It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ocean Warming Fearmongering Based on "Math Error." AGW Again Reeks of Hoax

page: 1
31
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:
+10 more 
posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 07:26 PM
link   
freebeacon.com...


A highly circulated study claiming oceans are warming at a much higher rate due to global warming contains "key errors," forcing researchers to issue a correction.

The study published by the journal Nature on Oct. 31 by researchers at Princeton University and UC San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography claimed the oceans were warming at a rate 60 percent higher than previously thought.

However, a mathematical error discovered by independent climate scientist Nic Lewis after he perused the study's first page has led the journal to retract its key finding. The study has a much larger margin of error, making their findings of a 60 percent increase in ocean warming less precise, and actually between 10 percent and 70 percent.

The lead researcher now says its findings are practically meaningless, with a margin of error "too big now to really weigh in" on ocean temperatures.


Well now, yet another huge gaping crack in the Anthropogenic Global Warming Ponzi scheme's narrative.

Just 2 weeks ago this study was used as a massive fear mongering push to reignite the engines of the world's largest snake oil scam.
www.cbsnews.com...

"Missing 60 percent of heat for the last 25 years -- that's a big deal," he said. "But scientists are now going to have to do their due diligence and check the math on this and check the methods and make sure it stands up. I mean, it's a peer-reviewed study. It's done by some of the best institutions in the world. However, with all that said, I think we need some more time to absorb this. If that is true, it has major implications for the world."


Obviously, based on the above, they realized it was bullsnip when they reported on it, and were likely hoping the "researchers" could figure out a way to defend their flub and "correct" it so their "adjusted" data fit the desired narrative. Nope, couldn't do it so here we see the latest in a long string of "Oopsie" moments that have been instantly used to ramp up the fear and the BS before quietly being retracted and filed as "errors." The difference here is that the overdramatizations get a LOT more coverage and a LOT more involvement in pushing the narrative than the corrections, retractions, and flat out exposed lies do.

The belief in AGW is going to go down as the biggest sham ever bought into by otherwise intelligent people. They somehow did what was believed impossible: falsified data to convince huge swaths of humanity that it was necessary for them to voluntarily support loss of their own freedom, their revenue, their way of life, and even their own cultural identity because tools in white lab coats who make their living from government grants from the same governments collecting the carbon taxes told them to be scared.




posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 07:51 PM
link   

The lead researcher now says its findings are practically meaningless, with a margin of error "too big now to really weigh in" on ocean temperatures.
That's somewhat out of context, missed a couple of important words.

Here is the full statement:

“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.”


They undercalculated the uncertainty factor so the precise amount of warming can't be determined from the model used. Not "meaningless."

The ocean is warming however. Instruments show that it is warming. But the fact that the models used in this study showed significantly more warming than the observations and other studies should have set off a red flag for them. Unfortunately, they didn't catch it before publication.


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 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.


www.sandiegouniontribune.com...

edit on 11/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
The ocean is warming however. Instruments show that it is warming.


Especially after they "adjust" the data from those instruments to show the desired results.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Once again we see that "peer reviewed" simply means "peer approved."

Math is hard.
Perhaps their calculators all failed at exactly the same instant?



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Well, they do make some adjustments because the instruments didn't all read exactly the same. But the instruments are getting better and so is the data.

But do you ever wonder why "sources" like yours have to take statements grossly out of context? Do they think you won't notice?



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




Math is hard.

Statistics can be very hard, indeed.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:37 PM
link   
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 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.



www.sandiegouniontribune.com...a reply to: Phage

Isn't a 60% margin of error pretty big in the world of science. Must be the "new science" standards...

"Likely warmer" is another weasel term, not really used in science when I was writing professional papers. If you have a thermometer and can read it, one thing is either warmer or not warmer. Guesstimation wasn't part of my instructions. That kind of thing would have gotten your paper thrown into the round file.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:39 PM
link   
a reply to: diggindirt




Isn't a 60% margin of error pretty big in the world of science. Must be the "new science" standards...

So you get his point. Very good.

They are using an entirely new theory for determined changes in sea temperatures. It may pan out with more work, it may not. That's how it works.


If you have a thermometer and can read it, one thing is either warmer or not warmer.
The instruments and methods used in the past were not uniform. As I said, they are getting better at it.

edit on 11/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I actually am too busy wondering why the AGW narrative is so fragile that anyone who questions it is immediately labeled and "enemy" or "denier" rather than treated as science has always treated those who question theories, with respect and a desire to scientifically test said theories to prove skeptics wrong. I also wonder why the two largest money driven entities in the world, governments and corporate media, are the two primary forces behind defending the Narrative at all costs and with a rabidity I've never seen applied to any prior scientific theory aside from, perhaps, the value of lobotomies and the benefits of thalidomide on pregnant mother's morning sickness.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: diggindirt




Isn't a 60% margin of error pretty big in the world of science. Must be the "new science" standards...

So you get his point. Very good.

They are using an entirely new theory for determined changes in sea temperatures. It may pan out with more work, it may not. That's how it works.


If you have a thermometer and can read it, one thing is either warmer or not warmer.
The instruments and methods used in the past were not uniform. As I said, they are getting better at it.


Apparently.

So better they must use theories and lies instead of facts, like for instance.

What temperature is it.

Reminds one of Nasa, the better the tech gets the slower and more fearful and hidden, it all becomes.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:38 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

The world has been warming for the last 12,000 years.

It is simply part of the cycle.

Hey!!! Guess what comes next




The entire reason for this crap is to try and get in a Carbon Credit scheme to fleece the public some more because of unadulterated GREED.

P

edit on 16/11/2018 by pheonix358 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6

It is the same for all things attacking this world...see everything through a fearful lense..but be entirely unaware of it.

They absolutely hate and fear those who do not auto-buy into whatever it is they spout.

The censorship and self-policing of the NPC army is almost complete..

They will not have us all though..some of us will think freely and ever more strongly despite their wishes.

We knew this was coming...still a tad surprising to see them get some of the best, most previously open minds.........



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I notice this part at the end of the article...



"Of course, it is also very important that the media outlets that unquestioningly trumpeted the paper's findings now correct the record too," Lewis added. "But perhaps that is too much to hope for."


freebeacon.com...

In other words, the propaganda was effective on first release of
a bunch of hooey.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:11 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358




The world has been warming for the last 12,000 years.

That isn't what your chart shows.



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Always with the deceptive comebacks. Time and time again.

What does it show?

P



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

It shows that, for the past 10,000 years or so, temperatures were generally falling, up until recently.

Here's a "zoomed in" view of Greenland temperatures.


No, it hasn't been warming for 12,000 years.

edit on 11/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: pheonix358

It shows that, for the past 10,000 years or so, temperatures were generally falling, up until recently.

Here's a "zoomed in" view of Greenland temperatures.


No, it hasn't been warming for 12,000 years.


Who made up the graph you are using?

You see, mine is what I was taught back in 1975 before all of this Global Warming scary crapola came to be.

I will stick to mine.

For all of those who can't make head and tails, go to a second hand bookstore and find a book from the seventies.

Look at the data in the book.

Discover for yourself, the fraud perpetuated against us all.

BTW Phage, where on your graph is the man made global warming? Lol.

P



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358




You see, mine is what I was taught back in 1975 before all of this Global Warming scary crapola came to be.

Look at the right end of your chart. Does the temperature keep going up?

You can find the data here, and a lot more.
math.ucr.edu...


For all of those who can't make head and tails, go to a second hand bookstore and find a book from the seventies
In the 70's plate tectonics was a new idea.

edit on 11/16/2018 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

Answer my questions first.

You have a habit of selective answers.

P



posted on Nov, 16 2018 @ 10:40 PM
link   
a reply to: pheonix358

I did.



new topics

top topics



 
31
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join