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

Skip to comments.

Scientists behind ocean warming study say errors were made
CNN ^ | November 14, 2018 | by Laura Smith-Spark

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: climatechange; fake; fraud; globalwarming; hoax; propaganda; socialism

1 posted on 11/14/2018 10:59:40 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

Is this where they had parts of the Great Lakes 500 degrees Celsius


2 posted on 11/14/2018 11:04:25 AM PST by butlerweave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“Useful Idiot” Scientists.


3 posted on 11/14/2018 11:06:39 AM PST by Pajamajan ( Pray for our nation. Thank the Lord for everything you have. Don't waiting. Do it today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

They are deliberate frauds and have done this more than enough times not to deserve the benefit of the doubt. Bring on the prosecutors.


4 posted on 11/14/2018 11:13:56 AM PST by thoughtomator (Number of arrested coup conspirators to date: 2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

“Fake but accurate”


5 posted on 11/14/2018 11:19:24 AM PST by crusadersoldier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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


6 posted on 11/14/2018 11:29:17 AM PST by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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:

https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/07/resplandy-et-al-part-2-regression-in-the-presence-of-trend-and-scale-systematic-errors/


7 posted on 11/14/2018 11:34:19 AM PST by Trump_the_Evil_Left (FReeper formerly known as Enchante (registered Sept. 5, 2001), back from the wild....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trump_the_Evil_Left

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/


8 posted on 11/14/2018 11:36:07 AM PST by Trump_the_Evil_Left (FReeper formerly known as Enchante (registered Sept. 5, 2001), back from the wild....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

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’.


9 posted on 11/14/2018 11:37:39 AM PST by Pete Dovgan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

It means the dangerous changes they allege are within the margin of error.... i.e. may be little or nothing.


10 posted on 11/14/2018 11:38:21 AM PST by Trump_the_Evil_Left (FReeper formerly known as Enchante (registered Sept. 5, 2001), back from the wild....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Trump_the_Evil_Left

Thanks.

Huge erratum, essentially a retraction.


11 posted on 11/14/2018 11:38:58 AM PST by ifinnegan (Democrats kill babies and harvest their organs to sell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
These “scientists” are in search of their holy grail...grant money. They really are anti-science LIB nitwits and dishonest charlatans.
12 posted on 11/14/2018 11:46:12 AM PST by hal ogen (First Amendment or Reeducation Camp?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ifinnegan
YUP, the paper never would have been published with a margin of error which overwhelmed its claimed importance. Yet, the authors are pretending they can get away with mere correction.

"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.”"
13 posted on 11/14/2018 11:46:47 AM PST by Trump_the_Evil_Left (FReeper formerly known as Enchante (registered Sept. 5, 2001), back from the wild....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
"We are redoing the calculations and preparing author corrections for submission to Nature."

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.

14 posted on 11/14/2018 11:50:16 AM PST by Ol' Dan Tucker (For 'tis the sport to have the engineer hoist with his own petard., -- Hamlet, Act 3, Scene 4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer
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

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.

15 posted on 11/14/2018 11:53:48 AM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Trump_the_Evil_Left

Brown sedimentary geologic formations

16 posted on 11/14/2018 11:54:10 AM PST by bert ((KE. N.P. N.C. +12) Invade Honduras. Provide a military government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Oldeconomybuyer

17 posted on 11/14/2018 11:58:03 AM PST by Bubba_Leroy (The Obamanation has ended!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pete Dovgan
Since science is based upon statistical analysis ...

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.

18 posted on 11/14/2018 12:39:11 PM PST by John Locke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: All
Some much for “peer reviews” from your buddies for finding errors when your paper comes up with the “correct” solution.

It took one of those evil “deniers” to actually check their arithmetic...:^)


19 posted on 11/14/2018 2:23:18 PM PST by az_gila
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pete Dovgan

Nic Lewis also said that their estimate of the mean value was off by 30 percent as well.


20 posted on 11/14/2018 2:41:09 PM PST by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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