I ran across this interesting exchange recently. In it, James Annan, one of the IPCC authors who got Pattern Recognition in Physics shut down after we published our findings on the solar-planetary theory in it because he thought it was wrong, doesn’t seem as bothered to deal with errors by his fellow oceanographer Syd Levitus. Not even when it’s a whopper that has been costing the taxpayer billions due to the climate! panic! James and his colleagues have promoted for years.
James Anna did eventually write a short letter to the journal, but it went unpublished. The Levitus papers were never corrected, though later IPCC reports show a figure for 1955-96 closer to 13×10^22J than the 18×10^22J Levitus et al reported. The increase was actually caused by the reduction in cloud cover letting more sunshine through, as measured by the ISCCP. The latest graphs have also ‘disappeared’ the fall in OHC between 2003-9 measured by ARGO buoys and replaced it with a rise.
2 Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s Climate System. Levitus et al,
Science v 292 2001
colleague and I have, but we cannot reproduce the net heat gain of
18.2 x 10^22 J in the worlds’ oceans for the period 1955-1996 which
was mentioned in .According to , this number comes from a straight line fit to the
5-year averaged ocean data from 1957.5 to 1994.5 (the year index
refers to the mid-point of the 5 year averages), extrapolated out to
cover the original 41 years 1955-1996. Ie a trend of 0.44 x 10^22 J
per year. The data are presented in Fig 4 of , and available from
the authors.We get a much lower answer of 13.5 x 10^22 J, ie 0.33 x 10^22 J per
year. It’s only a least squares fit, so I don’t see what we could have
done wrong. But our number is a long way off the published value, and
also a long way short of the model result (which was 19.7 x 10^22 J).
> jd…@pol.ac.uk (James Annan) wrote:(see below)
> Have you contacted the authors
Yes, I got the data from one of them in the first place, and he
explained how they had calculated the figure (the description in the
paper isn’t brilliant). But as soon as I pointed out the error, he
jd…@pol.ac.uk (James Annan) wrote:
> > In article <35ac5ae8.0204…@posting.google.com>,
> > jd…@pol.ac.uk (James Annan) wrote:(see below)
> > Have you contacted the authors
> Yes, I got the data from one of them in the first place, and he
> explained how they had calculated the figure (the description in the
> paper isn’t brilliant). But as soon as I pointed out the error, he
> stopped replying.
Suggest you write to the journal. This is the way science is supposed to
work. Reviewers are supposed to check for errors.
About twenty years ago there was a mathematician who lived in Berkeley,
I can’t remember his name, but I think it was Serge Lange or something
like that, who specialized in finding math errors in published papers. I
helped a medical doctor format a paper for publication and found a error
in addition. One can’t be too careful.
> work. Reviewers are supposed to check for errors.
I suppose so. Unfortunately I see that Science has a 6 month cut-off
for letters discussing previous publications. Which is doubly
unfortunate since we actually discovered the mistake inside 6 months
and have been twiddling our thumbs (*) waiting for a reply from the
authors ever since!
(*) not literally of course, but doing other things…
If I have seen further than others, it is by treading on the toes of
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
April 4, 2018 at 06:12AM