Scientific error upends major ocean warming study

Posted: November 18, 2018 by oldbrew in alarmism, Analysis, climate, methodology, research, Temperature
Tags:


Apparently you’re a ‘climate contrarian’ if you dare to check the claimed results of climate-related studies. The researchers ‘calculated heat based on the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide rising off the ocean, filling round glass flasks with air collected at research stations around the globe’. But now they admit this ‘novel method’ didn’t work out the way they first thought, having had the error pointed out to them.

Researchers with the University of California, San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change, reports Phys.org.

In a paper published Oct. 31 in the journal Nature, researchers found that ocean temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

However, the conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper on the blog of Judith Curry, another well-known critic.

“The findings of the … paper were peer reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

Co-author Ralph Keeling, climate scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, took full blame and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake.

Continued here.

H/T San Diego Union-Tribune

Comments
  1. Bill In Oz says:

    Well, well, I’m no mathematician so I cannot comment about the the maths involved..But if they cannot do the maths accurately, why the hell should anyone rely on their ‘scientific’ opinion ?

    Next step : “wiping the egg of their collective scientific egos…

  2. Phi32 says:

    As a former gas analysis techniques researcher from the early 1950s, making measurements on gases evolved from liquids including sea water, sounds more like wishful thinking rather than a scientific study.

  3. oldbrew says:

    Cue data-torturing…
    Keeling said they will continue to experiment with the data in coming years in an attempt to fine-tune the data.

    Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-contrarian-uncovers-scientific-error.html

    Is it really worth it?

  4. Salvatore Del Prete says:

    Green house gases have ZERO !!! to do with ocean warming.

    Not much to say other then even have to discuss this is just another waste of time that the AGW theory scam has given to us. Taking away resources from other areas of climate science that need to be studied and wasting time with idiotic endeavors such as CO2 versus ocean warming. Next joke.

  5. tom0mason says:

    So if you’re a scientist who verifies past methods, data, and the maths of an experiment done by others labels you a ‘climate contrarian’, then we need more ‘climate contrarian’ doing this valuable work.
    These ‘climate contrarian’ should wear that badge with pride!
    Three cheers for ‘climate contrarian’ everywhere.

    Hip-hip! Hurray! Hip-hip – Hurray! Hip-hip,
    Hurray for ‘climate contrarian’ everywhere!
    Well done mathematician Nic Lewis. 🙂

  6. oldbrew says:

    Before climatology took over the world, scepticism was regarded as essential in science.

    Now it’s a thought crime that gets your career blighted or worse, if you utter any misgivings about man-made global warming or criticise any research that claims to detect it.

  7. Bitter@twisted says:

    No doubt this failure of peer review will be widely reported.
    Just like the original, flawed, research.
    Don’t hold your breath🤢

  8. oldbrew says:

    B&T – it made it into the local paper in San Diego 😉

  9. Bitter@twisted says:

    Oldbrew.
    It will be dismissed as fake news by the true believers

  10. oldbrew says:

  11. stpaulchuck says:

    “Did we do that??” [insert Steve Urkel meme here]

  12. oldbrew says:

    Dr Tim Ball questions the ‘honest mistake’ claims…

    In the Climate Deception Game Where The End Justifies the Means, the Objective is the Headline.
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/11/17/in-the-climate-deception-game-where-the-end-justifies-the-means-the-objective-is-the-headline/

  13. oldbrew says:

    UK Media Refuses To Correct The Record On Flawed Climate Paper

    Mainstream media is silent on errors in flawed climate scare story

    London, 19 November: The Global Warming Policy Forum today slammed the UK media for its failure to tell readers about errors in a widely reported global warming story.

    The flawed ocean paper was covered by:

    · Matt McGrath at the BBC
    · Harry Pettitt at the Mail on Sunday
    · Harry Cockburn at the Independent

    https://mailchi.mp/17012d9fa858/press-release-uk-media-refuses-to-correct-the-record-on-flawed-climate-paper-173009

    Truth or lies, guys? Media hit-and-run merchants? 👎

    BBC News website has a link: ‘Why you can trust BBC News’
    Really?

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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