Journal 'Nature' retracts ocean-warming study

ocean
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The journal Nature retracted a study published last year that found oceans were warming at an alarming rate due to climate change.

The prestigious scientific journal issued the formal notice this week for the paper published Oct. 31, 2018, by researchers at the University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography.

They released a statement published on the journal's website that read in part:

"Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors.

"Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches."

Lewis, a mathematician and critic of the scientific consensus supporting the , posted a critique of the paper shortly after its publication.

Co-author and scientist Ralph Keeling at Scripps has taken the blame for the mistake.

The report used a new approach to measure the ocean's temperature based on measuring the amount of oxygen and rising off the oceans' plants. Much of the data on ocean temperatures currently relies on the Argo array, robotic devices that float at different depths.

The retraction of the article came on the same day that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report on the impacts warming on oceans and ice-covered regions.

The findings were some of the most dire to date, warning that if emissions continue, sea level rise could reach 3 feet by the end of the century, a more than 10% increase from 2013 predictions. At the same time, the report found that in some cities and islands hundred-year floods will become yearly events.


Explore further

Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

More information: L. Resplandy et al. Retraction Note: Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition, Nature (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1585-5

L. Resplandy et al. Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0651-8

Journal information: Nature

©2019 The San Diego Union-Tribune
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Citation: Journal 'Nature' retracts ocean-warming study (2019, September 30) retrieved 17 October 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-nature-retracts-ocean-warming.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
7251 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Sep 30, 2019
The findings were some of the most dire to date, warning that if emissions continue, sea level rise could reach 3 feet by the end of the century, a more than 10% increase from 2013 predictions. At the same time, the report found that in some cities and islands hundred-year floods will become yearly events.


The Alarmists are downright lying to people and claiming it's irrefutable science.

Sep 30, 2019
https://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/sep/29/scientists-tell-un-global-climate-summit-no-emerge/

There is no climate emergency. Scientists are standing up to the UN and it's alarms.

Sep 30, 2019
There is no significant sea level rise on this planet. And anyone who can't outrun the rise, isn't needed in the gene pool.

Sep 30, 2019
There is no significant sea level rise on this planet.


Right. And as evidence, the bankers continue to give out 30 year mortgages in Miami.

Sep 30, 2019
the paper published Oct. 31, 2018,


That's Halloween! The fraud paper was published on the one day of the year designed to scare people. LOL

Sep 30, 2019
This retracted paper was the main paper cited by the recent IPCC Report on ocean warming, as such the IPCC report should be retracted. This will unlikely happen given the politics involved.

Sep 30, 2019
when a scientific topic becomes political, an ethics code should refuse publications if it does not go through an extra rigorous review including forbidding the researchers from media interviews, or any publicity that would give them extra research $.
it is just too easy for politics to corrupt science.

Sep 30, 2019
Hmm... the "settled" "science" "uncertainties" were "underestimated".
Translated to real science, that would be - The AGW Cult blatantly lied.
And, it only took them a year.
Now, that's truly the "science" of 100% con.sense.us.

Sep 30, 2019
A QUICK BIT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC indicated that a change of 23.2 between 1991 and 2016 represented an annual rate of approximately 0.9, well below their 1.16 value.
-- Nic Lewis
https://judithcur...e-paper/

The Chicken Shites are hiding in their cesspool of ignorance.

Sep 30, 2019
cantdrive85 (above) "This retracted paper was the main paper cited by the recent IPCC Report..."

It seems that the journal was notified within days of the error being detected -- and then it took twelve months to officially retract it. In the meantime, the IPCC made the most of the flawed study. In this day and age, a lie can go around the world in less than 60 seconds -- the truth never does catch up.

The IPCC relies on peer-reviewed articles published in reputable journals only. The 'peers' who reviewed this study need to be named and shamed.....

Sep 30, 2019
Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming

Translation:

The revised uncertainties invalidate our conclusions but we know we're right anyway. Because climate change.

Sep 30, 2019
This retracted paper was the main paper cited by the recent IPCC Report on ocean warming, as such the IPCC report should be retracted. This will unlikely happen given the politics involved.


The IPCC SROCC Chapter 5 cites Resplandy et al. (2018). It is noteworthy that the report is based on more than 7000 peer-reviewed journal articles and government reports from a range of journals other than from Nature Publishing. So, the suggestion to retract IPCC report is naive.

Yes, a corrigendum should be issued for the line <"new estimates of the outgassing flux stemming from river derived carbon of 0.8 PgCyr-1 (Resplandy et al., 2018)">

The overarching conclusions of IPCC report are still the same and true. Errors happen all the time in publications.

Sep 30, 2019
I finally managed to download the pdf of the final Committee report. Read the first 15 pages - just 1,155 pages to go.

The IPCC is made up of politicians - they get to decide the contents and wording of the final report. Certainly, over 7,000 peer-reviewed articles from reputable journals, studied by (I believe) about 60 'peers' whose reports are then 'moderated' by the pollies - to meet their wishes.

For this latest report - it seems that the Saudi Arabian representative(s) kept the Committee up all night over a disagreement about how fossil fuels should be depicted.

Oct 01, 2019
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Oct 01, 2019
My hope, is that Lewis graciously pointed out the errors, and the authors graciously replied, both parties pointing out that truth is elusive, errors are expected, and this is science working as it should (with both parties keeping their expected consternation to themselves).

I'm not in that field, so I can't know if the scientists tend to comport themselves professionally or not. But the overall stew of environmental reporting, blogging, commenting, and especially politicking leaves me to believe that at least in climate science, science struggles in the face of ideology.

I'm looking forward to an age where people grow weary of it, and seek a more constructive and humble form of interaction, at least among professionals. Although where political force is involved, I wonder if civility, by and large, is even possible.

Oct 01, 2019
#TINDM, "when a scientific topic becomes political..."

Sorry, everything is 'political' now. There are so many 'Special Interest' and 'Social Justice' groups, any research or discovery will surely step on some-one's toes. Worse, just trying to do the research may draw ire & wrath...

Oct 01, 2019
Gee, seems to me science worked here. What's the problem? Does one mathematical error in one paper mean all the tens of thousands of papers in climate science are wrong? What psychotic dreamed that one up?

Oct 01, 2019
@viking, while I share your hopes for grace I don't see it as the prime characteristic of any group; scientists are just as contentious as other people. Having known quite a few I speak from experience. I would say they comport themselves professionally about as often as most people, which is to say most of the time. The time when people comport themselves with dignity, constructively, and a certain measure of humbleness, is here, but there are still assholes. And unless we want to institute a campaign of mind control, there always will be.

Oct 01, 2019
This is how real science is done. It is also an illustration that when faults are pointed out in a detailed mathematical manner the climatologists listen, and in this case retract. Ranting polemics from "sceptics" are rightly ignored by the scientific community.

Oct 01, 2019
The Earth is not 6000 years old, but it was never retracted from the Bible. In science, we retract false information.

Oct 01, 2019
Gee, seems to me science worked here. What's the problem? Does one mathematical error in one paper mean all the tens of thousands of papers in climate science are wrong? What psychotic dreamed that one up?


Lol Antigoonacle and his sockpuppies above were born with an inability to understand the truth and real science, they just want to do what monkeys do as it make them feel happy, and that is to thump their chests, stomp about and do monkey chatter everytime they gather together for their team huddle right before they post their hilariously stupid replies everyday.

Oct 01, 2019
An example of a technique that appears constantly in "science" and can represent a major source of untruth, the use of surrogates to estimate or supposedly provide exact measurements. Generally, surrogates are used due to the claimed difficulty of cost of deriving direct measurements of various phenomena. Many, though, don't know that surrogates are being used and how widely and, as a result, have what can be called a generally inappropriate assessment of the validity of "scientific" measurements. For example, the adding of melamine to milk in China. Protein content is often derived not by actual chemical analysis but, rather, nitrogen release. It turns out that melamine produces nitrogen very rapidly. Milk producers in China took advantage of this to suggest their milk was of high quality, putting melamine into their milk. The fact is, there is no evident real list available of surrogates used in many areas, including the environment.

Oct 01, 2019
A scientific error was made and now it is getting fixed. What is the problem?
This forum seems to have too many Internet trolls, and they are not Russian.

Oct 01, 2019
"The findings were some of the most dire to date, warning that if emissions continue, sea level rise could reach 3 feet by the end of the century, a more than 10% increase from 2013 predictions."

Lowering emissions does not lower what has already been emitted and is growing. And, the predictions are that if emissions are actually stopped, even reduced, the entire world will be out of gas for transportation. The findings by scientists are irrelevant to those realities.

Oct 01, 2019
Let's start by lowering coal emissions as quickly as we can. Gas for transportation is the lesser issue. By a lot. We can deal with emissions from gasoline later after we fix the coal problem.

Oct 01, 2019
It's beyond amusing to watch the denials of the ignorant Chicken Littles. They just can't bring themselves to admit that they are wrong. Here's a bit of their "settled science" which passed their "rigorous" pal review and got published in a "prestigious" science journal. But, then all it took was, "A QUICK BIT OF MENTAL ARITHMETIC" from an ALARMIST (the AGW Cult's designation) to expose their LIE. And, the best the Chicken Littles have is -- "That's the way science works".
They will bray about all the other thousands of pal reviewed "settled" publishings, but never ask - How much of those are also wrong? Oh wait...that's not the "settled science" way.

Oct 01, 2019
The hysteria is nothing new under the sun. More politicians and powerful working together to manipulate many in the masses. Preying on ignorance and emotion to gain more power and/or money.
Top 10 Global Warming Lies That May Shock You
https://www.forbe...560f53a5
The false prophets of climate doom
https://www.washi...te-doom/

Oct 01, 2019
When there is a major hurricane the biggest issue is where to find gas. Coal is much less. When carbon is gone the whole world is out of gas and there is no replacement except in wishful thinking. The mental arithmetic made by those who demand a lowering of emissions is a separate issue. Lowering takes no CO2 out of the atmosphere. that's the way the real world operates. If that's the goal, all the way to zero, good luck to those alarmed about it. Solar "farms" provide no agriculture, not even for the biofuels that are 90% fossil.

Oct 01, 2019
Interesting that the author left out this key sentence from the retraction and revised results:

"correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming"

Deniers, you're still wrong.

Oct 01, 2019
When someone uses the word "Denier" what is it that is being denied? Our ability to stop and reverse the Earth's climate? To keep the "central estimate" of the oceans and the land from warming "catastrophically"?

Oct 01, 2019
When someone uses the word "Denier" what is it that is being denied? Our ability to stop and reverse the Earth's climate? To keep the "central estimate" of the oceans and the land from warming "catastrophically"?


The science that has been known since 1898, among other things.

Oct 01, 2019
What are you denying? Take your pick - the basic concept of greenhouse gasses, responsibility, your children a world as stable as the one you had, etc

Oct 02, 2019
Mr. IG...You don't understand what Net-Zero means. Humans cannot lower the effect of CO2 as a greenhouse gas on the Earth's climate. You can lower emissions but you cannot remove CO2 in the amounts required. Simple as that. Responsible scientists would understand that. Look up what Net-Zero means. Find out how much CO2 needs to be removed, not just left in the ground by stopping its use.

Oct 02, 2019
I challenge any Chicken Little to find me a peer reviewed paper that shows - How much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, if all man-made CO2 is stopped today?

Oct 02, 2019
If all man-made CO2 were stopped today the economy would be bankrupt and the atmosphere would still be at about 415 ppm. If CO2 were taken back to 350 ppm, that would leave us with the weather and climate of 1987...32 years. Hardly worth the effort to remove and store 500 billion tons of CO2.

Oct 02, 2019
I challenge any Chicken Little to find me a peer reviewed paper that shows - How much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, if all man-made CO2 is stopped today?


How much would it cool? Not at all.

The amount of CO2 we currently have has locked us into the current temperature excursion for at least five hundred years, until natural sinks can accommodate the amount of excess CO2 or we find some way of economically drawing down the CO2.

Again, this is basic science. Here's your peer-reviewed literature. Please read it so you can understand the science:
https://www.rsc.o...3546.pdf

Oct 02, 2019
On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
Svante Arrhenius Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science
Series 5, Volume 41, April 1896, pages 237-276.

Very interesting - thanks for the link.....

Oct 02, 2019
@Anti
I challenge any Chicken Little to find me a peer reviewed paper that shows - How much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, if all man-made CO2 is stopped today?
you've already challenged this and failed to agree to some terms of debate: https://phys.org/...ive.html

and you've moved the goalpost

and you're not willing to accept the conditions of evidence and discourse
http://wp.auburn....opinion/

https://en.wikipe...evidence

https://sciencex....omments/

Oct 02, 2019
"...or we find some way of economically drawing down the CO2." It's not about money. It's all about the amounts, how it can be done, and where it can be safely stored. 500 billion tons! Nature will take care of it, humans cannot. Screaming children and politicians notwithstanding.

Oct 03, 2019
I challenge any Chicken Little with a brain [so exits, CAP'N STUMPID the troll] to find me a peer reviewed paper that shows - How much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, if all man-made CO2 is stopped today?

Oct 03, 2019
@anti
I challenge any
so, if I request that you provide the same levels of evidence to refute the science while also wanting you to comprehend the hierarchy of evidence, then you consider me brainless and trolling?

wow!

by action and definition, you're attempting to argue with posters intentionally eliciting emotional responses because you can't provide evidence while disliking facts proven to you, and you proffer pseudoscience as legitimate

which means, by definition, you're trolling and incapable of actually discussing the science (for whatever reason, be it ignorance, ideology or mental impairment)


Oct 03, 2019
I challenge any Chicken Little with a brain [so exits, CAP'N STUMPID the troll] to find me a peer reviewed paper that shows - How much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, if all man-made CO2 is stopped today?


I have already provided you with the peer-reviewed paper. Here it is again:
https://www.rsc.o...3546.pdf

Since you keep asking for one, the only logical implication is that you do not understand the science.

Oct 03, 2019
he did say stopped , not reduced [ thats IF co2 has much effect ]

Oct 03, 2019
It's difficult to discern who is asking what, but the science is clear that humans cannot lower the CO2 in the atmosphere in any meaningful amount... e.g. one part-per-million is too much and 65 ppm is impossible. That's half-a-trillion metric tons. Find out what one ppm of oxidized carbon weighs. Do the math.

Oct 03, 2019
@anti
I challenge any
so, if I request that you provide the same levels of evidence to refute the science while also wanting you to comprehend the hierarchy of evidence, then you consider me brainless and trolling?

wow!

by action and definition, you're attempting to argue with posters intentionally eliciting emotional responses because you can't provide evidence while disliking facts proven to you, and you proffer pseudoscience as legitimate

which means, by definition, you're trolling and incapable of actually discussing the science (for whatever reason, be it ignorance, ideology or mental impairment)



But monkey goracle's gotto work for that peanut his saudi master is going to give him lol

Oct 03, 2019
Of course, the scientifically illiterate denialists never have to have their work retracted! Due to pretty much never publishing it. You'll only find it on boobtube and crank websites. The few scientists that do find it in those places have no trouble showing where it is wrong.

Oct 03, 2019
It doesn't matter who is "trolling" or how impaired they are, or even how much the oceans and the land has warmed or cooled. What matters, esp. to those who are so alarmed, is what, if anything, can be done about it. If you are incapable of grasping that no evidence will be relevant. CO2 is now at 415 ppm and lowering emissions does nothing to remove even one ppm. What's the plan? Keep arguing about the evidence? Voting up or down?

Oct 03, 2019
CO2 is now at 415 ppm and lowering emissions does nothing to remove even one ppm. What's the plan? Keep arguing about the evidence?


Yes it does. It removes the increase that would have created an extra 1 ppm if you hadn't lowered emissions! Duh! So, what do you want in 100 years? 500 ppm or 430 ppm? Not rocket science.

Oct 03, 2019
I challenge any Chicken Little to find me a peer reviewed paper that shows - How much the planet would cool in 10, 20, 50, 100 years, if all man-made CO2 is stopped today?
But how can monkey goracle challenge if he is already mentally challenged ?? ROTFLMAO

Oct 03, 2019
Castro, HeloM?... You haven't been reading. The little children (Chicken Littles?) and politicians are alarmed and concerned about the immediate future, not what might take place in many hundreds of years. The oceans are rising, temperatures are forecasted to become warmer. CO2 has risen 45%. Virtually everyone is asking to lower the CO2 now in the atmosphere, and lowering emissions can't do it. Duh? If you disagree, what is your plan? You don't have one!

Oct 03, 2019
''The oceans are rising, temp ,,'' nope

nsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/4-peer-reviewed-studies-find-no-observable-sea-level-effect-man?fbclid=IwAR0fQ0ylR40Uq4SXKsXHZDnCmQ-NsVH_fhbbnx4upWZDIZzh2vnHJAwjtt4

Oct 03, 2019
Still looks like science operating correctly and correcting itself to me. Not sure why the liar deniers are whining, bitching, moaning, and complaining; are you claiming that Lewis was wrong and the article shouldn't have been retracted?

Oct 03, 2019

I have already provided you with the peer-reviewed paper. Here it is again:
https://www.rsc.o...3546.pdf

Since you keep asking for one, the only logical implication is that you do not understand the science.

Here's one that discusses what would happen if we were to stop all CO2 emissions: https://iopscienc...564a/pdf . As one would expect, the temperature continues to rise, but at a much slower rate and it doesn't rise very far. Also, as expected, the CO2 levels would begin to drop immediately.

Oct 04, 2019
Still looks like science operating correctly and correcting itself to me. Not sure why the liar deniers are whining, bitching, moaning, and complaining; are you claiming that Lewis was wrong and the article shouldn't have been retracted?
Monkey antigoracle and his goons are stretching the only straw they have as thin as possibility will allow (and of course they can hear the whip cracking of their saudi masters in the background)

Oct 04, 2019
Again... stopping emissions does not lower what CO2 is already in the atmosphere and is so bothersome to the "chicken littles" inhabiting this discussion. Huge investments are being made to take CO2 straight out of the air and store it in huge amounts. Starting the name-calling game won't help, but seems to be the last resort of those concerned about the future with no plan to address it other than to hold up posters... "Act Now"!

Oct 04, 2019
stopping emissions does not lower what CO2 is already in the atmosphere and is so bothersome to the "chicken littles" inhabiting this discussion
So lowering CO2 doesn't interest them?

I mean, seriously, lie much? Meanwhile show us the commercially viable means for lowering CO2 right now. If it's such a big deal, how come nobody's making money off it?

Oct 04, 2019
Correct. There is no possibility of lowering CO2 in any amounts that could possibly affect the climate. The CCS Industry cannot even store enough CO2 to lower CO2 by one ppm. That's 8,000 million tons. It is not a viable technology with respect to "global warming", but the global community thinks it is and Net-Zero requires it. It is a lie that any such thing is possible by humans. Act Now???

Oct 04, 2019
Again... stopping emissions does not lower what CO2 is already in the atmosphere and is so bothersome to the "chicken littles" inhabiting this discussion.

You couldn't even be bothered to look at the paper I linked to that showed your claim to be wrong?

Oct 04, 2019
Again... stopping emissions does not lower what CO2 is already in the atmosphere and is so bothersome to the "chicken littles" inhabiting this discussion.

You couldn't even be bothered to look at the paper I linked to that showed your claim to be wrong?


That would involve him having to understand it. Unlikely, I'd have thought.

Oct 04, 2019
Correct. blablablabla

No need to hide under you your socky goraclemonkey, we know it's you...ps.. we can tell by the dumb comments and the lack of knowledge you express... ;)

Oct 05, 2019
Arrhenius was right...increasing CO2 by 1.5 to 3 times pre-industrial would leave the Tertiary climate in a mild condition. That forecast made over 100 years ago. It was confirmed by geological and geochemical studies in 2008. In the late Eocene CO2 was more than double today's value and there was no catastrophe. Not even "acidification".

Adding more ad hominem comments means Socrates was right. And so was Forrest Gump.

Oct 05, 2019
But ya see, thing is, if we start getting our power from CO2 in the atmosphere, then we can hold it right here. But anybody can do that, they just have to use the discoveries made (and announced on this site) over the last ten years. And then the coal people will stop, or suffer.

Oct 05, 2019
So, looks like the coal people are whining by downvoting on a physics site that not much of anyone sees. Stupid, like one expects of coal people.

Maybe you should go work for the buggy whip manufacturers.

Oh, wait...

Oct 05, 2019
Nature 461, 1110-1113 (22 October 2009)
Atmospheric carbon dioxide through the Eocene–Oligocene climate transition
Paul N. Pearson, Gavin L. Foster, Bridget S. Wade:
Geological and geochemical evidence indicates that the Antarctic ice sheet formed during the Eocene–Oligocene transition 33.5–34.0 million years ago. "Modelling studies suggest that such ice-sheet formation might have been triggered when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels fell below a critical threshold of ~750 p.p.m.v. During maximum ice-sheet growth, pCO2 was between 450 and 1,500 p.p.m.v., with a central estimate of 760 p.p.m.v."

No heat catastrophes, CO2 was added and it even fell. Not even "acidification". Arrhenius was right. Humans have added 135 ppm since Arrhenius made his calculations and the global temperature is plus 0.83°C.

Oct 05, 2019
So, looks like the coal people are whining by downvoting on a physics site that not much of anyone sees. Stupid, like one expects of coal people.

Maybe you should go work for the buggy whip manufacturers.

Oh, wait...
I don't see any downvoting the Science and the Truth, look again ;)
You will be surprised by how many viewers this site have, the audience world wide is big as this site have been consistently one of the biggest attributers to worldwide audience viewing since it has been in existence for so long. Good news for you and I and all the scientists, not so goo news for goracle and his sockpuppets, LOL a Win Win for us doesn't matter how you look at it :D

Oct 05, 2019
Q.E.D.

Oct 07, 2019
u gotta admit, i am confused reading Lewis' critique of Keeling's error

perhaps it my failure to accurately comprehend Lewis' correction?

cause the way i'm reading it
Lewis is saying that Keeley's conclusions are too conservative?

since no one else,
sane & rational
is independently agreeing
with my understanding?
it would be most probable
that the error is mine

Oct 11, 2019
Interesting that the author left out this key sentence from the retraction and revised results:

"correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming"

Deniers, you're still wrong.


Actually thats not true. The main point is the probability. The retracted article claimed some prediction, but the climasceptic revealed, that the calculation of probability of that prediction is wrong, which rendered the original prediction unreliable and thus useless. From the article which in linked on the bottom:

Keeling said they have since redone the calculations, finding the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC. However, that increase in heat has a larger range of probability than initially thought—between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.

"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 ....


Oct 11, 2019
How is it that a person with only a BS in finances can spot a simple math error in a research paper, that was widely acclaimed, written several persons with Ph.D's in climate science, which I presume was peer reviewed and reviewed by the editor of a prestigious magazine and made headlines in all the major newspapers, NYT etc.
This speaks volumes about the whole peer reviewed/publishing field, even says more that, than about climate science.

Copy of good comment from scott allen from other article about this topic

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more