Dear Philip S,

At it again I see.

Firstly mate the MSM were not scaremongering at all. None of the headlines you have linked to comes within a bull's roar of earning that label. All they did was to report on what presented itself as a fairly major study and shift in our understanding of global warming. In other words they did their job.

Further expecting them to peer review an article published in a reputable journal is just inane.

So let's flesh out your time line.

The paper was indeed published in Nature on the 31st October 2018. The newspaper reports came out a day later on the 1st November 2018.

Nic Lewis raised concerns about the calculations used 5 days later on the 6th as per your link calling the mistake “inadvertent”.

Within a week on Friday the 19th the team member responsible for those calculations acknowledged the issue and thanked Mr Lewis for alerting them.

“I, with the other co-authors of Resplandy et al (2018), want to address two problems that came to our attention since publication of our paper in Nature last week. These problems do not invalidate the methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based, but they do influence the mean rate of warming we infer, and more importantly, the uncertainties of that calculation.

Cont..

Cont..
We would like to thank Nicholas Lewis for first bringing an apparent anomaly in the trend calculation to our attention. We quickly realized that our calculations incorrectly treated systematic errors in the O2 measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation. This led to under-reporting of the overall uncertainty and also caused the ocean heat uptake to be shifted high through the application of a weighted least squares fit. In addition, we realized that the uncertainties in the assumption of a constant land O2:C exchange ratio of 1.1 in the calculation of the “atmospheric potential oxygen” (APO) trend had not been propagated through to the final trend.
As the researcher in charge of the O2 measurements, I accept responsibility for these oversights, because it was my role to ensure that details of the measurements were correctly understood and taken up by coauthors.
We have now reworked our calculations and have submitted a correction to the journal.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2018/11/resplandy-et-al-correction-and-response/

On the Monday of the next week the Nature journal posted this;
“19 November 2018
Editor’s Note: We would like to alert readers that the authors have informed us of errors in the paper. An implication of the errors is that the uncertainties in ocean heat content are substantially underestimated. We are working with the authors to establish the quantitative impact of the errors on the published results, at which point in time we will provide a further update.”
http://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8
That my friend is how science works. There is no great conspiracy rather a speedy correction of an inadvertent mistake.

You wrote; “No wonder the Global Warming scammers get away with it.”

What a load of bollocks. It isn't a scam and global warming papers are among the most scrutinised of all. Errors that might not have been picked up in other areas of research are revealed precisely because there are so many Nic's out there pouring over the data.

Given the peer review process should have picked up the error but this example should give people more not less confidence in global warming research

SteeleRedux
You conveniently missed out saying the authors also said this.

"Our error margins are too big now to really weigh in on the precise amount of warming that's going on in the ocean," Ralph Keeling said. "We really muffed the error margins."

Quote "That my friend is how science works. There is no great conspiracy rather a speedy correction of an inadvertent mistake."

ON PAGE ONE, I would say the peer reviewers did nothing or just rubber stamped it.
Which also means anything they have done in the past has to be questioned. **

Quote "at which point in time we will provide a further update.” The data appears not to have been updated yet.
___________________________________________________________

mikk Quote "Quite happy to sit back and watch you deniers circle jerk.
Nothing to be gained from trying to communicate with morons who refuse to open their eyes or take their fingers out of their ears."

No intelligent comment so you use the lowest form of wit, sarcasm, juvenile.

rache Quote "mikk,
Good point - and now proven."

A juvenile in agreement with a juvenile, needs no comment.

SteeleRedux Quote "Firstly mate the MSM were not scaremongering at all. None of the headlines you have linked to comes within a bull's roar of earning that label." ** In your opinion. **

NYT
Scientists Find a New Way to Take the Oceans’ Temperature Oct. 31, 2018

Wasington post
Startling new research finds large buildup of heat in the oceans, suggesting a faster rate of global warming October 31, 2018
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

scientificamerican.com
The Oceans Are Heating Up Faster Than Expected
The planet may be more sensitive to warming that previously thought, making climate goals more difficult to meet November 1, 2018

CNN
World's oceans have absorbed 60% more heat than previously thought, study finds November 1, 2018

LA Times
Oceans warming faster than anticipated, giving even less time to stave off worst impacts of climate change, study finds Oct 31, 2018

USA Today
Earth's oceans are absorbing more heat than had been thought, study says Nov. 1, 2018

independent.co.uk
Climate change could accelerate faster than predicted, new research into world's oceans warns
Planet much more sensitive to fossil-fuel emissions than past studies have shown, scientists say 1 November 2018

BBC
Climate change: Concerns over report on ocean heating 20 November 2018

Quote "In other words they did their job." Rubbish, then why did they not come out with big headline to say the report was WRONG.

Also some updated the article but did not print retractions.

How many people after reading an article go back weeks later to see if they have updated it?

Quote "Further expecting them to peer review an article published in a reputable journal is just inane."

** In your opinion, I would call it doing there job. **

** At least you tried not like the juveniles. **

mikk You have just shown yourself to be the most ignorant person posting on any subject relating to Climate Change.

Of all the threads that relate to climate changer over the past year you have only made three comments, NOT one of them had anything useful to add to the discussion.

mikk Quotes

"Quite happy to sit back and watch you deniers circle jerk.
Nothing to be gained from trying to communicate with morons who refuse to open their eyes or take their fingers out of their ears."

"You deniers seem very angry."

"Liars!!" Followed by 2 links

** If that is all you can contribute to a discussion it would appear you are the jerk. **

Dear Philip S,

You wrote;

“I would say the peer reviewers did nothing or just rubber stamped it. Which also means anything they have done in the past has to be questioned.”

Certainly don't concede your first point however I will agree with the second. They presumably would have been paid to provide the service they did and there is little doubt that the authors of the paper would have been relying on them to pick up things they may have missed.

We are all fallible and the best we can do is acknowledge it and stick to a system which is designed to have appropriately qualified people to check our work. This is what the authors did and having been given the all clear should have has some confidence in the process.

In my opinion the authors acted entirely properly when they were informed of the issue and seemed fully prepared to correct their work.

As I said, this is the scientific method and it deserves our respect.

Just as an aside, and making no judgments, you have used 'there' instead of 'their' at least three times in recent posts. Whenever I have to think about which to use I employ here/there. It helps.