News Media gave blanket coverage to flawed climate paper 

Posted: November 7, 2018 by oldbrew in Accountability, alarmism, climate, Critique, Ocean dynamics, propaganda, research
Tags: ,

The media’s climate change coverage is even worse than we thought. If told aliens were running round the Arctic zapping icebergs with lasers, many of them would be keen to believe it – or at least that’s the impression often given.

A week ago, we were told that climate change was worse than we thought. But the underlying science contains a major error, reports The GWPF.

Independent climate scientist Nicholas Lewis has uncovered a major error in a recent scientific paper that was given blanket coverage in the English-speaking media.

The paper, written by a team led by Princeton oceanographer Laure Resplandy, claimed that the oceans have been warming faster than previously thought. It was announced, in news outlets including the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Scientific American that this meant that the Earth may warm even faster than currently estimated.

However Lewis, who has authored several peer-reviewed papers on the question of climate sensitivity and has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, has found that the warming trend in the Resplandy paper differs from that calculated from the underlying data included with the paper.

“If you calculate the trend correctly, the warming rate is not worse than we thought – it’s very much in line with previous estimates,” says Lewis.

In fact, says Lewis, some of the other claims made in the paper and reported by the media, are wrong too.

Continued here.

Nicholas Lewis: A major problem with the Resplandy et al. ocean heat uptake paper (pdf)

  1. Calvin Barrows says:

    It’s the same as has been going on with London Underground overheating in the summer! There has been no critique of the TfL claims and one article follows another full of contradictions and bad science! How many other claims are full of hype and causing the real situations, and their solutions to be masked?

  2. nickreality65 says:

    The fundamental premise of man-caused climate change is that the radiative greenhouse effect makes the surface of the earth 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without an atmosphere, i.e. 288 K with minus 255 K without. What follows explains how that is simply not possible.
    First off, the 15 C, 288 K, global average is a wild ass guesstimate pulled out of WMO’s butt.
    The 255 K is the S-B BB calculated temperature of the net 0.3 albedo in/out top of atmosphere average 240 W/m^2 needed to maintain a habitable balance. (1,368/4=342*.7=240 & 255 K) The 255 K has absolutely no meaningful connection (Apophenia -WUWT) with the surface 288 K.
    Without an atmosphere the earth would be much like the moon, albedo 0.12, ToA average of 301 W/m^2 not 240 W/m^2 and 25% more net incoming heat. The equivalent S-B BB calculated temperature would be 270 K not 255 K. No atmosphere means no vegetation, water, snow, ice, oceans, clouds, etc. and no longer a 0.3 albedo.
    But this ToA averaged model is simplistic and unrealistic.
    Say the atmospheric earth is 308 K lit side, 268 K dark side, average 288 K, range 40 C.
    Say the non-atmospheric earth is 388 K lit side, 188 K dark side, average remains 288 K, range 200 C.
    Identical averages, but the first model is habitable, the second is not, a meaningless comparison.
    Let’s look at reality.
    ISR (incoming solar radiation)
    1,368 W/m^2, 0.0 albedo, net 1,368 W/m^2, S-B BB temperature is 394 K, 121 C, 250 F. This is why the ISS has a pair of redundant ammonia refrigerant coolers, chillers, AC systems. Space is hot, not cold.
    Without atmosphere, i.e. lunarific
    1,368 W/m^2, 0.12 albedo, net 1,204 W/m^2, S-B BB temperature is 382 K, 109 C, 228.2 F, above boiling point of water.
    With atmosphere, i.e. earthy
    1,368 W/m^2, 0.3 albedo, net 957.6 W/m^2, S-B BB temperature is 360.5 K. 87.5 C, 189.5 F, below boiling point of water.
    The without atmosphere is quite clearly 21.5 C hotter (382.0 – 360.5), NOT 33 C colder, than the with it atmosphere.
    Without an atmosphere the earth will be much like the moon, blistering hot on the lit side, bitter cold on the dark and most certainly NOT the average 255 K frozen ice ball that RGHE claims.

  3. oldbrew says:

    In fact, says Lewis, some of the other claims made in the paper and reported by the media, are wrong too.

    But in hit-and-run media-land, that’s not ‘news’ :/

  4. oldbrew says:

    The media love this kind of garbage…

    Cigar-shaped object could be alien spacecraft, Harvard researchers claim
    Wednesday 07 November 2018

    Scientists believe Oumuamua, which is roughly 400m long, may be a “lightsail of artificial origin” from outside our solar system.
    – – –
    Give us a break.

  5. saighdear says:

    Want a break, have a Kat-Kit ! the foil on it is less than 1 mm but can be folded over to make 1 mm. – but as they said on the BBC Brek prog. – that the object was only a millimetre thick ? Just had to roll my eyes ….

  6. oldbrew says:

    Further analysis from Nic Lewis, which concludes:

    Resplandy et al.’s ± 0.15 ΔAPOClimate trend uncertainty estimate is completely infeasible!

  7. stpaulchuck says:

    oh my, ANOTHER case of data torture for confirmation bias output

  8. gallopingcamel says:

    You are preaching to the converted when you say that the that 255 K estimate for the average temperature of an airless is wrong.

    Given that we the LRE (Lunar Radiation Experiment) data shows that the lunar average is 197 K your suggestion that the 255 K estimate is too low is not plausible.

  9. gallopingcamel says:

    Gosh! I really garbled that last comment but I think y’all can figure out what I was trying to say.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s