Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

‘Alarming’ Study Claiming Global Warming Heating Up Oceans Based on Math Error
freebeacon.com ^ | Elizabeth Harrington

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: billwhittle; globalwarminghoax; niclewis
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last
To: FreedomPoster

#19 is for you


21 posted on 11/15/2018 4:55:21 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
The actual predicted temperature rise appears to be left out. Convenient. Good propaganda technique.

A temperature change of .016 degree per century, vs .01 degree / century is still a 60% change. But "SIXTY PERCENT" is a far more attention-getting figure....

22 posted on 11/15/2018 5:16:06 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: moovova

“So...no fish stew? What do I do with all these oyster crackers?”

Crush them up, take them to a libs house and toss the crackers in the yard. The birds will do the rest.


23 posted on 11/15/2018 5:21:07 AM PST by EQAndyBuzz (EVERYONE IS UNIQUE! JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Barbie: “Math is hard.”


24 posted on 11/15/2018 5:24:58 AM PST by mykroar (Congratulations President Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin; Chode

They forgot to install the Fix for Windoze Math Error 25 or whatever years ago.

25 posted on 11/15/2018 5:43:05 AM PST by mabarker1 (Congress- the opposite of PROGRESS!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Gen.Blather

“State of Fear” by Crichton is all about that. It exposes the political and money motivations and the tactics behind most causes to “save the planet”.

Well worth a read.


26 posted on 11/15/2018 5:47:58 AM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Is there a list of global warming science fails anywhere?


27 posted on 11/15/2018 5:50:56 AM PST by Crucial
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: I want the USA back

Or worse yet imagine measuring the change in ocean levels within millimeters (as they claim to do) with the constant perturbations of changing waves, tides, winds... in all the different locations.


28 posted on 11/15/2018 5:54:29 AM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Celtic Conservative
Somewhere in the world right now there is a climatologist going “ oh crap, i forgot to carry the 3”.

When folks refers to "scientists" in this context, what they really mean is "data scientist".

I was interested enough in the field that I am getting a second Master of Science in Data Science.

29 posted on 11/15/2018 5:57:14 AM PST by Mr.Unique (The government, by its very nature, cannot give except what it first takes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux

Correction= We got caught.


30 posted on 11/15/2018 5:57:35 AM PST by READINABLUESTATE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ben Ficklin; I want the USA back

Please explain how they are measuring subsurface temperatures from space.


31 posted on 11/15/2018 6:07:37 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: FrankR

The only way you can PROVE Global Warming is with Mathematics. And the neat thing about math is is cannot be based upon opinion but must be mathematically correct. We are now learning the mathematics DISproves the theory of Global Warming. With the error included, there is global warming for the oceans. Take out the error and there is no global warming of the oceans. These “scientists” are giving us all the proof we need that this is a hoax...mathematics proves it.


32 posted on 11/15/2018 6:09:01 AM PST by ThePatriotsFlag (We are getting even more than we voted for.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: momincombatboots

They would bring in a math expert but the count is busy down in Florida.


33 posted on 11/15/2018 6:12:03 AM PST by pas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Other than the fact that it is physically impossible for the atmosphere to heat the ocean for small reasons like the ocean has over 1000 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere. But also long wave (thermal) radiation does not penetrate the surface of water past a few milimeters. The only way to heat water is with sunlight that penetrates a few hundred feet. The water effects the atmosphere, not vice versa.


34 posted on 11/15/2018 6:33:23 AM PST by dsrtsage (For Leftists, World History starts every day at breakfast)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: aquila48
“State of Fear” by Crichton is all about that. It exposes the political and money motivations and the tactics behind most causes to “save the planet”. Well worth a read.

I agree. And there are some that think it cost him his life.

35 posted on 11/15/2018 6:52:31 AM PST by jdsteel (Americans are Dreamers too!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
I didn't take you to raise, its not my job to jack around with low information people like you.

I gave you a clue, so go figure it out yourself.

36 posted on 11/15/2018 7:15:27 AM PST by Ben Ficklin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: mabarker1
why do i doubt it was a Mistake and not an outright lie
37 posted on 11/15/2018 7:20:09 AM PST by Chode ( WeÂ’re America, Bitch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
So, Bernie Madoff should be able to get off his $50 Billion fraud by claiming a "math error".

The global warming scam is much greater.

38 posted on 11/15/2018 7:26:21 AM PST by meadsjn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
If you've been reading the IPCC reports, you'll notice some dubious statistical basis for lots of claims. The reason is there was a rush to publish the summaries so the claims could be touted for the sake of regulation and legislation. For example "likelihood" and "confidence" were often conflated in the earlier summaries. "May occur" was often set at a 50% likelihood and reported with a 50% confidence. I tried going into the 2013/2014 reports the other day (to see if things had improved any) and it was obvious they were trying to hide such errors with lots of weaseling, it gave me a headache and I realized there were better things to do with my life than try to verify models from weaselly summaries.

My takeaway is the IPCC can't be rescued from it's past near-frauds no matter how well-intentioned the participants, because they refuse to identify or acknowledge the consequence of such mistakes while still recommending action based on their "findings".

39 posted on 11/15/2018 8:09:52 AM PST by no-s (when democracy is displaced by tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RoosterRedux
Anti-science losers in pursuit of yet more grant money and trying to impose tyrannical controls through their insane gloBULL warming BS. Liars.
40 posted on 11/15/2018 8:16:14 AM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-53 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson