Posted on 11/14/2018 10:59:40 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Scientists behind a study that found the world's oceans were warming faster than previously believed have said their work contained errors, which means they cannot reach conclusions with such certainty.
The issues "do not invalidate the study's methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based," said co-author Ralph Keeling. But they do mean the scientists must redo their calculations.
Since publication, two problems had come, Keeling said, one of them related to incorrectly treating systematic errors in the measurements of oxygen.
"We expect the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake, but with larger margins of error," said Keeling. "We are redoing the calculations and preparing author corrections for submission to Nature."
The research was published weeks after a dire report from the United Nations warned that humanity has just over 10 years to act to avoid disastrous levels of global warming, urging governments to make "rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society."
(Excerpt) Read more at cnn.com ...
Is this where they had parts of the Great Lakes 500 degrees Celsius
“Useful Idiot” Scientists.
They are deliberate frauds and have done this more than enough times not to deserve the benefit of the doubt. Bring on the prosecutors.
“Fake but accurate”
The issues “do not invalidate the study’s methodology or the new insights into ocean biogeochemistry on which it is based,” said co-author Ralph Keeling. But they do mean the scientists must redo their calculations.
YES IT DOES... BUWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
For anyone interested in the technical criticisms by Nic Lewis which revealed the flaws in this “pro-consensus” paper, this article and its predecessor are key:
and this is the first article in which Nic Lewis revealed the flaws in the “Nature” paper:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/
What they just said was that the ‘margin for error was greater’. Since science is based upon statistical analysis, giving a P value, or probability, that is 95% certain the findings were by not by chance. What they are really saying is that the previous conclusions will have to be withdrawn because they will fall within the chances of statistical error.
The evidence doesn’t support their conclusion with scientific certainty. The double speak is because they aren’t able to support their ‘belief’ with the numbers. Their ‘beliefs’ are their business, but it’s not science.
In my mind, it means that the science and the investigators are both compromised. The science by missed data and bad statistics, and the investigators by ‘beliefs’ and not hypothesis ‘that weren’t supported by the data’.
It means the dangerous changes they allege are within the margin of error.... i.e. may be little or nothing.
Thanks.
Huge erratum, essentially a retraction.
Just as Dem-controll recounts always find more votes for Dems, I predict their *new* calculations will show the oceans are warming even faster than their *old, wrong* calculations.
Uh...that's sort of important. A prediction of a 5-degree shift in temperature with a 1-degree margin of error is one thing, a 5-degree prediction with a 10-degree margin of error is quite another.
Brown sedimentary geologic formations
No: this is the simple lie behind all these scams.
Science is not based on statistical analysis: it is based on objective, verifiable facts.
Either a body floats in the bath, or it doesn't.
Either apples fall to the ground, or they don't.
Either the planets move in elliptical orbits, or they don't.
Either an electric current breaks water into hydrogen and oxygen, or it doesn't.
Well, extend the list as far as you please, for this is what over two thousand years of science have taught us.
It took one of those evil “deniers” to actually check their arithmetic...:^)
Nic Lewis also said that their estimate of the mean value was off by 30 percent as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.