Wow this thread gets a lot of views!
Posted on 11/15/2018 3:52:28 AM PST by RoosterRedux
A highly circulated study claiming oceans are warming at a much higher rate due to global warming contains "key errors," forcing researchers to issue a correction.
The study published by the journal Nature on Oct. 31 by researchers at Princeton University and UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography claimed the oceans were warming at a rate 60 percent higher than previously thought.
However, a mathematical error discovered by independent climate scientist Nic Lewis after he perused the study's first page has led the journal to retract its key finding. The study has a much larger margin of error, making their findings of a 60 percent increase in ocean warming less precise, and actually between 10 percent and 70 percent.
The lead researcher now says its findings are practically meaningless, with a margin of error "too big now to really weigh in" on ocean temperatures.
When first published, the study led to "alarming" warnings in mainstream media outlets, claiming the "world has seriously underestimated the amount of heat soaked up by our oceans over the past 25 years."
CNN initially reported the planet is "‘more sensitive' than thought" based on the study and would lead to "more dire" predictions than the U.N.'s latest, which gave Earth only 12 more years.
CNN has since reported "errors were made" but is still defending the study claiming its scientific errors "do not invalidate the study's methodology."
The Washington Post is now reporting the scientists made "key errors."
"A major study claimed the oceans were warming much faster than previously thought," the paper reported. "But researchers now say they can't necessarily make that claim."
"Unfortunately, we made mistakes here," said Ralph Keeling, a Scripps researcher and coauthor of the study, adding the mathematical error means a "much larger margin of error in the findings."
(Excerpt) Read more at freebeacon.com ...
Error=scam revealed
Somewhere in the world right now there is a climatologist going “ oh crap, i forgot to carry the 3”.
CC
So much for “peer review”.
Personally, I don’t believe it was an error at all, not after the global warming crowd has been caught in fraud after fraud after fraud.
I say it’s on purpose and if they want to change my mind they can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
If you watch the ten day forecast, they often get tomorrow correct, along with, to a lesser degree, the day after tomorrow. But the tenth day forecast has a very small percentage, on average, of being even close. That’s why that section of the forecast changes almost daily. So, scientists, working with tenth of a degree increments, can forecast the temperature ten and twenty years hence? And, we should spend billions and billions of dollars on modifying that forecast?
Almost every article you read on global warming is a bid for funding. The more hysterical the forecast, the more likely they writer will get funding. This is how they make their living. And, like any other worker, they are trying to maximize their income. Global warming is bigger than the Bernie Madoff fraud.
Next time you are in some tourist restaurant on the coast, look at the photos of the beach. None of that area is under water. The beach in most places hasn’t moved much in a hundred years. It will look much the same a hundred years hence. At that point society will either be richer for not having bought the global warming scam, or we will be much poorer for the fraud.
Is this yhe same ipcc expert who claimed the Himalayas would melt by 2020. He had a decimal error.
I had one decimal error in chemistry and got a serious warning from my prof.
Can’t the experts do math anymore. Bet they got their math on taxpayer funding correct.
ROFL!!!
No it’s true!!
I stepped into the water the other day and my knee on down was evaporated!!
Now I have a stump.
Global warming kills!
somewhere out there some moron would believe that. :)
That’s the great thing about gullible morons. they’ll believe anything that helps reinforce their idiotic beliefs.
btt
Just how does one propose to take the temperature of the ocean? A temperature probe every cubic mile? How many would be needed?
In the end, there is no way to take the temperature of the ocean. The ocean is not a single object. It is huge, vast, enormous.
IMHO, the whole “global warming/climate change” debacle has been based on erroneous math, bad computer models, and Al Gores pocket book.
For instance, when we had lots of sunspot activity, it was warmer...now, few sunspots, and they’re predicting a colder than usual winter.
It’s not the SUV’s and it’s not man made, IF, it actually exists.
:: its scientific errors “do not invalidate the study’s methodology. ::
That is true. Although, it does invalidate the study itself as well as the “scientists” who put the methodology together.
Very first thing? Count the “negative” signs on each side of the equation.
Let's not jump to conclusions here. The study could be salvaged I'm sure. Best thing to do now is for the authors to take a breather break. Play a game of hockey. I'm sure after a taking their minds off work with nice game, they'll be freshened and rarin' to go to fix the study. I'll even send them a hockey stick.
Ping
Bookmark
Said another way, from a Thermodynamics perspective, temperature is a point property, a function of location and time. This is expressed as:
T = f(x, y, z, t)
Average temperatures can be determined, but when you are trying to determine the average of a huge control volume, like the ocean here, or the atmosphere of the entire Earth, measurement to obtain an accurate average is *extremely* problematic.
Now, realize that the temperature record of the ocean not all that long ago was at the level of a guy throwing a rope attached to a bucket with a mercury thermometer inside, lowering it z’, waiting a short bit for it to equilibrate, hauling it up fast, and reading the mercury. And from this the Warmists are ultimately making arguments over fractions of a degree over millions of square miles over tens or hundreds of years?
It’s just laughable, but no one can say that or they lose funding.
The first EOS was Poseidon/Topex launched in 1992 to measure sea level and ocean topography. It was replaced with Jason 1, Jason 2, and Jason 3 in 2016.
LMFAO! I needed a hearty laugh this morning, and here it is! So you go from saying "60% faster," get smacked down by real numbers, and the correction is "actually between 10 percent and 70 percent?"
That's insanely rich. And considering NASA came out earlier this week stating that we're likely heading into a period of extended cold due to solar inactivity, I think the warmists are starting to get a little nervous that their Ponzi scheme is falling apart.
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.