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

I have no new theory to offer

The old one is still alive and well

But as you say it really does not matter what the cause of climate change is

Its better that humans put their energy into adaptation instead of mitigation or reversal

 

It's really common actually. Mistakes happen all of the time. This mistake isn't the first and it won't be the last.

As a side note. In terms of which scientific disciplines make the most mistakes I'd rank the medical field at the top of the list. My suspicion is that this isn't quite as big of a deal you are making it out to be because I highly suspect you'd still go to doctor to be diagnosed and treated for current or future ailments even though neither the diagnosis nor the treatment is 100% effective. And that's not even considering that a mistake could happen which would further undermine your situation.

No. Being under water and having the ice caps entirely melt isn't even remotely close to prediction made by the scientific consensus.

You are totally misrepresenting the state of affairs with climate science here. My guess is that you don't fully understand what is going on and instead get your "facts" from bloggers who don't know what they're talking about and who constantly misrepresent and misinterpret the science. As a result your worldview of the science is probably about as far away from reality as you can get.

 

And that's fine. But the vast majority of the evidence available to us suggests that adaptation is more expensive than mitigation. I do concede that the confidence in that conclusion is low relative to the confidence in the fact that the Earth will warm. Don't read what I didn't type though. I didn't claim that we are completely clueless. So if it turns out that we decide to do nothing and then world GDP and the carrying capacities for humans are severely depressed don't blame scientists for the inaction. We were warned.

 

So because an individual team made a mistake, found their mistake, and corrected it, then we can reject all of climate science? Sounds fishy to me.

 

I'm pretty familiar with the Keeting et al. publication. I was pretty skeptical from the moment it was published because their claim that everybody is underestimating the warming by 60% is quite extraordinary. Pretty every climate scientist who I've seen make a comment on it was skeptical. And who can blame them. After decades of research showing that oceans have warmed by x amount it's quite the claim to then say that the hundreds of people involved in that consensus were all wrong.

It comes as no surprise that Keeting et al made a mistake in the quantification of their error bars. And note that the mistake they made was with their error margin and not with their actual result. What this means is that instead of the consensus being underestimating by 60% that conclusion is now a range of possible values spanning 10% to 70%. Most think it's likely that the real value less closer to a 10% underestimation in the warming which is about what most scientists believed anyway.

The interesting thing with the Keeting et al publication is that they use a completely new technique for measuring ocean warming. The fact that their novel technique is in general agreement with the other techniques adds yet another line of evidence that proves that the oceans are warming at an incredibly fast rate and that the IPCC is still likely underestimating the warming.

 

I do not advocate rejecting all climate science.

Rather I embrace all of it. I do not embrace clearly pure opinion.

It would be excellent were the public to truly understand climate science.

I get tired of those lectures from on high that we are doomed.

When politics gets mixed into it, it flies off the rails.

 

Very fishy indeed. And note that the mistake wasn't even with their main result. It was with the statistical analysis used to put error margins around their result.

It also in no way detracts from the fact that the oceans are warming rapidly and that the IPCC is likely underestimating the warming.

 

Where is the warming happening in the Pacific Ocean. Here is one example where it seems at a virtual standstill the way i read it.

https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/cpac.html

 

The moment they tied a fiat currency to it, for the purpose of global redistribution of wealth it was bs...that remains...

 

After correcting their mistake, Keeling said their research indicates oceans are warming only slightly faster than previously thought, not dramatically faster as they initially reported. Keeling said the miscalculation was made when they were calculating their margin of error, which had a larger range (10 to 70 percent) than they initially believed.

“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.”

This isn’t the first time climate scientists have been dead wrong about the perceived odious nature of so-called global warming. For starters, in 2007, they predicted the Arctic ice cap would be gone by 2013, but it has grown by 533,000 square miles. Yes, we’ve had a wild hurricane season, but in 2013, it was the calmest one in three decades. Global warming is supposedly creating more wild weather, which so happens to coincide with seasons in which…wild weather occurs, like hurricane season. In that same year, it was the quietest tornado season in 60 years. Maybe, and this is just a thought, that the science isn’t settled, because there really is no such thing as settled science. It changes. And we shouldn’t be pushing nations to cannibalize their economic growth, kill jobs, and reduce everyone’s standard of living based on liberal histrionics that were just gutted by a math error.


https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...tch-major-error-on-oceans-warming-re-n2535949

 

First, not only is this not the first mistake made by a scientist, but it won't be the last either. Mistakes are ubiquitous and common place in all disciplines of science. The medical field is considered to be at the top of th e list in terms of mistakes and that's not even counting the fact that all diagnosis and treatments come with a less than perfect efficacy to begin with. But, I'd be willing to bet you'll still bet your life on that scientific discipline should the need ever arise. Am I right?

Second, the scientific consensus has actually underestimated the Arctic ice melt. In the 1990's the IPCC was calling for ice free condition to first appear around 2100. In the early 2000's it was 2060-2080. Then with the AR5 report in 2013 it went down to 2050. And it looks like they'll have to make yet another change when AR6 gets released in 2020 when they'll likely be forced to move this down to about 2040. They literally cannot keep up with how fast the sea ice is melting.

Not even remotely close. The scientific consensus never predicted the Arctic sea ice to be gone by 2013. That was Al Gore and he's not a scientists. Nevermind that he made that up anyway. The IPCC's official position is 2050 for the first "ice-free" year in the Arctic. And note that "ice-free" means less than 1 million sq km of extent. They actually don't think the Arctic will ever go completely ice free at least not for 300-500 years anyway. And you're wrong on the ice growth as well. 2018 is on pace to set yet another record for the least amount of ice on an annual basis although 2012 still holds the record for the lowest summer minimum.

Modern climate science hasn't actually formed a consensus on how hurricanes will behave in the future. This is still hotly debated by scientists. However, the prevailing thought is that hurricane will actually become less frequent, but will be more intense on average.

Again, there hasn't been a consensus developed on future tornado trends. However, the prevailing thought is that tornado frequency will largely remain unchanged, but that the tornado season will occur earlier in the year. There is evidence to suggest that tornado intensity may actually wane.

The details of climate change aren't even remotely settled. But that's not what scientists are referring to when they say the science is settled. What is settled is that the Earth is warming and that the physical process that are responsible for causing it change today are being modulated primarily by man. There is a mountain of evidence that supports that conclusion and not a single piece of evidence that refutes it. And I mean that quite literally. The smoking gun signal for greenhouse gas effect is the warming of the troposphere and hydrosphere simultaneously with the cooling stratosphere. There is literally no piece of evidence that suggests another physical process other than the increase in greenhouse gases is responsible.

Yep. They made a mistake and owned up to it and corrected it. Note how the scientific method works. They made their research available to everyone for peer review and someone literally found a mistake within days. That happens all of the time and shows that the process truly works.

And note that the research still shows that the IPCC is underestimating the warming. The person who found the mistake wasn't challenging that the ocean is warming. What they were challenging was that the IPCC wasn't as far off as this particular publication suggested. And it didn't come as a surprise that this mistake was found. The chatter among climate scientists I was reading indicated that they were all overwhelming skeptical right off of the bat.

 

First, I like how when you tell someone they need to pay in proportion to the damage they cause it's somehow a wealth redistribution scheme. I know your type. You want everything handed to you on a silver platter and then you want the rest of us fix the problems you cause because you think you're automatically entitled to that platter regardless of the consequences to others.

Second, the scheme we currently have is already a wealth redistribution scheme. The current generation is stealing wealth from future generations by kicking the can down the road and forcing our children to pay for our mistakes. I have a problem with that. I believe it's morally objectionable.

Third, if there's going to be wealth redistribution I want it to flow from other countries into the United States. I want the United States to be leaders in alternative energy technologies so that we can get filthy rich off selling the technology to other countries. One thing I know for sure is that if we don't develop the technology first someone else will and we'll be the ones ponying up the money. The world will move on with or without us. And right now our politician are seeing flashing green money signs and saying "meh, we'll pass" while simultaneously harming the environment in the process. It's completely irrational IMHO.

 

What are seeing exactly?

 

What appears to be stable temperatures.

 

Over what time frame? And why limit this to the Pacific ocean right up against the coast?

 

Global Warming is going to cost billions to combat, and you aren't helping. Let me guess, we never went to the moon, and the Earth is flat. Right?

 

Winter is costing billions to heat homes.
Summer is costing billions to cool homes

Yawn. Move along.

 

We may have been worrying about the wrong problem.
Concerns regarding sunspot decreases have been expressed more than once in the recent past--eg as follows--

"June 14, 2011

• By Pete Spotts Staff writer
  @pspotts

Sun spots appear to be teetering on the verge of vanishing from the surface of the sun – perhaps for several decades. ... ...
The most oft-cited example of a shutdown in sun spots is the so-called Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period that began around 1645. Sun spots virtually vanished from the sun's surface. The decline coincided with a climate period known as the Little Ice Age, when temperatures fell substantially in various locations around the globe and different times during the time span.

"https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2...hat-that-could-mean-for-Earth-and-its-climate
[highliting mine]

 

Don't hold your breath waiting for another Little Ice Age. CO2 concentrations were 280 ppm and volcanism was hyperactive back then. Neither of those are in play today.

Also, these lone gun consensus bucking mavericks have been predicting an ice age for almost 50 years and yet the Earth continues to warm.

Let me lay this out in no uncertain terms. Skeptics and deniers not only fall short of AGW advocates in terms of predicting the magnitude of the temperature change, but they can't even get the direction of the change right. That is the epitome of failure. So whereas AGW has 120 year track record of success skeptics/deniers have a 50 year record of failure. Not even the cold fusion psuedoscience can beat the global cooling psuedoscience in terms of failure.

 

Global warming was not presented as an hypothesis, this was an unquestionable fact. Remember 97% of the scientific community agreed, anthropogenic global warming was inducing global warming, the polar ice caps were disappearing, Amazonian jungles turning into deserts and Himalayan glaciers melting away. According to Gore Manhattan should be 20 feet underwater by now!

 

Warming, whether natural or man-made, is not the catastrophe that many imagine

Given a choice I much prefer global warming to a new ice age

But humans can adapt to either one

 

Thats a stupid thing to say

 

Republicans are setting a new trend, a future without science... a future of Alternative Facts

how about we let the science settle and get it all figured out, no reason to make it political

people are not gonna change, so it will be up to the scientists to find a way to save us regardless what they discover

 

If the scientists are caught lying or making wrong predictions the public loses confidence on what they say

Or at least conservatives refuse to be fooled again

Libs may be ok with it

Btw: I have had many liberals over the years deny the humanity of unborn child who are killed in the womb

So it goes both ways

 

Your argument makes as much sense as an accused murderer saying, "People have died of natural causes for thousands of years. It makes sense to assume more of the same than to think I caused the death of someone last week."