MATH ERROR: SCIENTISTS ADMIT ‘MISTAKES’ LED TO ALARMING RESULTS IN MAJOR GLOBAL WARMING STUDY

9:18 AM 11/14/2018 | ENERGY
Michael Bastasch | Energy Editor

Scientists behind a headline-grabbing climate study admitted they “really muffed” their paper.

Their study claimed to find 60 percent more warming in the oceans, but that was based on math errors.

The errors were initially spotted by scientist Nic Lewis, who called them “serious (but surely inadvertent) errors.”
The scientists behind a headline-grabbing global warming study did something that seems all too rare these days — they admitted to making mistakes and thanked the researcher, a global warming skeptic, who pointed them out.

“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” study co-author Ralph Keeling told The San Diego Union-Tribune on Tuesday.

Their study, published in October, used a new method of measuring ocean heat uptake and found the oceans had absorbed 60 more heat than previously thought. Many news outlets relayed the findings, but independent scientist Nic Lewis quickly found problems with the study.

Keeling, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, owned up to the mistake and thanked Lewis for finding it. Keeling and his co-authors submitted a correction to the journal Nature. (RELATED: Headline-Grabbing Global Warming Study Suffers From A Major Math Error)

“We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly,” Keeling said.

In a statement posted online Friday, Keeling said “the combined effect of these two corrections to have a small impact on our calculations of overall heat uptake.” However, Keeling said the errors mean there are “larger margins of error” than they initially thought.

People gather at the beach to cool off as a heat wave brings high temperatures and humidity to Oceanside, California
People gather at the beach to cool off as a heat wave brings high temperatures and humidity to Oceanside, California, August 14, 2015. REUTERS/Mike Blake.

So, while Keeling said they still found there’s more warming than previously thought, there’s too much uncertainty to support their paper’s central conclusion that oceans absorbed 60 percent more heat than current estimates show.

“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 told The Union Tribune. “We really muffed the error margins.”

Keeling and his co-authors used the study to debut a new way of estimating ocean heat uptake by measuring the volume of carbon dioxide and oxygen in the atmosphere. Scientists are still intrigued by this method, but all the kinks need to be worked out.

“So far as I can see, their method vastly underestimates the uncertainty,” Lewis told The Washington Post in an interview Tuesday, “as well as biasing up significantly, nearly 30 percent, the central estimate.”

Lewis pointed out the errors in Keeling’s study in a blog post published Nov. 6 on climate scientist Judith Curry’s website. Lewis wrote that “[j]ust a few hours of analysis and calculations … was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.”

Lewis is an ardent critic of climate scientists’ over-reliance on climate models, which he says predict too much warming. Lewis and Curry published a study earlier in 2018 that found climate models overestimated global warming by as much as 45 percent.

Lewis’s corrections were quickly confirmed by University of Colorado professor Roger Pielke Jr. Pielke called Keeling’s acceptance and willingness to correct the mistakes a “lesson in graciousness.”

Roger Pielke Jr.
✔
@RogerPielkeJr
Resplandy et al follow up
Ralph Keeling of Scripps lesson in graciousness:
“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there. We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly” https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/ne ... story.html …

94
4:21 AM - Nov 14, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy
Climate skeptic uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study
Scientists with UC San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University recently walked back a claim made last month that oceans had been heating up dramatically faster than the...

“Unfortunately, we made mistakes here,” Keeling told WaPo. “I think the main lesson is that you work as fast as you can to fix mistakes when you find them.”

Zanimljivo je da bi fertilizacijom oceana bilo moguće spustiti temperaturu na Zemlji i to relativno jeftino, ali međunarodne konvencije zabranjuju jednostrano djelovanje država u tom pogledu.

Šta je to fertilizacija oceana?

Mora su se uvijek dizala i spuštala, nestajala, stvarala nova. A oni koji su platili skupe balkone odmah iznad vode, za kavicu i uživanje. Pa ko im jebe mater, imaju novac nek se snađu i kad se voda digne.

Ma kažem da u tome ima istine oni bi vec pravili bunkere za svoje zlato negdi u himalajam ;)
Nedavno su rekli da nam je preostalo 12 godina a ako me pamcenje sluzi tako nesta se govorilo i prije 10-ak godina kad sam upisivao srednju

Study: Global Warming Does Not Cause Hurricanes

16 Jan 20192280

Global warming has not caused an increase in the frequency or intensity of hurricanes, a study published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation has confirmed.
Climate alarmists such Michael Mann, Kerry Emanuel, and Al Gore often claim that hurricanes are among the extreme weather events that have been exacerbated by man’s selfishness, greed, and refusal to amend his carbon-guzzling lifestyle.

But there is “little evidence” that this is so, according to the study’s author Paul Homewood.

Even the alarmist Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) acknowledged in its Fifth Assessment Report in 2013 that there has been little change in long-term hurricane activity:

In summary, [there is] low confidence that any reported long-term (centennial) increases in tropical cyclone activity are robust, after accounting or past changes in observing capabilities. More recent assessments indicate that it is unlikely that annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have increased over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin. Evidence, however, is for a virtually certain increase in the frequency and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones since the 1970s in that region.

Unfortunately, a particularly severe hurricane season in the North Atlantic in 2017 gave the alarmists just the excuse they needed to cry wolf once more. Backed by footage of the devastation caused by that year’s two major landfalling hurricanes — Harvey and Irma — they concocted a plausible theory as to why global warming will increase such extreme weather events: hurricanes feed off warm waters, so the warmer the waters, the more intense the hurricane.

This theory, though, is confounded by real-world evidence:

The longest and most reliable database of hurricanes is of US landfalling ones. NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division has carefully reanalysed the original records of all hurricanes up to 1960. Its HURDAT database shows that there has been no increase in the frequency of hurricanes or major hurricanes (Category 3 and over) since the start of the record in 1851. Prior to Harvey, no major hurricane had hit the US since Wilma in 2005, the longest such period on record. In 2017, for instance, two major landfalling hurricanes – Harvey and Irma – hit the US, but this is not unusual. In 1893, for instance, there were three, a number repeated in 1909. The record year for landfalling hurricanes was 1886, when there were seven. Only
three Category 5 hurricanes have hit the US mainland: the Labor Day hurricane in 1935, Camille in 1969, and Andrew in 1992.

Data provided by HURDAT also shows that recent hurricane activity in the North Atlantic has not been unusual by historical standards. In 2017, there were six major Atlantic hurricanes, but the highest total recorded was eight in 1950. Of last year’s six, two were Category 5 – Irma and Maria – but again, this is not unusual, having occurred five times previously, including in 1932 and 1933.

Historical data shows that Atlantic hurricanes, particularly major ones, were much more common between about 1930 and 1960 than in the following three decades. Since 1990, the numbers have returned to the earlier levels. It is widely accepted that this pattern is linked to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), a natural reoccurring cycle of temperature changes in the sea surface temperatures.

A database of global hurricanes is kept, with data going back to 1970. This shows an increase in the number of major hurricanes and their accumulated energy between 1970 and 1993. This is associated with the AMO cycle too. Since 1993, there has been a decline in the frequency of all hurricanes, major hurricanes and accumulated energy.

In summary, there is little evidence that global warming has resulted in more hurricanes, or more intense ones in recent years. On the contrary, available evidence confirms that hurricane and major hurricane frequency has been similar in many prior periods.

Hurricane activity, in other words, is a cyclical weather event which has nothing to do with “man-made” climate change. Don’t let the alarmist #fakenews merchants tell you otherwise.

pa čak i ako nije istina da postoji globalno zatopljenje, zašto ne bi djelovali u smjeru da ne zagađujemo naš planet emisijama plinova i uništavamo pluća sječom šuma? Mislim da je ovdje prvenstveno bitna namjera

Fertilizacija je proces obogaćivanja tla odnosno staništa hranjivim sastojcima koji pospješuju rast biljaka/živih organizama. Gnjojenje. Dodaš ureu u neplodno tlo i ono je plodno. Dodaš ureu (ili željezo) u neplodan dio oceana i imaš veće količine planktona, koje vežu CO2 iz atmosfere i talože ga na oceanskom dnu. Nuspojava je veća populacija ribljih vrsta koje se hrane planktonom.