Climate correction: when scientists get it wrong

Oceans cover more than two thirds of the planet's surface and play a vital role in sustaining life on Earth
Oceans cover more than two thirds of the planet's surface and play a vital role in sustaining life on Earth

On November 1, AFP joined news outlets around the world in covering the release of a major academic paper warning that our oceans were warming dramatically quicker than previously thought.

The study was undertaken by some of the world's most pre-eminent climate , using state-of-the-art modelling systems reviewed by their peers, and appeared in one of the most prestigious academic journals.

There was just one problem: it was wrong.

Published in Nature, the paper by researchers from the University of California San Diego and Princeton found that temperatures had warmed 60 percent more than current estimates.

They concluded, with no small sense of alarm, that even the most ambitious emissions cuts laid out in the global plan to prevent climate disaster would need to be slashed again by another 25 percent.

Soon after publication, an independent climate scientist—one who has repeatedly voiced scepticism of the consensus that is causing —spotted an error in the Nature paper's maths.

"After correction, the... results do not suggest a larger increase in ocean heat content than previously thought," Nicolas Lewis wrote on his Climate Science blog.

"Just a few hours of analysis and calculations was sufficient to uncover apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) in the underlying calculations.

"It is very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper's findings now correct the record too. But perhaps that is too much to hope for," he added.

With the rectified calculation, the authors quickly realised they had made a mistake.

The new results had a far larger range of possibilities in ocean temperature increases—between 10 and 70 percent: still warmer, but rendering the study vague even for the sometimes unknowable science of climate modelling.

"We quickly realised that our calculations incorrectly treated systematic errors in the O2 measurements as if they were random errors in the error propagation," author Ralph Keeling wrote on climatehome.org.

"We really muffed the error margins," he told the San Diego Tribune.

'Climate hoax'

The correction prompted some climate deniers to wheel out the conspiracy theory that manmade global warming is made up.

Some Twitter users suggested the study was funded by the Democrats, that human-induced planetary warming was invented by former presidential hopeful Al Gore so he could buy a house, and that decades of evidence-based research into the phenomenon constituted "pseudoscience".

But scientists rallied round the authors, pointing out that the process surrounding the Nature paper's publication and correction was, really, how scientific research is supposed to work.

"Science is a human endeavour and it's therefore imperfect. What's important is that are scrutinised and replicated by others so that we can assess what is robust and what isn't," Gavin A. Schmidt, director at the Goddard Institute for Space Sciences at NASA, told AFP.

"Current climate change has been looked at by thousands of scientists (and other interested people) and our understanding of it is pretty solid," he said.

AFP has since corrected its coverage of the study so its updated findings are on the record for future stories on warming oceans.

Peter Frumhoff, chief climate scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the ocean study correction was "a beautiful thing".

"The rapid, transparent acknowledgement and correction of inadvertent errors in scientific papers... is at the heart of what separates science from dogma," he told AFP.

"It underscores our confidence in the robustness of consensus scientific findings, based on thousands of independent studies, regarding human-caused change."


Explore further

Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study

Journal information: Nature

© 2018 AFP

Citation: Climate correction: when scientists get it wrong (2018, November 23) retrieved 24 May 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2018-11-climate-scientists-wrong.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
1292 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 23, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 23, 2018
Global warming due to carbon dioxide is real and it is a good thing. The world was headed to iceball earth, averted by the unintentional affects of humans.

Nov 23, 2018
I wish you old morons could live long enough to be laughed at the way you so richly deserve to be. I'll have to settle for you dying of old age and finally not voting for oil shills.

Nov 23, 2018
This is science working the way science is supposed to work. This is why findings get published and comment is open to the scientific community.

The essential point remains:the ocean is warming faster than we thought. By at minimum 10%. If you like the median, then by 40%. Still bad news. But of course the #4chankiddies and #Q-bait and #incels and the rest of the climate trolls were bound to caper and whine about it.

Nov 23, 2018
"Inconvenient Science: NASA data show that global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years."
https://www.inves...ia-bias/

Nov 23, 2018
Noticed there's no link to NASA. Oops.

I wouldn't buy any stocks they tell you to either.


Nov 24, 2018
No, sorry, that's not a link to NASA. Try again.

Nov 24, 2018
I am pleased to see science working exactly the way it is supposed to. Studies that emerge that have errors are quickly caught and corrections are issued. This makes me infinitely more confident that studies coming out without corrections contain reliable information.

It is strange that AGW deniers are too stupid to understand this. But I strongly suspect that they are getting laughed out of the public arena more and more. And its scientists willingness to admit error and correct their mistakes that is making that happen.

I haven't seen many AGW deniers admit their mistakes. It happens occasionally, but not often.

Nov 24, 2018
It is strange that AGW deniers are too stupid to understand this


Parsec you are so full of chit. We've heard this BS since you were in diapers, kid.

Nov 24, 2018
Lies, lies and more lies from the warmistas using their phonied up data. Bad week for algore. How much of this 'mistake' was intentional?


Much like Mann's hockey stick graft, graph, no graft was correct.

Can't trust anything supported by neo-Marxists, Progressives and Post Modernists. Nothing, they are a murderous bunch and don't have Mankind's best interests in mind.

Nov 24, 2018
We need a crash research program for nuclear fusion. That would be real science.

Nov 24, 2018
So the corrected result is not 60% increase, but 10-70%.
Given the fact that all previous estimates were understated, the true result is probably around 60%.

Nov 24, 2018
How do people get to be so dumb? Al Gore has NOTHING to do with the science. He does not represent the scientific community in any way. Yet deniers can't resist dragging his name into every conversation about AGW. What idiocy.
It is the denialist cult who have politicized the science.

Mann's hockey stick is the most repeatedly affirmed work in climate science.
About two dozen other temperature reconstructions, have come up with the same "hockey stick" graph.
Michael Mann's work was at the center of the 100% Fake scandal called climategate.
Investigations of climategate by
The US National Academy of Sciences
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, NASA, The US Department of Commerce, The UK Parliament, The University of East Anglia, Penn State, The EPA, The UK Met Office - All found no faking the science and All found Mann's work to be valid



Nov 24, 2018
philstacy9 says that - "global temperatures dropped sharply over the past two years."
FALSE 2016 was the warmest year on record, partially warmed by the strongest El Nino on record. 2017 and 2018 were slightly cooler, but still among the warmest years since the late 1800s.
The same deniers love to make claims that there has been no warming since 1998 (False), conveniently ignoring that 1998 temperature was increased by what was then the strongest El Nino on record.
A number of records for the Earth's climate were set in 2017:
It was the warmest year on record for ocean heat content, which increased markedly between 2016 and 2017.

It was the second or third warmest year on record for surface temperature – depending on the dataset used – and the warmest year without the influence of an El Niño event.


Nov 24, 2018
annoyingmousie, as usual too cowardly to openly spew it's lying shit.

gramps, that sounds like a good idea. That we were smart enough to accidentally prevent an iceberg world. Too bad that we are not smart enough to figure out how to stop ourselves from causing the world to overheat!

phil6. "One swallow does not a make a summer." You are not earning your paycheck as a denier-shill by agitpropping a single Carbon/ICE Lobby missedprint of out of context report plagiarized from real scientists. For whom you are not competent to wash bottles.

old_coot, we beg you! Ask your orderly to change your diapers, You're leaking all over the internet.

Shootist, you need to come out of your coma. The 19th century is over. Celebrate the Age of Global Fascism. You get to kiss the saudis silk slippers. Or you get to lick putin's jackboots nice and shiny!

thingone, Let's not crash fusion research. A runaway Bethe-Phoenix Cycle is not a good thing to inflict on ourselves.

Nov 24, 2018
grandpa claims ---
"The world was headed to iceball earth" - FALSE
There is ZERO evidence for that absurd statement.
-------
Anonym518498 asks ---
"How much of this 'mistake' was intentional?" Oh boy.
What I can tell you is that the hundreds of LIES about the science that deniers believe ARE mostly Intentional. And deniers believe them without any skepticism whatsoever. And then they wonder why we call them deniers. You are NOT scientific skeptics. The real skeptics are the thousands of scientists who do the research, which is why errors are discovered and corrected.


Nov 24, 2018

These 32 conservative 'think tanks' (really industry front groups) have all been involved in the Tobacco Industry's campaign to deny the science showing the dangers of tobacco.

They have all been involved in the Fossil Fuels Industry funded campaign to deny the science of climate change.

---------

1. Acton Institute
2. American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
3. Alexis de Tocquerville Institute
4. American Enterprise Institute (AEI)
5. Americans for Prosperity
6. Atlas Economic Research Foundation
7. Burson-Marsteller (PR firm)
8. Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW)
9. Cato Institute
10. Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI)
11. Consumer Alert
12. DCI Group (PR firm)
13. European Science and Environment Forum
14. Fraser Institute
15. Frontiers of Freedom
16. George C. Marshall Institute
17. Harvard Center for Risk Analysis
18. Heartland Institute
19. Heritage Foundation
20. Independent Institute
-- more to come

Nov 24, 2018
21. International Center for a Scientific Ecology
22. International Policy Network
23. John Locke Foundation
24. Junk Science
25. National Center for Public Policy Research
26. National Journalism Center
27. National Legal Center for the Public Interest (NLCPI)
28. Pacific Research Institute
29. Reason Foundation
30. Small Business Survival Committee
31. The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC)
32. Washington Legal Foundation

#5 and #9 were created by the billionaire oil and lumber tycoon Koch brothers, who fund all kinds of anti-environmental PR.

#24 Junk Science, which is aptly named, is run by Steve Milloy, who Fox News like to feature as an "expert" on climate change. Milloy is NOT a scientist. He's a paid lobbyist for fossil fuel interests and a professional PR man. Fox ever divulge that to you?

Nov 24, 2018
Among other things, as part of the attempted "exoneration" of "science", the article says many tried to say, "decades of evidence-based research" into "climate change" constituted "pseudoscience".
The "study" that "concluded" ocean warming was higher than expected was "evidence-based". And, face it, many, many, many "scientists" who read the article didn't find any fault in it! Only one did! How many faults are in earlier "research"? And government policy and following "research" are derived based on those faults!
And, in the end, all "science" does is literally try to slither around their betrayal of people by saying "science" is necessarily "noble" because, when they can't hide or explain away their errors, they're willing to admit to them!
It can be said to be more important to be right the first time!

Nov 24, 2018
A question on a slightly different subject.
Phys Org says no more than 1000 characters are allowed in each comment. Yet, the first version of this comment had 20 characters left, but, when I tried to submit it, Phys Org said the comment was "tool long" and didn't accept it.
If they are willing to accept up to 1000 characters, why do they refuse those that have less than 1000 characters? What is the real number of characters they will allow?

Nov 24, 2018
Here are some books documenting the global warming denial misinformation PR machine and its history.

"Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming"
by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway

"The Inquisition of Climate Science"
by James Lawrence Powell

"Climate Cover-Up": The Crusade to Deny Global Warming"
by James Hoggan with Richard Littlemore

"The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars" by Michael Mann

"Scorcher: The Dirty Politics of Climate Change" by Clive Hamilton

"Science as a Contact Sport: Inside the Battle to Save Earth's Climate"
by Stephan H. Schneider and Tim Flannery

"Global Warming and Political Intimidation, How Politicians Cracked

Down On Scientists as the Earth Heated Up" by Raymond Bradley

"Climate Change Denial, Heads in the Sand"
by Hayden Washington and John Cook

"The Heat Is On" and "The Boiling Point" by Ross Gelbspan

Nov 24, 2018
julianpenrod said -- "many "scientists" who read the article didn't find any fault in it! Only one did! "

Not true. Plus, it takes time for other scientists to study in depth and evaluate, what is after all, a brand new paper. This is how science works. Getting peer reviewed and published is just the beginning. Then the real scrutiny by other scientists starts.
Maybe many scientists initially only read the abstract and not the whole research paper. Science is sometimes messy, but it is self correcting, as the following article explains. Also, the mainstream media often gets the story wrong, over or under emphasizing what scientists say.

"The long story of constraining ocean heat content"

http://www.realcl...content/


Nov 24, 2018
Actually it is so called skeptics who often are guilty of what you are accusing scientists of - Jumping to conclusions, based on one study.
For example, I have read dozens of deniers comments claiming that NASA said that Antarctica is gaining land ice. The claim is False. NASA did not say that. What they did do is honestly make public one study, that had that conclusion.
That study gathered no new data, only re-analyzed data from 2008 and earlier.
Guess what? In 2008 most scientists agreed that Antarctica still had a net gain of land ice. Since then, some very comprehensive studies, with more up to date data, found the opposite. In fact 9 or 10 other studies find Antarctica losing land ice. It should be noted that Antarctic and the Arctic are very different. Antarctica is much colder, being a large continent with 1 or 2 mile thick ice surrounded by the Southern Ocean, where circumpolar winds and currents tend to isolate it from the rest of the world's climate.


Nov 24, 2018
So, a small error in the error estimate, but still higher than we had hoepd for. :-/

As for the trolling of science and the facts we now know, its the usual - these facts don't suit the trolls.

"that's not a link to NASA."

To be fair, the claim was NASA data which is open. But the link is trolling, and the troll is repetitive I think, the same outer atmosphere cooling as was trolled yesterday I bet. A cooling which - like regional cooling et cetera - is a consequence of global warming at *the surface*.

"We've heard this".

Well yes, greenhouse warming is an old theory, that is why there is life on Earth. But the man made warming period we entered was not really publicly noted until recently.

"It is the denialist cult who have politicized the science."

And mostly locally in US, remember that the rest of the world is joining up to reduce risk and costs. So it is transparent BS.

Folks, we have now less than 12 years to reduce future damage and its costs!

Nov 24, 2018
LMAO.
The Chicken Little jackasses are out in full force, pitifully attempting to defend the LIES of their Cult. This is reflected in the substance of their arguments. That substance being, the SHITE between their ears.
This paper, is the result of the AGW Cult NOT using science in search of FACTS, but DOGMA sustained by blatant LIES. It's the reason why, in TRUE science disciplines, papers are PEER, NOT PAL, reviewed.
But, even if you give the perpetrators of this tripe the benefit of any doubt, the fact is that they cannot do SIMPLE ARITHMETIC, yet the Chicken Little jackasses blindly go on believing that they will save the world.
Keep braying jackasses.

Nov 24, 2018
Global warming is a croc of bankster crap.

Nov 24, 2018
Why, @Jax, because jebus is gonna save us? You know, even the brown ones who have nukes?

Were you born an azzhole or did you have to practice?

Nov 24, 2018
It is strange that AGW deniers are too stupid to understand this


Parsec you are so full of chit. We've heard this BS since you were in diapers, kid.


So... you do not understand how science self-corrects itself by admitting its mistakes, and you are claiming I am full of BS? Seriously?

Nov 24, 2018
Global warming is a croc of bankster crap.


I do love how you quote evidence to support your position and specify what you disagree with. Keep it up dudester!

Nov 24, 2018
Evidence that global warming is a croc of bankster crap:

Al Gore became a billionaire and was paid-off for pitching his charlatan charade when Al-Jazeera paid him $500 million for a defunct $1 million Local TV station and then just shut it down.

Nov 24, 2018
Teh algore isn't responsible for teh globul waruming.

Teh algore is not teh sinensetis.

If this is your "evidence" you obviously flunked sixth grade science.

And don't go to law school; it won't work out well for you.

You haven't managed to post anything remotely related to science anywhere else on this site so I suppose it's not surprising that you think teh algore is "evidence" on this thread either.

Teh stoopit it burnz.

Nov 24, 2018
Global warming is code for peak oil. It's a scam to control oil pricing by reducing demand when global year over year output inevitably falls. Otherwise oil prices will rise and tip wealth from consumer banking nations to supplier nations. The bankster quislings running the Arab peninsula are doing their part by paying the likes of Al Gore to help cart away the last of their people's natural resources for the lowest prices possible. And, they're selling you a hokey theory to tighten your belts while you abandon real environmental causes for this nonsense.

Who among them is calling to outlaw private jets or methane releases from frenetic drilling? What a croc.

Nov 24, 2018
Reported for spamming. You already posted that on another thread.

And BTW no science in that post either. Why are you here on the science site?

Nov 24, 2018
Follow the money, Da Schneider, it's not hard.

Nov 24, 2018
Afraid of truth, Da Schneider?

It's not spam, it's my comment, and I typed it without copy paste.

Global warming isn't about science any longer. The debate has been corrupted by geopolitics and one-sided grant funding. The data is just as skewed by result oriented research.

Nov 24, 2018
Follow the science, @JaxYEC, it's not hard. Except, seemingly, for you.

And still no science. On the science site. Pitiful.

Nov 24, 2018
jaxpeed and auntieoral, my apologies for not including you with my list of favorite loons.

But, then, you two tweedlingdummies
are worth forgetting.

Nov 24, 2018
Sarcasm is no substitute for critical thinking.

Nov 24, 2018
jaxpeed, you are, as always consistent in being stupidly wrong. Satire of your lunacy takes a lot of thinking.

Nov 24, 2018
This is a science site. When there are 13,000+ papers on a subject and only 24 of them claim it's not correct, you are fully sunk. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, and teh algore will not save you, nor will conspiracy theory excuses about how it's "not science."

Nov 24, 2018
Climategate

Nov 24, 2018
Follow the money, Da Schneider, it's not hard.

From someone else:
Plot idea: 97% of the world's scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.


(That is, if you really want to "follow the money")

Nov 24, 2018
Investigated by scientific accreditation organizations, universities, and government organizations from multiple countries. No indications of mal- or misfeasance ever found.

More excuses.

C'mon, @JaxYEC, do you think none of us here have ever seen all your excuses before? Like maybe a hundred times when the troll farmers like you posted them over the last couple of decades?

Teh stoopit, it burnz.

Go home #Q-bait #incel #trollfarmer #YEC #4chankiddie.

Nov 24, 2018
What's interesting to me is I have no dog in the fight. It could be true (in spite of climate-gate and the colluding-class trying so hard to make it so).

Or, a little ice age could be coming. Dunno?

What I can tell you is a few degrees doesn't matter as much to me as other environmental concerns such as chemical and radiological pollution, poor people burning plastics across whole continents, fracking fluid in wells, deforestation, continental dust-bowl soil-erosion, resource-depletion, carrying-capacity, deflecting near earth orbit asteroids, etc. I find the global warming debate has been a huge detrimental public distraction to other more worthy and more important environmental causes.

My hat's off to the researchers curing cancer.

Nov 24, 2018
What's interesting to me is I have no dog in the fight.
Bwahahahahaha, then why are you lying? Worse yet, why are you telling the same stoopit lies all the other #Q-bait #incel #4chankiddies tell, in lockstep?

Nov 24, 2018
@Da Schneib

Trolls are usually the ones slinging insults and ad hominem attacks because it is a proven psychological way to shut down meaningful debate on threads and to cause other readers to disengage.

Nov 24, 2018
If you want a meaningful debate post some science on the science site instead of conspiracy theories and lies about teh algore. Otherwise this is just another trolling strategem from the #Q-bait #4chankiddie #incel #YEC #trollfarmers and I see no reason to do anything but troll back.

Nov 24, 2018
If you want a meaningful debate post some science on the science site instead of conspiracy theories and lies about teh algore. Otherwise this is just another trolling strategem from the #Q-bait #4chankiddie #incel #YEC #trollfarmers and I see no reason to do anything but troll back.


While I agree, I remain puzzled why you do not just put the trolls on ignore. I usually look at a few posts to make sure I am not missing something that I can learn from, but when they just paste the same old idiotic nonsense time after time I ignore them.

There are actually some people who question the results of climate change science who attempt to make some sort of case and present themselves with logical arguments. They are rare indeed, but they exist. Those I engage. But most of the idiots are so stupid they are incapable of participating in the conversation. Those I ignore. It is not very satisfying to have a battle of the wits with people who are so helplessly unarmed.

Nov 24, 2018
It's a personal choice. It might change later.


Nov 24, 2018
@Parsec says;
While I agree, I remain puzzled why you do not just put the trolls on ignore. I usually look at a few posts to make sure I am not missing something that I can learn from, but when they just paste the same old idiotic nonsense time after time I ignore them.

if you do that then what you're doing is giving them wall space to put their graffiti on. So never give a climate denier an even break! They're idiots anyway! And they're f****** dumb as poo.

Nov 24, 2018
pick any month
Make an assertion.

Nov 24, 2018
why do they care if it was wrong? The people who believe it are for the most part not scientists and hugely gullible, always looking for reasons their lives haven't worked out. Thinking the world is doomed comforts them.

Nov 24, 2018
@Parsec says;
While I agree, I remain puzzled why you do not just put the trolls on ignore. I usually look at a few posts to make sure I am not missing something that I can learn from, but when they just paste the same old idiotic nonsense time after time I ignore them.

if you do that then what you're doing is giving them wall space to put their graffiti on. So never give a climate denier an even break! They're idiots anyway! And they're f****** dumb as poo.


Dumb means you can't talk, not that you are stupid. Stupid. But supporting baseless propaganda is typical of left-wing global warmers with alternate agendas.

Nov 24, 2018
@thorium
But supporting baseless propaganda is typical of left-wing global warmers with alternate agendas
1- AGW isn't propaganda

2- the debate surrounding AGW isn't about the science - it's about what to do about the warming

3- the above is demonstrative of how the scientific method works better than anything else, and it's also why validation is so important in science
Dumb means you can't talk, not that you are stupid
it means both
the very first definition in Merriam Webster is "lacking intelligence : stupid"
https://www.merri...ary/dumb

it's the third definition in the OED - and typical of North America informal speech [noted]
https://en.oxford...ion/dumb



Nov 25, 2018
It might if you actually manage to make an assertion or a thesis of some sort.

If you just post GISS data you're just spamming. Say something. Grow a pair.


Nov 25, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neUtRaoIvLw
says Snoosebaum

Thanks for that great video, Snoose. I enjoyed the whole thing and was quite impressed with Scott Adams' take/learned opinions on a number of topics. Although in an informal setting, he has the demeanor of a college professor, somewhat as if teaching a class at University. I will watch and listen to all of his other videos, since I am in agreement with his common sense views.

Nov 25, 2018
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Nov 25, 2018

I haven't seen many AGW deniers admit their mistakes. It happens occasionally, but not often.
Parsec

Actually, they make mistakes often and constantly. That's because they get all their facts completely wrong because, just like so many ignorant but arrogantly and opinionated people that think they know all about the science when they don't know the first thing about it, they are completely delusional. And they accuse us scientists and experts of being the loonies!

Nov 25, 2018
why do they care if it was wrong? The people who believe it are for the most part not scientists and hugely gullible, always looking for reasons their lives haven't worked out. Thinking the world is doomed comforts them.
says Thorium Boy

Your estimation of these global warmist cultists is right on the money. They are the western world equivalent of the Melanesian "cargo plane cultists" who hope and pray for planes to land, bringing wealth to their village. If they can only get rid of that damned CO2 (that everyone exhales), all will be well.
It would be very strange if the climate did not change at all - or very little. Seasons are also climate change. Spring. summer. fall and winter are all changing climates, but global warmists deny this very fact. Right now, the changing colours of the trees in the northeast US are clear indications that the climate is changing from hot summer weather to cooler autumn, and then the cold winter snows and icy roads.

Nov 25, 2018
Now, these idiots don't recognise the changing of the seasons as "climate change", as it is a normal change that they are used to seeing each year. But give them a slight change in temperature above the norm and it's suddenly time to panic and wail that we're all gonna die of heat stroke or burn up. Never mind that a stray asteroid could come flying through Earth's atmosphere without being burnt up - landing in a big populated area. The only thing to worry about is a 2 degree celsius change in temperature and 1 or 2 partially melting glaciers in the Antarctic.
AGW/climate change is a well-funded racket where the racketeers-in-control will induce a national carbon tax on the American populace. Part of the taxed money will be used to pay for airline tickets and expensive accommodations each time the AGW cult meets.


Nov 25, 2018
Oh segue and pony_boy. I am so disappointed in you.

Though it is no surprise that you are plagiarizing my insults, After all, neither one of you has had an original, creative idea since grade school.

Sad... Just so sad...

Nov 25, 2018
The scientific process did fail. To be able to publish in Nature lots of "scientists" looked at it and they all failed.
It seems that the quality of "scientists" in this area of research is alarmingly low.
Statistics ensures the pattern emerges what you think to be true.


Nov 25, 2018
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4?nojs=1&fbclid=IwAR1tNHPpGZg-99pQSzDS4ueexUwxXhC5GCMea1zmQv2bIuxb1rJKMehFS-Y
says Snoose

Good article, even though it is now 6 years old.
But I am still puzzling over the qualifications of some on the long list of the 49 where a few of them are labeled as " arse"t Mgr ".

I was unable to find arse't and its meaning/description in my Dictionary, therefore wondering if some knucklehead who had access to the list at Business Insider before it was published decided to change ass't Mgr. to arse't Mgr to convey his/her dislike for the 49 scientists/astronauts/managers, etc. and their mistrust of the AGW/ClimateChange/GlobalWarming histrionics and misconceptions to place the blame for a change of temperatures caused by the change of seasons squarely on the humans who populate this planet.

Climate Change is a change of temps, caused by the changing of seasons. Perfectly normal and natural.

Nov 26, 2018
"state-of-the-art modelling systems", so no actual new observations. The article above repeatedly and over-zealously points out that all these climate scientist are so very open to this scrutiny and correction, yet the most important thing to note in the East Anglia hacked email exchanges was that the scientist involved did not want the data examined and were actively trying to influence and shape what and who got published based on who agreed with them. As the story evolved it turned out that the data itself was suspect and had actually been lost! There is too much dishonorable behavior for one correction to repair the reputation of the field that easily.

Nov 26, 2018
Climategate was debunked by eight committees:

The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine. (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine. and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine. (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US).

Links to collateral are available here: https://en.wikipe...ttees-15

Now stop lying.

STR
Nov 26, 2018
This is a science site. When there are 13,000+ papers on a subject and only 24 of them claim it's not correct, you are fully sunk. There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, and teh algore will not save you, nor will conspiracy theory excuses about how it's "not science."


Citation of that claim please.

STR
Nov 26, 2018
1- AGW isn't propaganda
2- the debate surrounding AGW isn't about the science - it's about what to do about the warming.
3- the above is demonstrative of how the scientific method works better than anything else, and it's also why validation is so important in science
Dumb means you can't talk, not that you are stupid
it means both
the very first definition in Merriam Webster is "lacking intelligence : stupid"
https://www.merri...ary/dumb


1- Yes it is. When we're told we need to do X or we're all doomed, and Polar Bears are dying unless we switch to an EV...
2- No, it's about the causes. Only idiots deny climate is changing. What is in dispute is the unfound accusations which is what AGW stands for.
3- Science should be self correcting and open to interrogation. Tell that to some of the 'leading climate scientists' who hide their data

STR
Nov 26, 2018
Climategate was debunked by eight committees:

The eight major investigations covered by secondary sources include: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (UK); Independent Climate Change Review (UK); International Science Assessment Panel Archived 9 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine. (UK); Pennsylvania State University first panel Archived 25 September 2010 at the Wayback Machine. and second panel Archived 30 January 2012 at the Wayback Machine. (US); United States Environmental Protection Agency (US); Department of Commerce (US); National Science Foundation (US).

Links to collateral are available here: https://en.wikipe...ttees-15

Now stop lying.


Yey legal action is still being attempted.
Citing the Wiki link as proof is akin to asking your dog. It's so heavily biased and modified against anything that goes against AGW.

Nov 26, 2018
It was "peer reviewed" before being published. Who, exactly, are the peers that made such a glaring error in missing an obvious flaw in the calculations?

(Anyway, AI, machine learning and big data will solve the climate issue for us. Likely when quantum computers become a reality and the models, now inadequate due to a lack of information about what influences the climate, are adequate. We will be able to heat it up or cool it down as we wish. Very likely before 2050 and probably by 2040 or maybe sooner.)

Nov 26, 2018
"No battle plan survives the first contact with the enemy."

All these denier whiners, lack any qualification to dispute the scientists doing the actual research.

The deniers level of technology is a ouiji board and vacant-mindlessly watching faux news.

Nov 26, 2018
@STR
1- Yes it is. When we're told we need to do X or ...
AGW is the science. there is no dispute that the climate is changing and we've created a problem
and you just made my point because you're saying the argument is what to do about it
2- No, it's about the causes
no, it's not
https://scholar.g...Anthropo

3- Science should be self correcting and open to interrogation
almost all climate studies are free to access

your claims of conspiracy would require a *global effort* between scientists who can't agree on eating bacon, let alone their private cultural idiosyncrasies
What is in dispute is the unfound accusations
500K plus studies vs your claim
prove the science wrong with science

delusional argument from a perspective of conspiracy or religious fanaticism, like a creationist dogma, is not evidence of anything but belief

period

full stop

Nov 26, 2018
AGW is the science. there is no dispute that the climate is changing and we've created a problem

The StumPid jackass brays again.
There is no dispute as to why he's called StumPid.
Hey Stumps, please find us an AGW Cult's Pal Reviewed "study" that CONCLUSIVELY shows that anthropogenic CO2 is responsible for the doom and gloom the Cult keeps braying about.

Thanks.

Nov 26, 2018
While the Capt and I may disagree on various points, on this one, AGW, he is correct. ALL of the scientists are studying the EFFECTS of AGW, it is no longer in dispute aside from those few whom have been actively paid to advertise and troll on public perceptions about such, paid for by the major causers of AGW, the Petroleum and Manufacturer's Consortiums.

The record is actually clear, and the models that showed worst case scenarios, even with their admitted limited data, are smack in the middle of our present projections that we are trying to hold it DOWN to.

Extreme storms and worse winters due to the extra evaporate was described, increase in tornado activity due to the imbalance increase between warm and cold regions. The extra energy pumped into Hurricanes due to increased surface water temperatures.

ALL Proven, ALL Happening, ALL Forecast in the '60s as a result of AGW.

Climate change happens, gas/industrial burning Creates heat, the gas left traps MORE heat.

Nov 26, 2018
Admittedly, Natural Processes also add their own heat and they had a balance for several hundred years that made for rather comfortable life here on the surface.

But it was only Metastable, stable as long as it is not upset to a large degee by outside inputs. Burning forests occassionally and vocanism is no comparison for burning huge reserves of petroleum and coal. One of our worst extinctions happened when a large volcanic eruption happened alongside a major coal bed in the Siberian Trappes.

It is not alarmism anymore, it is a matter of WE TOLD YOU SO, 50 years ago and more. And were ignored. Now we have to deal with the results, and weather IS GOING TO get worse, both ways. It is still Unpredictable, but weather is like day to day changes, by the season, climate is the result of weather changes or stability long term. And for Long Term, the last few thousand years, they HAD been stable.

It has become wildly unstable, and is getting worse. Denying it is useless.

Nov 26, 2018
Extreme storms and worse winters due to the extra evaporate was described, increase in tornado activity due to the imbalance increase between warm and cold regions. The extra energy pumped into Hurricanes due to increased surface water temperatures.

nope
https://wattsupwi...rrative/


Nov 26, 2018
Snoose, that story does not say what you want it to. As a bottom line it states as storms get worse, and populations growing, that we will need to prepare better and possibly not grow in Hurricane/Typhoon prone areas to the same degree as now.

It happens to be part of a Well Paid For Denialist group, and those are some obfuscating charts as they do not include the latest storms nor the heating that led up to them. One recent story in the news showed the cooling track behind one of the larger storms hitting the East Coast, very clear trail of cooler water.

As the ocean surface heats up and we have more evaporation we WILL have More Precipitation, in different areas than they should be.

Look at the weather in the mideast right now, massive floods, hail and storming in Saudi Arabia, and major drought in Afghanistan and Pakistan where the moisture, normally set aloft by the heat of the desert, is so heavy it is falling out at first increase in air pressure: Low Land.

Nov 26, 2018
Citing the Wiki link as proof is akin to asking your dog.
They are links to the original documents from the investigations, as I indicated. You're still lying and any further action would be thrown out of court on the basis of the outcomes of those investigations.

You're still lying.

Nov 26, 2018
Breitbart and Wiki are not real sources. I will point to wiki in generalization points, but not something like this, too easily modified by them with the gold. Breitbart is named after a guy that intentionally produced fraud 'gotchya' vids and was prosecuted for them, died of heart attack while filming another. So, not valid.

Nov 26, 2018
Citation of that claim please.
Among very many others, http://iopscience...4024/pdf

You will note that this paper is open access on IOPScience. This is a widely respected scientific publishing company with many journals that have nothing to do with climate or even with geophysics. They make money from papers; this one, they felt needed to be public and passed up on the money.

To be fair, the original claim was not published in the scientific literature; but this one is published in peer-reviewed literature widely accepted by the scientific community, and gives the same results.

Now stop lying about science.

Nov 26, 2018
The problem for those entrapped in their primitive primate superstitions? Is that "Time" refuses to stop.

No matter how loudly they screech and stomp. How many violent tantrums they engage in to try and intimidate the weak of will and ignorant of knowledge.

In the end? All they can do is crouch beside the road. Dully watching the World go by in complete disregard of their dictates. Coughing from the dust billowing behind Modern Society. receding into the distance.

The religious are just redundant to needs. Eventually to be just a another curiosity at the exhibit of of primitive hominids such as altright fairytails and denier-shills.


Nov 26, 2018
It was "peer reviewed" before being published. Who, exactly, are the peers that made such a glaring error in missing an obvious flaw in the calculations?
It's not "obvious." Nor "glaring." This is why scientific papers are published, so they can be criticized. What you are doing is criticizing the process, not the results. Which indicate temperature increase whatever you say.

(Anyway, AI, machine learning and big data will solve the climate issue for us. Likely when quantum computers become a reality and the models, now inadequate due to a lack of information about what influences the climate, are adequate. We will be able to heat it up or cool it down as we wish. Very likely before 2050 and probably by 2040 or maybe sooner.)
This is a handwaving pipe dream. You're OK with speculations to fix the problem but not OK with the scientific process. No CEO would ever bother with this.

Nov 26, 2018
"O human race, born to fly upward, wherefore at a little wind dost thou so fall?" from Dante's "The Devine Comedy". It's so appropriate for this article since the scientists who were born to fly, create an article that is true but a little wind blows it off course. In other words, a little math error invalidates the science message but does not invalidate the warning message that it brings.

The message is still a warning though that the climate denier Goon Squad is missing. The science is very real and we're in for a heck of a lot of hurt.


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more