temperature increase.

                        I would never use a summer, or a winter, especially not a local one, as indicating whether the Earth is getting warmer. I might use an increase over a period of say thirty years, of frequencies in droughts and floods, as indicating the problems we're going to face more of in the future, and as an underscoring of why climate change is a big deal.

                        I get your point though. The state of science communication is attrocious.

                        Originally posted by Sparko
                        This seems to have been an obvious error on the first page of the report.
                        Nic Lewis, the discoverer called it a "serious but surely inadvertent error" and even outlines in his paper what sort of bugs in their computer programs likely had caused the error. It does underscore that scientists need to start engaging in more outright reproduction of other findings. Something which I in particular always advocated for while I was in College.

                        You just don't get that many citations (a scientists only measure of success), and therefore its hard to get funding for it and there's a culture of shaming studies that are reproductions. They're considered 'lazy'. Whereas I consider them necessary.

                        Its definitely something we should have more of.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                          Do you have any official reports from scientists using weather to support global warming in that sense, using the word 'proof'?
                          I don't know about the word "proof" - that was just me using it in a generic way.

                          But yeah scientific journals also use heatwaves and weather as EVIDENCE for AGW being true.

                          http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/220

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Leonhard View Post
                            Nic Lewis, the discoverer called it a "serious but surely inadvertent error" and even outlines in his paper what sort of bugs in their computer programs likely had caused the error. It does underscore that scientists need to start engaging in more outright reproduction of other findings. Something which I in particular always advocated for while I was in College.

                            You just don't get that many citations (a scientists only measure of success), and therefore its hard to get funding for it and there's a culture of shaming studies that are reproductions. They're considered 'lazy'. Whereas I consider them necessary.

                            Its definitely something we should have more of.
                            [shameless plug]
                            Allow me to use this as a springboard to shamelessly plug my cousins doctoral thesis which he defended this year titled "Reproducible Data Analysis in Drug Discovery With Scientific Workflows and the Semantic Web" (click the link for the fulltext). Even though it's mainly about using computers to aid in the discovery of new drugs, and how to make this process more reproducible (hence the title), I'm sure there is something there that's more broadly applicable to science as a whole.

                            The dissertation is composed of several papers that are smaller in scope, and if anyone is interested in just reading one of the papers instead of the whole dissertation here's (<---) a link to the overview of the dissertation, with links to the included papers if you scroll down.


                            [/shameless plug]
                            Last edited by JonathanL; 12-06-2018, 12:32 PM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                              I don't know about the word "proof" - that was just me using it in a generic way.

                              But yeah scientific journals also use heatwaves and weather as EVIDENCE for AGW being true.

                              http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6026/220
                              You are reading too much into this article. The article equated the evidence beyond the evidence of the one hot 2010 summer, and did not just use this weather to justify Global Warming. You also need to consider how the records as a whole are considered in science and not a reference to just one article and one year.
                              Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                              Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                              But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                              go with the flow the river knows . . .

                              Frank

                              I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                                Oh please. The recent fires in California are being called proof of global warming. Every hurricane is called proof. Every heatwave is called proof. Every drought is called proof. But every blizzard or cold spell is just 'weather'
                                You’re oversimplifying. Scientific evidence for warming of the climate system is unequivocal what with Global temperature rises, Warming oceans, Shrinking ice sheets, Glacial retreat, Decreased snow cover, Sea level rise, Declining Arctic sea ice and Extreme events such as the record disastrous forest fires in California and Australia.

                                https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

                                So, why are you and your supporters hell-bent upon diminishing the importance and concern over global warming given the demonstrable drastic consequences for the planet?
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X