UK Blogger Finds Error in Climate Change Study

[church mouse guy]

The error was first discovered by Nic Lewis, a retired British man who holds a bachelors degree in math from the University of Cambridge and who reads science papers for fun. He has also written a couple of published papers of his own on climate science.

“I've always liked to understand the world and to check whether people's research makes sense to me. Once I find something that seems wrong to me, I like to get to the bottom of it,” Lewis told Fox News.

Lewis said the incident should serve as a cautionary tale.

“I think it shows that the fact that a study is peer-reviewed and published by a premier journal gives very little assurance that its findings are valid,” Lewis said.

“I was slightly surprised that neither the peer reviewers nor the editor had spotted what seemed to me an obvious red flag on page 1 of the paper,” he added.

Lewis said that the reviewers who approved that paper may have looked less closely for errors because the conclusion agreed with the typical belief that global warming is an extreme crisis.

…“Climate science suffers from being politicized,” Lewis told Fox News. “It’s too infected by the idea of consensus and models... warming is likely to be less severe than global climate models say.”

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

 

[Adonia]

Climate change has happened sine the earth was formed. There have been periods of intense hot and intense cold, way before man initiated the Industrial Revolution and started spewing carbons into the environment.

 

[church mouse guy]

Climate change has happened sine the earth was formed. There have been periods of intense hot and intense cold, way before man initiated the Industrial Revolution and started spewing carbons into the environment.

I am a YEC so I agree that there was an Ice Age for seven hundred years that ended about 3,600 years ago, but when was there intense hot weather?

 

[FollowTheWay]

The error was first discovered by Nic Lewis, a retired British man who holds a bachelors degree in math from the University of Cambridge and who reads science papers for fun. He has also written a couple of published papers of his own on climate science.

“I've always liked to understand the world and to check whether people's research makes sense to me. Once I find something that seems wrong to me, I like to get to the bottom of it,” Lewis told Fox News.

Lewis said the incident should serve as a cautionary tale.

“I think it shows that the fact that a study is peer-reviewed and published by a premier journal gives very little assurance that its findings are valid,” Lewis said.

“I was slightly surprised that neither the peer reviewers nor the editor had spotted what seemed to me an obvious red flag on page 1 of the paper,” he added.

Lewis said that the reviewers who approved that paper may have looked less closely for errors because the conclusion agreed with the typical belief that global warming is an extreme crisis.

…“Climate science suffers from being politicized,” Lewis told Fox News. “It’s too infected by the idea of consensus and models... warming is likely to be less severe than global climate models say.”

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

So this is somebody with a BS in math who thinks he knows more than all the world-renounced climate change experts who have PhD's in the area? Somehow I'm not impressed.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

From the article:
"But all involved, including Lewis, agree that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are warming the oceans.

“People shouldn't be left with the impression that the errors in this paper put into doubt whether the ocean interior is warming. It clearly is wholly or mainly due to human greenhouse gas emissions,” Lewis said.

The study co-author who took responsibility for the error also made that point."

 

[church mouse guy]

So this is somebody with a BS in math who thinks he knows more than all the world-renounced climate change experts who have PhD's in the area? Somehow I'm not impressed.

You should look at the article. The author made an error in math and it was caught by a blogger in the UK. The author admitted that the blogger is right. Why are you such an authoritarian?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

So this is somebody with a BS in math who thinks he knows more than all the world-renounced climate change experts who have PhD's in the area? Somehow I'm not impressed.

Yet you should have been. The article asks how a peer-reviewed article could contain such a glaring error. In this case, perhaps groupthink.

But complex issues have a more general problem. Integrating the data from all fields is a daunting task, one not likely done well, if even attempted. While scientists, being human, tend to be territorial and biased, all fields must be free to weigh in on studies, their construction, conduction, and conclusions and how and why they were drawn.

Scientists definitely have no authority in matters of morality or philosophy, nor in politics or economics, yet many will assume it. They don't even have expertise in all scientific fields affecting their own, yet may rely on certain viewpoints from those fields that may be quite erroneous. And where money and fame are involved, the temptation to get the "right" answer is tremendous.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Yet you should have been. The article asks how a peer-reviewed article could contain such a glaring error. In this case, perhaps groupthink.

But complex issues have a more general problem. Integrating the data from all fields is a daunting task, one not likely done well, if even attempted. While scientists, being human, tend to be territorial and biased, all fields must be free to weigh in on studies, their construction, conduction, and conclusions and how and why they were drawn.

Scientists definitely have no authority in matters of morality or philosophy, nor in politics or economics, yet many will assume it. They don't even have expertise in all scientific fields affecting their own, yet may rely on certain viewpoints from those fields that may be quite erroneous. And where money and fame are involved, the temptation to get the "right" answer is tremendous.

From the article that was quoted:
“The evidence for ocean warming continues to be supported by millions of temperature readings throughout the oceans made by the international Argo network of sensors,” Keeling told Fox News.

The Argo network of sensors consists of nearly 4,000 floats around the world that observe the ocean. The study done by Keeling and his coauthors attempted to estimate ocean temperatures a totally different way -- “by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) ... which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases.”

Keeling said that such a study still had some value.

“Our study still also provides independent evidence that the ocean is warming. We accept that our method doesn’t determine the amount of warming as precisely as we previously thought,” Keeling added.

Keeling also acknowledged Lewis for pointing out the error.

“The scientific process is self-correcting when errors are made or new evidence is discovered. Hats off to Nic Lewis for his role here,” Keeling said.

In other words, the error that was found had NO IMPACT on the CONCLUSION.

 

[church mouse guy]

From the article that was quoted:
“The evidence for ocean warming continues to be supported by millions of temperature readings throughout the oceans made by the international Argo network of sensors,” Keeling told Fox News.

The Argo network of sensors consists of nearly 4,000 floats around the world that observe the ocean. The study done by Keeling and his coauthors attempted to estimate ocean temperatures a totally different way -- “by using measurements of atmospheric oxygen (O2) and carbon dioxide (CO2) ... which increase as the ocean warms and releases gases.”

Keeling said that such a study still had some value.

“Our study still also provides independent evidence that the ocean is warming. We accept that our method doesn’t determine the amount of warming as precisely as we previously thought,” Keeling added.

Keeling also acknowledged Lewis for pointing out the error.

“The scientific process is self-correcting when errors are made or new evidence is discovered. Hats off to Nic Lewis for his role here,” Keeling said.

In other words, the error that was found had NO IMPACT on the CONCLUSION.

No, the error invalidated the conclusion.

Did you know that there is a continent-sized island of plastic debris in the ocean. Just Google the images of it.

 

[FollowTheWay]

No, the error invalidated the conclusion.

Did you know that there is a continent-sized island of plastic debris in the ocean. Just Google the images of it.

Yes, I know about the plastic debris. Then why is Trump cutting the EPA which would address this and other environmental problems?

 

[carpro]

Cooking the books again.

Last time they were caught, they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". Wonder what kind of name they'll come up with this time to kind of reset the conversation?

The name may change, but the game's the same...it's all about money. Worldwide distribution of wealth, mostly ours.

 

[church mouse guy]

Yes, I know about the plastic debris. Then why is Trump cutting the EPA which would address this and other environmental problems?

Ha!ha! The plastic trash continent is a hoax that Pope Francis is trying to foist on the public. There are no pictures of it. The article corrected by the blogger tried to say that the ocean was changing temperature at a faster rate than it is scientifically when you do the math right. Fake science.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Ha!ha! The plastic trash continent is a hoax that Pope Francis is trying to foist on the public. There are no pictures of it. The article corrected by the blogger tried to say that the ocean was changing temperature at a faster rate than it is scientifically when you do the math right. Fake science.

Do you accept the National geographic as real or do you reject all reality?

Great Pacific Garbage Patch
Great Pacific Garbage Patch


The Great Pacific Garbage Patch is a collection of marine debris in the North Pacific Ocean. Also known as the Pacific trash vortex, the garbage patch is actually two distinct collections of debris bounded by the massive North Pacific Subtropical Gyre.
The Great Pacific Garbage Patch, also known as the Pacific trash vortex, spans waters from the West Coast of North America to Japan. The patch is actually comprised of the Western Garbage Patch, located near Japan, and the Eastern Garbage Patch, located between the U.S. states of Hawaii and California.

These areas of spinning debris are linked together by the North Pacific Subtropical Convergence Zone, located a few hundred kilometers north of Hawaii. This convergence zone is where warm water from the South Pacific meets up with cooler water from the Arctic. The zone acts like a highway that moves debris from one patch to another.

The entire Great Pacific Garbage Patch is bounded by the North Pacific Subtropical Gyre. An ocean gyre is a system of circular ocean currents formed by the Earth’s wind patterns and the forces created by the rotation of the planet. The North Pacific Subtropical Gyre is created by the interaction of the California, North Equatorial, Kuroshiro, and North Pacific currents. These four currents move in a clockwise direction around an area of 20 million square kilometers (7.7 million square miles).

 

[church mouse guy]

Do you have a Google image?

 

[carpro]

Ha!ha! The plastic trash continent is a hoax that Pope Francis is trying to foist on the public. There are no pictures of it. The article corrected by the blogger tried to say that the ocean was changing temperature at a faster rate than it is scientifically when you do the math right. Fake science.

The only real question is was it accidental or intentional.

 

[FollowTheWay]

The only real question is was it accidental or intentional.

So you too think the National geographic is fake news? You need help.

 

[JonC]

From the article

"For many people, the idea of a “garbage patch” conjures up images of an island of trash floating on the ocean. In reality, these patches are almost entirely made up of tiny bits of plastic, called microplastics. Microplastics can’t always be seen by the naked eye. Even satellite imagery doesn’t show a giant patch of garbage. The microplastics of the Great Pacific Garbage Patch can simply make the water look like a cloudy soup. This soup is intermixed with larger items, such as fishing gear and shoes. "

 

[church mouse guy]

So you too think the National geographic is fake news? You need help.

He was talking about the subject of the thread which Soros has not issued troll talking points for at this time since Soros can't understand science.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Cooking the books again.

Last time they were caught, they changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change". Wonder what kind of name they'll come up with this time to kind of reset the conversation?

The name may change, but the game's the same...it's all about money. Worldwide distribution of wealth, mostly ours.

Whatever the name, why are Trump and his followers anti-science?

 

[Revmitchell]

Whatever the name, why are Trump and his followers anti-science?

Have you stopped beating your wife?