DC: The recent headline-grabbing study that claimed global warming was heating the oceans up faster than expected suffers from a major math error, according to two researchers.
The study, which was published in a prestigious scientific journal at the end of October, put forward results suggesting global warming was much worse than previously believed. The media ate the results up.
Independent scientist Nic Lewis found the study had “apparently serious (but surely inadvertent) errors in the underlying calculations.” Lewis’ findings were quickly corroborated by another researcher.
Numerous media outlets uncritically highlighted the study’s findings. The Washington Post, for example, reported the work suggested “Earth could be set to warm even faster than predicted.”
The Post’s coverage of the “startling” climate study was echoed by The New York Times, which claimed the study suggested global warming “has been more closely in line with scientists’ worst-case scenarios.”
The BBC warned “[t]his could make it much more difficult to keep global warming within safe levels this century.”
same ol…same ol
That’s why the “pier review” system was invented, to catch those mistakes before publishing.
Leftist-funded science uses pier reviewers whose main qualification is to say “Yup!” to the agenda that led to the funding in the first place.
@JIMMY: That’s “peer review,” not “pier review.”
Oh, thanks, Plutonium. Chock it up to fingers disconnected from a brain. 🙂
Hey it could happen to anybody. Even one of the two French guys who figured out the length of a meter goofed up on the math, hide the mistake from his companion till it was too late and he too was forced to keep the math error hidden. The meter is short about the thickness of two sheets of paper. But hey, the metric system was created for people with poor fractional math skills anyway.
I’m disappointed I thought it was very puny
Sitting next to the ocean on a dock and dipping a thermometer IS a “pier review”.
They all jumped off that pier long ago.
A problem with an Al-Gore-ithm, I suspect.
Blink, It is more efficient in
the sciences to use a decimal based
weight & measurement system. We used
decimal feet when I was a civil/construction
surveyor.3″= .25′ 6″=.50′ etc. 1″=.0833′ 1/16″=.0625″ a lot easier to add
in a field notebook…
@radioationman – of course I know that a decimal based system was proposed for imperial measurements before it was included in the metric system that came later. I just used the poor math skills dig to annoy those who say Americans are too stupid or stubborn to embrace the metric system.
However, what is true is the metric system was probably the first step toward globalism. The whole idea for it was to create a measurement system based on the size of the earth that the whole world would be proud to use because it was based on the size of our home in the universe, the earth. And measurements were indeed a mess before. Often one county to the next used a different system of measurement. Not very friendly for trade.
One of the more interesting length measurement stories started in China. I don’t recall what the unit was called, but long ago a standard was set. Initially it was used for building buildings and for measuring the length of silk fabric.
But the greedy thing was the rulers collected silk fabric for taxes from the silk makers, and they wanted to collect more taxes (longer lengths of silk) with out saying the taxes had increased to a larger number of length of silk.
The result – over time that same unit of measure remained the same for carpenters, but it gradually became longer for the silk manufacturers. iow the carpenters ruler remained the same length, but the silk makers’ ruler gradually became longer. Yet both were marked in the same units of measure. It was as if one man’s 1 meter ruler was 100cm in length, but the silk maker’s 1 meter ruler was really 120cm in length.
Some days I think the AGW crowd is doing the same thing. What was 90 degrees in 1900 is reported as being 94 degrees today by those in on the scam.