|
Post by moksha on Oct 19, 2018 20:42:16 GMT
Purr, .. Human industry contributes... But politicians and industry are reluctant to admit even that. Doing so would make them culpable. Also, nothing wrong with my eyesight. On a more serious point. secondary smoking kills nearly as many as does the actual smoking. Her response to any anti-smoking suggestion is 'I like to smoke. If you don't like it, you know where the door is'. HAL. HAL, Lord Threadkiller, I smoke in the garage, yes it makes everything ugly, even my marvelous experiments, I wish I could stop.
I think there maybe be more to the story then most know, maybe you can help me out again with my confusion.
HR 5404, "introduced" 3-22, funny number A.
If you go to the bottom, seems as though the Paris agreement is connected.
since 322 is such a funny number, hear HE # 322, EARLY BLOSSOMS GIVE DOOR FOR WHO I
MW
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Oct 20, 2018 19:43:26 GMT
Moksha,
Rather long. I'll read it in detail later tonight.
But I would not have thought that there would be enough gold in the world to make a return to it feasible.
Also, if you have read L Ron Hubbard's book 'Battlefield Earth' you will recall that the plot involved flooding the planet with gold and making it relatively worthless.
Could happen.
The price of gold would rocket as everyone who has a gold mine will simply stockpile it and wait for the price to go up. And you will still have to use a fiat currency for everyday transactions.
Maybe the World would prefer to dump the Dollar and go back to swapping chickens and turnips.
HAL
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Nov 4, 2018 16:50:57 GMT
New study on ocean warming: 5 questions answered
By EarthSky Voices in EARTH
November 4, 2018
A study released this past week reports that oceans absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought. The study estimates that for each of the past 25 years, oceans have absorbed an amount of heat energy that is 150 times the energy humans produce as electricity annually.
By Scott Denning, Colorado State University
Editor’s note: A new study published October 31, 2018, by scientists in the United States, China, France and Germany estimates that the world’s oceans have absorbed much more excess heat from human-induced climate change than researchers had estimated up to now. This finding suggests that global warming may be even more advanced than previously thought. Atmospheric scientist Scott Denning explains how the new report arrived at this result and what it implies about the pace of climate change.
How do scientists measure ocean temperature and estimate how climate change is affecting it?
They use thermometers attached to thousands of bobbing robots floating at controlled depths throughout the oceans. This system of “Argo floats” was launched in the year 2000 and there are now about 4,000 of the floating instruments.
About once every 10 days, they cycle from the surface to a depth of 6,500 feet (1,981 meters), then bob back up to the surface to transmit their data by satellite. Each year this network collects about 100,000 measurements of the three-dimensional temperature distribution of the oceans.
The Argo measurements show that about 93 percent of the global warming caused by burning carbon for fuel is felt as changes in ocean temperature, while only a very small amount of this warming occurs in the air.
Normal cycle of an Argo float collecting ocean temperature and salinity data. Image via International Argo Program.
How dramatically do the findings in this study differ from levels of ocean warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported?
The new study finds that since 1991, the oceans have warmed about 60 percent faster than the average rate of warming estimated by studies summarized by the IPCC, which are based on data from Argo floats. This is a big deal.
Most of the difference comes from the earliest part of this period, before there were enough Argo floats in the oceans to properly represent the three-dimensional distribution of global water temperatures. The new data are complete all the way back to 1991, but the Argo data were really sparse until the mid-2000s.
The implication of faster ocean warming is that the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming is greater than we’d thought. We already knew that adding CO2 to the air was warming the world very rapidly. And the IPCC just warned in a special report that limiting global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels – a target that would avert many extreme impacts on humans and ecosystems – would require quickly reducing and eventually eliminating coal, oil and gas from the world energy supply. This study doesn’t change any of that, but it means we will need to eliminate fossil fuels even faster.
To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius [2.7 degrees F], the IPCC warns that greenhouse gas emissions would need to be drastically reduced over approximately the next decade. Image via IPCC.
What did these researchers do differently to arrive at a higher number?
They have measured tiny changes since 1991 in the concentrations of a few gases in the air – oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide – with incredibly high precision. This is really hard to do, because the changes are extremely small compared to the large amounts already in the air.
Some of these gases from the air dissolve into the oceans. The water’s temperature dictates how much it can absorb. As water warms, the amount of a gas that can dissolve in it decreases – that’s why a soda or beer left open on the kitchen table goes flat. That same temperature dependence allowed the scientists to calculate total changes in global ocean heat content from 1991 to now, just using very precise measurements of the air itself.
If this study is accurate, what does it suggest we should expect in the way of major climate change impacts in the coming decades?
This study did not address climate impacts, but they are already well known. As the world warms, more water vapor evaporates from both oceans and land. This means that when big storms develop, there’s more water vapor in the air for them to “work with,” which will produce more extreme rain and snow and resulting winds.
Greater warming will mean increased water demand for crops and forests and pastures, more stress on irrigation and urban water supplies, and reduced food production. More water demand means more forest fires and smoke, shorter winters with less mountain snowpack, and increased stress on ecosystems, cities and the world economy. Because of these effects, nearly every government in the world has committed to rapid emissions cuts to limit global warming.
What this study suggests is that the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gases than we previously thought. This means that in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, emissions will need to be cut faster and deeper.
WATCH VIDEO:
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe explains the consequences of two degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels.
www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=44&v=RhBBH8V3NPc
How will we know whether these findings hold up?
There are other groups making precise gas measurements, and many of them have data going back to the 1990s. Others will repeat the analyses made by these authors and check their results. There will also be careful work to reconcile the increased warming rate of the oceans with the Argo temperature data, the surface air temperature record, atmospheric data from balloons and measurements made from satellites. The real world must be consistent with all of the observations taken together, not just a subset.
This study very cleverly used data from the composition of the air itself going back nearly 30 years. We didn’t have Argo floats back then, but air samples are still available that can be analyzed decades later. Using a longer record of warming is much better for estimating the rate, because it’s less sensitive to year-to-year variations than a shorter record.
These scientists have given us a new and independent way to assess the sensitivity of long-term global warming to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. I expect the findings will indeed hold up, and that we will be hearing a lot more about this new method in the future.
earthsky.org/earth/study-oceans-absorbed-more-heat-questions
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 0:33:06 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2018 11:25:05 GMT
Others will repeat the analyses made by these authors and check their results.
I believe they call that standard science.. I was wondering why the rush to this report before doing that..meanwhile the elites have their carbon tax honed further..like the airlines..virgin comes to mind..all swapping tax credits which never leads to reduction in levels..just tax write offs..Joe BBQ and Gary the lawnmower guy wont get such a swap deal..Its a scam for just breathing.
|
|
|
Post by purr on Nov 12, 2018 15:50:09 GMT
New study on ocean warming: 5 questions answered
By EarthSky Voices in EARTH
November 4, 2018
A study released this past week reports that oceans absorbed 60 percent more heat than previously thought. The study estimates that for each of the past 25 years, oceans have absorbed an amount of heat energy that is 150 times the energy humans produce as electricity annually.
By Scott Denning, Colorado State University
Editor’s note: A new study published October 31, 2018, by scientists in the United States, China, France and Germany estimates that the world’s oceans have absorbed much more excess heat from human-induced climate change than researchers had estimated up to now. This finding suggests that global warming may be even more advanced than previously thought. Atmospheric scientist Scott Denning explains how the new report arrived at this result and what it implies about the pace of climate change.
How do scientists measure ocean temperature and estimate how climate change is affecting it?
They use thermometers attached to thousands of bobbing robots floating at controlled depths throughout the oceans. This system of “Argo floats” was launched in the year 2000 and there are now about 4,000 of the floating instruments.
About once every 10 days, they cycle from the surface to a depth of 6,500 feet (1,981 meters), then bob back up to the surface to transmit their data by satellite. Each year this network collects about 100,000 measurements of the three-dimensional temperature distribution of the oceans.
The Argo measurements show that about 93 percent of the global warming caused by burning carbon for fuel is felt as changes in ocean temperature, while only a very small amount of this warming occurs in the air.
Normal cycle of an Argo float collecting ocean temperature and salinity data. Image via International Argo Program.
How dramatically do the findings in this study differ from levels of ocean warming that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reported?
The new study finds that since 1991, the oceans have warmed about 60 percent faster than the average rate of warming estimated by studies summarized by the IPCC, which are based on data from Argo floats. This is a big deal.
Most of the difference comes from the earliest part of this period, before there were enough Argo floats in the oceans to properly represent the three-dimensional distribution of global water temperatures. The new data are complete all the way back to 1991, but the Argo data were really sparse until the mid-2000s.
The implication of faster ocean warming is that the effect of carbon dioxide on global warming is greater than we’d thought. We already knew that adding CO2 to the air was warming the world very rapidly. And the IPCC just warned in a special report that limiting global warming to 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) above pre-industrial levels – a target that would avert many extreme impacts on humans and ecosystems – would require quickly reducing and eventually eliminating coal, oil and gas from the world energy supply. This study doesn’t change any of that, but it means we will need to eliminate fossil fuels even faster.
To limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius [2.7 degrees F], the IPCC warns that greenhouse gas emissions would need to be drastically reduced over approximately the next decade. Image via IPCC.
What did these researchers do differently to arrive at a higher number?
They have measured tiny changes since 1991 in the concentrations of a few gases in the air – oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide – with incredibly high precision. This is really hard to do, because the changes are extremely small compared to the large amounts already in the air.
Some of these gases from the air dissolve into the oceans. The water’s temperature dictates how much it can absorb. As water warms, the amount of a gas that can dissolve in it decreases – that’s why a soda or beer left open on the kitchen table goes flat. That same temperature dependence allowed the scientists to calculate total changes in global ocean heat content from 1991 to now, just using very precise measurements of the air itself.
If this study is accurate, what does it suggest we should expect in the way of major climate change impacts in the coming decades?
This study did not address climate impacts, but they are already well known. As the world warms, more water vapor evaporates from both oceans and land. This means that when big storms develop, there’s more water vapor in the air for them to “work with,” which will produce more extreme rain and snow and resulting winds.
Greater warming will mean increased water demand for crops and forests and pastures, more stress on irrigation and urban water supplies, and reduced food production. More water demand means more forest fires and smoke, shorter winters with less mountain snowpack, and increased stress on ecosystems, cities and the world economy. Because of these effects, nearly every government in the world has committed to rapid emissions cuts to limit global warming.
What this study suggests is that the climate is more sensitive to greenhouse gases than we previously thought. This means that in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change, emissions will need to be cut faster and deeper.
WATCH VIDEO:
Climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe explains the consequences of two degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels.
www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=44&v=RhBBH8V3NPc
How will we know whether these findings hold up?
There are other groups making precise gas measurements, and many of them have data going back to the 1990s. Others will repeat the analyses made by these authors and check their results. There will also be careful work to reconcile the increased warming rate of the oceans with the Argo temperature data, the surface air temperature record, atmospheric data from balloons and measurements made from satellites. The real world must be consistent with all of the observations taken together, not just a subset.
This study very cleverly used data from the composition of the air itself going back nearly 30 years. We didn’t have Argo floats back then, but air samples are still available that can be analyzed decades later. Using a longer record of warming is much better for estimating the rate, because it’s less sensitive to year-to-year variations than a shorter record.
These scientists have given us a new and independent way to assess the sensitivity of long-term global warming to changes in atmospheric CO2 levels. I expect the findings will indeed hold up, and that we will be hearing a lot more about this new method in the future.
earthsky.org/earth/study-oceans-absorbed-more-heat-questions
Thanks for an interesting read, Swamp! Mmm... any beef in there? Reading through, the one finding (actually measurement data) is that as we accumulate a 3-D heat picture from thousands of dynamic buoys the oceans appear to have warmed up some 60% above expectations (as observed from 2000 to date). The problem with that is that such surprising divergence seems End Of The World stuff. Climate Scientists managed to 'miss' 60% of ocean warming, uh.. what else did they miss ? Perhaps.. CAUSALITY? See, the problem with this is IF you model 'Global' Warming and oceanic warming (as part of it) as an effect of human industry, then correlate (subtle) variation in greenhouse/industrial gases in our skies with said observed heating of our oceans, the result must be that oceans respond to greenhouse gases by unsuspected intense warming! I do not see it clearly shown that industrial gases CAUSE the oceanic warming. My most curious question: what is the cause / mechanism for oceans, and for our entire planet to warm up (or cool down)? purr
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Nov 12, 2018 17:42:55 GMT
Purr,
...My most curious question: what is the cause / mechanism for oceans, and for our entire planet to warm up (or cool down)?...
The intensity and duration of heat upon the ocean surface. And, possibly to a lesser degree, the ground surface.
The longer the heat is upon the water the deeper it will transfer through it. And the longer it will retain this heat carrying it past the normal cooling off points. If the gaps between the heating periods get shorter then the temperature build up in the oceans will accumulate. This increased temperature gives rise to a greater temperature difference between the surface and the air temperature which causes wind. The greater the difference the more intense the wind thus a greater tendency for hurricanes.
Also as water heats up it expands. Thus raising sea levels. The effect of the raised levels and winds leads to storm surge being higher than usual.
All this may sound like End of the World stuff. That's because it is.
Maybe not the end of the World. But probably the end of the World as we have come to know it.
Also no doubt you have heard of the North Atlantic Conveyor. The warm Gulf stream depends upon it. If that stops due to the increased temperature at one end preventing the flow, then out winters will get much cooler. It is why, in the UK, our West coast is warmer than out East coast.
And where you live, you should be very worried.
HAL.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Nov 12, 2018 22:37:03 GMT
As far as the Mark Levin interview of Patrick Michaels of CATO goes, I am having a great deal of problem giving someone who works for the Koch Brothers any credence whatsoever...... Koch Industries, Inc. is an American multinational corporation based in Wichita, Kansas. Its subsidiaries are involved in the manufacturing, REFINING, and distribution of PETROLEUM, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, finance, commodities trading, and investing. Koch owns Invista, Georgia-Pacific, Molex, Flint Hills Resources, Koch Pipeline, Koch Fertilizer, Koch Minerals, Matador Cattle Company, and Guardian Industries. The firm employs 120,000 people in 60 countries, with about half of its business in the United States. THE COMPANY IS THE LARGEST LANDOWNER IN THE ATHABASCA OIL SANDS. Source: Wikipedia The Cato Institute is an American LIBERTARIAN THINK TANK headquartered in Washington, D.C. It was founded as the CHARLES KOCH FOUNDATION in 1974 by Ed Crane, Murray Rothbard, and Charles Koch, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of the conglomerate Koch Industries. In July 1976, the name was changed to the Cato Institute. Cato was established to have a focus on public advocacy, media exposure and SOCIETAL INFLUENCE. Source: Wikipedia
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 2:53:53 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2018 9:05:41 GMT
www.iceagenow.info/lack-of-sunspots-to-bring-record-cold-warns-nasa-scientist/Lack of sunspots to bring record cold, warns NASA scientist November 12, 2018 by Robert “It could happen in a matter of months,” says Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center. ________________ “The sun is entering one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” wrote Dr Tony Phillips just six weeks ago, on 27 Sep 2018. Sunspots have been absent for most of 2018 and Earth’s upper atmosphere is responding, says Phillips, editor of spaceweather.com. Data from NASA’s TIMED satellite show that the thermosphere (the uppermost layer of air around our planet) is cooling and shrinking, literally decreasing the radius of the atmosphere. To help track the latest developments, Martin Mlynczak of NASA’s Langley Research Center and his colleagues recently introduced the “Thermosphere Climate Index.” The Thermosphere Climate Index (TCI) tells how much heat nitric oxide (NO) molecules are dumping into space. During Solar Maximum, TCI is high (meaning “Hot”); during Solar Minimum, it is low (meaning “Cold”). “Right now, it is very low indeed … 10 times smaller than we see during more active phases of the solar cycle,” says Mlynczak The Thermosphere Climate Index by Mlynczak and colleagues. Displays times of Cold, Cool, Neutral, Warm, and Hot since 1940. Record cold in a matter of months spaceweatherarchive.com/2018/09/27/the-chill-of-solar-minimum/“If current trends continue, it could soon set a Space Age record for cold,” says Mlynczak. “We’re not there quite yet, but it could happen in a matter of months.” The TIMED satellite monitoring the temperature of the upper atmospher
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 15, 2018 12:00:01 GMT
First..I don't have a horse in this climate warming thing..but it is noteworthy this came out today which points out what happens when the math doesn't add up after a report is rushed to press that influences the rest of us..someone (independently) checked the math on the ocean heat absorption. www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-14/climate-scientists-admit-major-math-error-after-global-warming-study-debunkedWhen we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there," said Ralph Keeling, a scientist with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography who co-authored the paper with Princeton University scientist and lead author, Laure Resplandy. "We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly." 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. “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.” -San Diego Union-Tribune "I accept responsibility for what happened because it’s my role to make sure that those kind of details got conveyed," Keeling told the Washington Post on Tuesday.
|
|
|
Post by swamprat on Nov 15, 2018 16:21:48 GMT
First..I don't have a horse in this climate warming thing..but it is noteworthy this came out today which points out what happens when the math doesn't add up after a report is rushed to press that influences the rest of us..someone (independently) checked the math on the ocean heat absorption. www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-11-14/climate-scientists-admit-major-math-error-after-global-warming-study-debunkedWhen we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there," said Ralph Keeling, a scientist with the Scripps Institute of Oceanography who co-authored the paper with Princeton University scientist and lead author, Laure Resplandy. "We’re grateful to have it be pointed out quickly so that we could correct it quickly." 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. “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.” -San Diego Union-Tribune "I accept responsibility for what happened because it’s my role to make sure that those kind of details got conveyed," Keeling told the Washington Post on Tuesday.
Yep!Researchers walk back major ocean warming resultBy Deborah Byrd in EARTH | November 14, 2018
Late last month, a team of researchers said Earth’s oceans had warmed 60% more than anyone had realized. Now that result appears unlikely, since a mathematician and climate contrarian has uncovered a scientific error.
This is good news. It is less certain today that Earth’s oceans are 60 percent warmer than we thought (although they may still be that warm). As reported in the Los Angeles Times on November 14, 2018, researchers with University of California San Diego’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Princeton University have had to walk back a widely reported scientific result – based on a paper published in Nature last month – that showed Earth’s oceans were heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change.
The October 31 paper in Nature stated the oceans had warmed 60 percent more than outlined by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). On November 6, mathematician Nic Lewis posted his criticisms of the paper at Judith Curry’s blog. Both Lewis and Curry are critics of the scientific consensus that global warming is ongoing and human-caused.
In his November 6 blog post, Lewis pointed out flaws in the October 31 paper. The authors of the October 31 paper now say they’ve redone their calculations, and – although they find the ocean is still likely warmer than the estimate used by the IPCC – they agree that they “muffed” the range of probability. They can no longer support the earlier statement of a heat increase 60 percent greater than indicated. They now say there is a larger range of probability, between 10 percent and 70 percent, as other studies have already found.
A correction has been submitted to Nature.
The Los Angeles Times reported that one of the co-author’s on the paper – Ralph Keeling at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography – “took full blame” and thanked Lewis for alerting him to the mistake. Keeling told the Los Angeles Times:
"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."
In the meantime, the Twitter-verse today has done the expected in a situation like this, where a widely reported and dramatic climate result has had to be walked back. Many are making comments like this one:
Chuck Patriot Santa Dude Nellis
"We always knew it was garbage but will the globalists agree with reality or deny it once more? ** 'We Really Muffed The Error Margins': Global Warming Report Rendered Worthless After Scientists Point Out Flaw In Ocean-Warming Survey."
But cooler heads on Twitter and elsewhere in the media are also weighing in, pointing out – as has been necessary to point out time and again – that science is not a “body of facts.” Science is a process. Part of the reason scientists publish is so that other scientists can find errors in their work, so that the errors can be corrected.
All scientists know this. The Los Angeles Times explained it this way:
"While papers are peer-reviewed before they’re published, new findings must always be reproduced before gaining widespread acceptance throughout the scientific community…"
The Times quoted Gerald Meehl, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, as saying:
"This is how the process works. Every paper that comes out is not bulletproof or infallible. If it doesn’t stand up under scrutiny, you review the findings."
Scott Anderson
"Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study. Scientists don't cry "fake news", they accept the blame, fix the problem and move on..."
Bottom line: An error has been found in the October 31, 2018 paper published in Nature – showing an increase in ocean warming 60 percent greater than that estimated by the IPCC. The authors have acknowledged the error, and a correction has been submitted to Nature.
earthsky.org/earth/ocean-warming-60-greater-error-correction
|
|
|
Post by HAL on Nov 15, 2018 16:32:40 GMT
None of the above will stop the next round of hurricanes.
HAL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 17, 2018 2:28:39 GMT
The process continue s...Oltissis
|
|
|
Post by ZETAR on Nov 17, 2018 2:40:34 GMT
“We really muffed”
The co-author of a much-hyped, peer-reviewed, alarmist paper claiming to have found a huge, unexpected build-up of global warming heat in the oceans has admitted: “We really muffed” the calculations.
www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/14/delingpole-we-really-muffed-it-scientist-admits-error-in-hyped-global-warming-study/
According to the paper by Laure Resplandy et al, published this month in the prestigious journal Nature, a lot of the missing heat from global warming — 60 percent more than hitherto thought — has been absorbed by the oceans.
Naturally, this shocking discovery caused much excitement across mainstream media and was widely reported by environmental correspondents as proof that the global warming crisis was more serious than evah.
However, their exultant doom-mongering has been shortlived. An independent analyst, Nic Lewis, examined the paper and quickly spotted it was based on flawed math.
As the Global Warming Policy Forum reported:
Independent climate scientist Nicholas Lewis has uncovered a major error in a recent scientific paper that was given blanket coverage in the English-speaking media. The paper, written by a team led by Princeton oceanographer Laure Resplandy, claimed that the oceans have been warming faster than previously thought. It was announced, in news outlets including the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and Scientific American that this meant that the Earth may warm even faster than currently estimated.
However Lewis, who has authored several peer-reviewed papers on the question of climate sensitivity and has worked with some of the world’s leading climate scientists, has found that the warming trend in the Resplandy paper differs from that calculated from the underlying data included with the paper.
“If you calculate the trend correctly, the warming rate is not worse than we thought – it’s very much in line with previous estimates,” says Lewis.
In fact, says Lewis, some of the other claims made in the paper and reported by the media, are wrong too.
“Their claims about the effect of faster ocean warming on estimates of climate sensitivity (and hence future global warming) and carbon budgets are just incorrect anyway, but that’s a moot point now we know that about their calculation error”.
Now, one of the paper’s co-authors, Ralph Keeling has gamely fessed up to the error — and hinted that this effectively invalidates the paper:
SHALOM...Z
|
|