A recent climate "study"
which concluded
global warming
is far worse
than previously thought
(surprise, surprise -
in Gomer Pyle voice )
had a big math error !
I'm impressed
that anyone
took the "study"
seriously enough
to search for
a math error,
but I'm not surprised
one was found --
climate change activists
are weak in math, and
very weak in real science.
Princeton scientist
Laure Resplandy
and researchers at the
Scripps Institution
of Oceanography
concluded in October
that the Earth's oceans
have retained
60% more heat
than previously thought
over the last 25 years,
suggesting
global warming
was much worse
than previously believed.
The study was reported
by many mainstream media
outlets, who will publish
ANY claim of a dangerous
future climate,
without any questions.
The Washington Post reported:
"The higher-than-expected
amount of heat
in the oceans
means more heat
is being retained
within Earth’s
climate system
each year,
rather than
escaping
into space.
In essence,
more heat
in the oceans
signals that
global warming
is more advanced
than scientists
thought."
Unfortunately for the
Princeton-Scripps team,
their report has been
proven inaccurate.
"Just a few hours
of analysis
and calculations,
based only on
published
information,
was sufficient
to uncover
apparently serious
(but surely
inadvertent)
errors in the
underlying
calculations,"
wrote UK-based
researcher
Nicholas Lewis,
in a blog post
published on
climate scientist
Judith Curry's
Climate Etc.
website.
After correcting
the math error,
Lewis found
that the paper's
rate of
oceanic warming
"is about average
compared with the
other estimates
they showed,
and below
the average
for 1993–2016."
Lewis's conclusion
was replicated,
and supported by,
University of
Colorado
professor,
Roger Pike, Jr.,
who tweeted
his work.
Lewis found
the study’s authors,
led by Princeton University
scientist Laure Resplandy,
erred in calculating
the linear trend
of estimated
ocean warming
between 1991
and 2016.
Resplandy
and her colleagues
estimated ocean heat
by measuring the volume
of carbon dioxide
and oxygen
in the atmosphere.
The results:
the oceans took up
60% more heat
than previously thought.
The co-author of that
global warming study,
Ralph Keeling,
has now owned up to
a major math error
uncovered six days after
its October 31 publication
by an independent scientist.
After Nicholas Lewis
published his
comprehensive
blog post,
claiming he had found
a "major problem"
with the research.
“So far as I can see,
their method
vastly underestimates
the uncertainty,
as well as
biasing up significantly,
nearly 30%,
the central estimate.”
Lewis added
that he tends
“to read a large
number of papers,
and, having
a mathematics,
as well as a
physics background,
... with this one,
it’s fairly obvious
it didn’t make sense ... ”
Lewis has argued
in past studies
and commentaries
that climate scientists
are predicting
too much warming,
because of their reliance
on computer simulations,
and that current data
from the planet itself
suggests
global warming
will be less severe
than feared.
"When we
were confronted
with his insight
it became
immediately clear
there was
an issue there,"
said Ralph Keeling,
a scientist with the
Scripps Institute
of Oceanography
who co-authored
the paper
with Princeton University
scientist and lead author,
Laure Resplandy.
"We’re grateful
to have it be
pointed out quickly
so that we could
correct it quickly."
Keeling said
they have
since redone
the calculations,
finding the ocean
is still likely warmer
than the estimate
used by the IPCC.
However,
that increase in heat
has a larger range
of probability
than initially thought --
between 10% and 70%,
as other studies
have already found.
“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.”
"I accept responsibility
for what happened
because it’s my role
to make sure that
those kind of details
got conveyed,"
Keeling told
the Washington Post.
The scientist authors
have submitted
a correction
to the journal Nature,
which published the
original study.
I wonder Nature
will publish
the correction?
You can be sure
The Washington Post
will never publish
an article on
the revised study,
or a correction to
their original article
about the flawed study.
Because they are
a leftist newspaper.
And truth
is not a leftist value.