Error in major climate study revealed – warming NOT higher than expected

https://www.foxnews.com/science/err...udy-revealed-warming-not-higher-than-expected

Oopsies!!! The climate change "scientists" made a mistake. That seems to be common with these folks. How do they expect to be taken seriously when they constantly are making boo boos?

Al Gore has not helped with his boneheaded claims. Aren't we supposed to be under water by now? Weren't the ice caps supposed to melt and drown us all?

With scientific models based on faulty data and bogus predictions made yearly, how is anyone supposed to take climate change seriously?

 

I'm sure you've noticed that all errors point to planet killing global warming just like all voting errors point to more votes for democrats.

 

What's funny is that this was a peer reviewed paper and the big mistake was on the first page of the study.

This means that either peer reviewers are not checking for accuracy or they are simply overlooking flawed data.

Anyways, this is a huge story, turns out the oceans aren't heating up faster than normal...…..devastating blow to the climate freaks out there.

But hey, we told you so.

Now we need to go and reexaming all the other findings over the last decade to find out how much of that data has been "overlooked" or "missed".

 

It's good news that the oceans are not warming faster than earlier predictions, but still, the oceans are warming like the rest of the planet.

 

Yes there are still plenty of reasons not to contaminate our soil or pollute the air we breath.

 

BTW, here is the man who discovered the error when reading the paper on his spare time. He is retired and hold a BS in mathematics from Cambridge according to the OPs article.

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/

 

From the paper that revealed the errors showing the trend in warming.

https://judithcurry.com/2018/11/06/a-major-problem-with-the-resplandy-et-al-ocean-heat-uptake-paper/

 

THE COOL DOWN IS COMING


Are you prepared?


Earliest snow in Washington, D.C. in 22 years.
Trump's anti global warming policies are working.

 

I just read that NASA is predicting a record low of Sunspots coming up meaning that the Earth is going to be cooling off rapidly. The last time the sun did this we ended up with the Little Ice Age.

So much for global warming I suppose, it looks like we are coming into a deep freeze.

https://www.foxnews.com/science/nas...ce-in-months-bringing-record-low-temperatures

 

This suggest we have a responsibility to
leave a bigger carbon foot prints, not smaller.
Breathe deeply, do your part.
And don't forget to fart too. Methane helps avert a cool down as does CO2


Moi

 

And? Scientific hypothesis get revised all the time as more data is collected on a longer timeline. You are in error in calling it a "mistake".

Global warming is a fact that is being observed. That "Prediction A" didn't come true at the exact moment hypothesized originally doesn't mean the entire theory is BS.

Do you even know how to science?

 

Most Scientific Hypothesis are not that far off the mark.

 

The scientist who authored it called it a mistake.

You may want to inform him of that.

lol

 

Scientists (or any other humans) make mistakes? Gasp!

This scientist had the balls to admit it. The "mistake" wasn't an attempt to deceive, that's your biased view of it.

 

They admitted the calculation mistakes, and they describe how it affected the precision of the measurement, but it did not invalidate the overall conclusion. They submitted the revisions to the journal. I am not sure what news people are latching onto. The journal did not request that the article get retracted. It is an extremely embarrassing mistake for a scientist to make, but the overall effect is quite minor.

 

The problem is that the scientific community and politicians are demanding changes based on faulty evidence.

This has real world impacts. If it was just a study or many studies with errors it wouldn't be a big deal.

Politicians are actually running and winning elections based off of faulty data like this.

Companies are either grudgingly or being forced to adopt practices based on global warming which apparently is turning out to not be as severe as the scientists claim it is.

Do you see the problem yet?

 

The overall conclusion was that the oceans were warming at a record pace so what do you mean it didn't affect that?

It most certainly did.

Their entire conclusion was off.

 

Read the article itself or at least the abstract. Do not read what other journalist think the article meant:

I do not know if that include the revisions, but it looks like it does. They still have the same conclusion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0651-8

 

You mean we are under water?

 

It doesn't mean the theory is BS. What it means is that it is a theory and that it is political. I understand science. I studied it in college. What I don't understand is politics because it has no basis in reality.

 

How desperate are you as a denier, when you cite a study showing that global warming is still happening, just not as fast as that particular study thought so.

"...got worldwide media coverage for finding that the oceans warmed dramatically faster than previously thought"

"Just two weeks after publication, the study authors have revised their paper, and now conclude that the oceans are warming fast -- but at the same rate as other measurements have found."

And all you deniers are rejoicing about that? Really? This is… sad.

 

There were two other factors involved in the LIA. CO2 levels were lower back then and volcanism was higher so there were more aerosols. So the situation is different today. Also, we don't for certain if another grand minimum is inevitable or not.

 

Keep in mind that the mistake in this publication was not with the calculated warming rate, but with the error margins put on it. When correcting for the statistical error made the error margin expands out. With the correction the result still indicates that the IPCC is underestimating the warming by 10%. The interesting thing about this study is that they use a completely different technique for measuring ocean warming. This technique yields roughly the same amount of warming as other techniques. Basically, it's yet another line of evidence that corroborates the fact that the hydrosphere is warming rapidly.

Also, note how the study's authors handled their mistake. They owned up to it right away and fixed it. It's further proof that the scientific method is self correcting and works.

 

Those are the very reasons that leftists and their scientists switched some years ago to an embracing of the umbrella term 'Climate Change' since now every time one of their 'can't possibly fail' predictions indeed fail to come true, they can still point at the NEGATIVE results and proclaim, "Well that IS change,isn't it?"

 

Peer review does not catch all mistakes. It's just suppose to catch the obvious mistakes and fraudulent submissions. Once published the research is presented to the scientific community for the ultimate form of peer review. This particular mistake required an expert mathematician to catch.

This isn't the devasting blow you think it is. In fact, this is yet another line of evidence that supports the idea that the IPCC is underestimating the warming.