Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Thursday November 15 2018, @06:49AM   Printer-friendly
from the frog-in-a-pot dept.

The San Diego Union-Tribune is one of a few sources reporting: https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/environment/sd-me-climate-study-error-20181113-story.html

Researchers with UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change.

The original paper indicated that oceans were warming 60 percent more than outlined by the IPCC and was widely published and remarked. The significantly increased warming conclusion was quickly challenged by an English mathematician looking at the methodologies used.
The authors promptly confirmed the issue thanking him for pointing it out, and have redone their calculations and submitted corrections to the journal Nature. Per one of the authors after reviewing and correcting:

"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 the error margins."

The article continues:

While papers are peer reviewed before they're published, new findings must always be reproduced before gaining widespread acceptance throughout the scientific community, said Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado.

"This is how the process works," he said. "Every paper that comes out is not bulletproof or infallible. If it doesn't stand up under scrutiny, you review the findings."

The same author indicates "the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC"


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @09:08PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 15 2018, @09:08PM (#762344)

    The Thue-Morse sequence is not only has a finite alphabet and no period, but it was famously used to construct an infinite squarefree sequence over a finite alphabet which is an even stronger property: such a sequence has no consecutive repeating subsequences whatsoever (this necessarily requires more than 2 symbols).

    For example: 0, 1, 0 is squarefree, but 0, 1, 1, 0 is not since it contains a repeating subsequence (called a square): 1 is immediately followed by 1 in the sequence. The sequence 0, 1, 0, 1 is also not squarefree, because it contains a repeating subsequence 0, 1 immediately followed by 0, 1 in the sequence (it is easy to show that there are no squarefree sequences of length 4 with just 2 symbols).

    However we can use the Thue-Morse sequence (which is not squarefree), and if we add -1 as a symbol, we can construct a new sequence by subtracting each element from the next element in the sequence, the result is squarefree. So the Thue-Morse sequence 0, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 0, 0, 1, 0, 1, 1, 0, ... becomes 1, 0, -1, 1, -1, 0, 1, 0, -1, 0, 1, -1, 1, 0, -1, ...

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday November 16 2018, @01:30AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday November 16 2018, @01:30AM (#762447) Journal
    That sequence can't be generated with a finite state machine.