Scientists: Widely Reported Study On Ocean Warming Is WRONG

by | Nov 15, 2018 | Headline News | 20 comments

Do you LOVE America?


    Global warming and climate change alarmists got riled up recently after a  shocking study published in Nature on October 31 suggested that the oceans are warming faster than the United Nations’ projection. But now scientists admit that researchers’ calculations were wrong.

    Like much of the junk science surrounding climate change, alarmists seek to use nothing more than fear propaganda to exert control over the masses. It is actually pretty easy to see these people for who they are: authoritarians. But according to Reason, the dire headlines warnings that catastrophic global warming was more likely than previously thought ensued and were spread by the mainstream media.

    It all started when the study published in Nature made the shocking and alarming claim that “ocean warming is at the high end of previous estimates, with implications for policy-relevant measurements of the Earth response to climate change, such as climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases and the thermal component of sea-level rise.” Using a novel technique to measure the accumulation of heat in the oceans, Princeton geoscientist Laure Resplandy and her team calculated that the amount of heat being absorbed by the oceans is more than 60 percent higher per year than the estimates offered by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2014.

    But when British climate researcher and statistician Nicholas Lewis recalculated the numbers in the study, he and found that Resplandy and her team had made significant errors in their mathematics. Reason, while reporting on the controversy, reached out to Resplandy and had not heard back from her or her colleagues as of yet.  Now co-author Scripps Institution of Oceanography climate scientist Ralph Keeling has acknowledged that Lewis is at least partially right and the researchers are beginning to prepare a correction to their original article (apparently not yet published).

    But this won’t stop the mainstream media from shoving as much climate change propaganda down the throats of the public. The San Diego Union-Tribune article,Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study,” is reporting that Keeling now accepts that Lewis is right and that the study’s findings are far more uncertain than they had claimed in their Nature article. “When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” Keeling said to the Union-Tribune. “We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly.” Of course, the media cannot have a person pointing out the flaws in the math without calling them a “climate contrarian” as if that’s some sort of bad thing.

    “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.”

    Lewis responded to an email asking for his reaction to these developments:

    In general terms, if [Keeling] is only saying that they acknowledge that their study underestimated the uncertainty in their ocean heat uptake estimate, that is not enough. They should also acknowledge that another consequence of their mishandling of the treatment of uncertainty was that their central estimate of ocean heat uptake was overstated by approximately 30%.

    So far as I can tell (from statements on their websites), the authors hope to alter an assumption that affects one aspect (that relating to constancy of the land oxygen-carbon exchange ratio) of the input data used to derive their ocean heat uptake estimate, in such a way that will increase its level, when correctly calculated, to a value close to their originally published estimate. It would seem a little surprising that a valid adjustment made after publication happened, conveniently, to have the effect of almost cancelling a statistical methods error.

    Unfortunately their work involves many assumptions where there scope for subjective choices by the authors, so it is difficult to validate those assumptions. I would hope that Nature will have any changes made by the authors to their assumptions examined carefully by peer reviewers who are experts in the same field as Resplandy and Keeling, as well as by statistically expert peer reviewers. However, the failure of the original peer review and editorial process to pick up the fairly obvious statistical problems in the original paper do not engender confidence in Nature’s approach.Nicolas Lewis, ad reported by Reason

    H/T [Reason]


    It Took 22 Years to Get to This Point

    Gold has been the right asset with which to save your funds in this millennium that began 23 years ago.

    Free Exclusive Report
    The inevitable Breakout – The two w’s

      Related Articles


      Join the conversation!

      It’s 100% free and your personal information will never be sold or shared online.


      1. Say it isn’t so! It has never happened before!

        • Careful! The Progressive Socialist Democrats and the FANGs are prosecuting “Climate Deniers” and “Science Deniers” and their “hate speech.” Better watch yourself there, Sparky.

      2. Science is a religion, it’s adherents are unlikely to pay attention to anything that doesn’t support their beliefs.

        There was a time in the distant path when science represented a search for truth through the study and observation of verifiable facts, constantly seeking to check those facts by continuous observation of the world around them, but that time has passed.

        It is now based strictly on personal belief, the same as any other religion.

        • The opposite is true actually. Science embraces dissent, but you gotta have the goods; “My opinion is that you’re wrong” just isn’t good enough.

        • “Science is a religion, it’s adherents are unlikely to pay attention to anything that doesn’t support their beliefs.”

          A terrorist religion, that demands tribute, at gunpoint.

          They call that skepticism.

      3. They should also acknowledge that another consequence of their mishandling of the treatment of uncertainty was that their central estimate of ocean heat uptake was overstated by approximately 30%.

        Whats 30%? Pffftttt
        Thats about the same amount of coverage Lewis’s findings will get from MSM …YET a 100% more scrutiny than the Alarmist.

        • I think 30-percent is something, and 30-percent most definitely matters.

          30-percent is the amount Bill’s Levi’s creep down over his white a** revealing 30-percent of Bill’s butt crack.

          The important thing about these articles is to keep the rest of us confused about ever knowing just WTF is really going on. An error factor of 30-percent keeps most Americans 100-percent confused of what’s real and what’s complete and total bullsh*t.

          30-percent matters.

          • That was sarcasm dummy
            Lewis the statistician that discovered the error will get little or no coverage from MSM but you can bet the scrutiny will be incredible. ..Better?

            • So was my message.

          • That was sarcasm
            Lewis the statistician that discovered the error will get little or no coverage from MSM but you can bet the scrutiny will be incredible. ..Better?

            • So was my comment, except for the 30-percent part. What’s the matter Bill? You don’t have a butt crack?

      4. Another thing scientist say they may have been wrong on is sealevel rise,
        The majority of nations that are supposedly in dire straights because of sealevel rise are on or near the pacific plate and associated fault zones, they have found that the pacific plate is actually migrating deeper as it moves, deforming if you will because of the weight of the pacific ocean, so it stands to reason as the earths core cools the plate would shift, this is not only true of the pacific plate but of all plates at subduction zones, mind you these changes in the big picture are miniscule

      5. Albedo — (Latin: albedo, meaning “whiteness”) is the measure of the diffuse reflection of solar radiation

        imho, wind patterns somewhat align with cooling and warming gasses, visible by satellite.

        The alternative view was not whether climate change exists, but whether it is driven by man.

        Warming can be measured throughout the solar system, and near geological features — far beyond the human scale.

      6. Global warming BS is just so TPTB can tax carbon. Guess who is going to be on the short end of that.

      7. Profits come before any concern about the climate. Let the future people live on a heavily polluted Earth, we don’t give a damn. We were born here to rape the land for personal gain which every good capitalist thrives on. These money pigs sense the opposition by the people but carry on hardening their police state protection in steps towards martial law. The people follow along as their rights are gutted. Revolution? Think again, the citizenry is mostly afraid to step out of their day to day controlled existence.

      8. You’re babbling incoherently again. The little white pill is your Lithium. You forgot to take it.

      9. No one is denying that the climate changes. It’s cyclical. The argument is over what the major factor is in that change. It’s changes in the activity level of the sun and the increased cosmic radiation reaching the earth. Changes is carbon dioxide levels caused by burning fossil fuels is not a major factor. They’re trying to silence anyone telling the truth.

      10. Mini ice age coming. Fact. Anybody who believes the whole global warming thing is real dense.

      11. Jun 7, 2018 – Microsoft has leveraged the technologies of submarines and renewable energy to plunge a 40ft-long datacentre into the sea near Scotland’s

        AS more companies and nations adopt this practice of dropping data centers into the ocean and using the sea water to cool nuclear power stations the oceans will get so hot that they will no longer be able to support sea life once all the sea ice has melted to counter this extra heat. Heat in the air dissipates quicker into the atmosphere then in the water where it remains trapped longer.

        Revelation 16:3
        The second angel poured out his bowl on the sea, and it turned into blood like that of a dead person, and every living thing in the sea died.

        • “this practice of dropping data centers into the ocean”

          I had a dream about this.

          I understand that data is ephemeral, but, it’s probably the most valuable commodity, which we produce, as a superpower.

      Commenting Policy:

      Some comments on this web site are automatically moderated through our Spam protection systems. Please be patient if your comment isn’t immediately available. We’re not trying to censor you, the system just wants to make sure you’re not a robot posting random spam.

      This website thrives because of its community. While we support lively debates and understand that people get excited, frustrated or angry at times, we ask that the conversation remain civil. Racism, to include any religious affiliation, will not be tolerated on this site, including the disparagement of people in the comments section.