Many of us knew this already... but now seems more see it for... Led To Alarming Results In Major Global Warming Study Researchers recently were forced to walk back scientific findings published last month that showed oceans have been heating up dramatically faster than previously thought as a result of climate change. Their conclusion came under scrutiny after mathematician Nic Lewis, a critic of the scientific consensus around human-induced warming, posted a critique of the paper online. Keeling said it’s important to fix the mistakes… Well, how about checking your work or don’t make mistakes, to begin with. Latest: Scientists Admit "Math Error" Led To Alarming Results In Major Global Warming Study Daily Caller: The scientists behind a headline-grabbing global warming study did something that seems all too rare these days — they admitted to making mistakes and thanked the researcher, a global warming skeptic, who pointed them out. “When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” study co-author Ralph Keeling told The San Diego Union-Tribune on Tuesday. Their study, published in October, used a new method of measuring ocean heat uptake and found the oceans had absorbed 60 more heat than previously thought. Many news outlets relayed the findings, but independent scientist Nic Lewis quickly found problems with the study. Keeling, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, owned up to the mistake and thanked Lewis for finding it. Keeling and his co-authors submitted a correction to the journal Nature. More A paper is always submitted for peer review before publication. None of the academia noticed the errors? Did they even bother to read the paper? They have to say “mistake” now because they stated those obvious false figures to the US government when they applied for grants. A math error to some, an outright lie to most! If these “errors” were intentional, did they committed fraud? MORE on site... Scientists Admit ‘Math Error’ Led To Alarming Results In Major Global Warming Study
They should be sited for fraud simply because of the fact false information from an accredited community deliberately misleads those the information was intended for.
Just goes to show that the "Talking & Writing Heads" that reported FAKE News, and NONE of them walked it back, on there Media Outlets after making such a BIG DEAL of the results, in the first place... Every Outlet of the Original Story, that did NOT Walk it back, should be censured for FAKE NEWS, PUBLICLY....
Not sure the site is reporting accurately... while there is an error in the trend lines the error shows approximately plus r minus .56%. while this is indeed a error that needs to be corrected the trend lines still show a decidedly positive increase in global warming... Figure 1 shows how my 0.88 per meg per year linear fit trend (blue line) and Resplandy et al.’s 1.16 per meg per year trend (red line) compare with the underlying ΔAPOClimate data values. Figure 1. ΔAPOClimate data values (black), the least squares linear fit (blue line) to them, and the linear trend per Resplandy et al. (red line) Please note the individual making the claim is using a least squares... There are other ways of viewing the trend line that might be of use in determinijng these trends.... The use of a linear trend line has been the subject of criticism, leading to a search for alternative approaches to avoid its use in model estimation. One of the alternative approaches involves unit root tests and the cointegration technique in econometric studies. The estimated coefficient associated with a linear time trend variable is interpreted as a measure of the impact of a number of unknown or known but unmeasurable factors on the dependent variable over one unit of time. Strictly speaking, that interpretation is applicable for the estimation time frame only. Outside that time frame, one does not know how those unmeasurable factors behave both qualitatively and quantitatively. Furthermore, the linearity of the time trend poses many questions: (i) Why should it be linear? (ii) If the trend is non-linear then under what conditions does its inclusion influence the magnitude as well as the statistical significance of the estimates of other parameters in the model? (iii) The inclusion of a linear time trend in a model precludes by assumption the presence of fluctuations in the tendencies of the dependent variable over time; is this necessarily valid in a particular context? (iv) And, does a spurious relationship exist in the model because an underlying causative variable is itself time-trending? Research results of mathematicians, statisticians, econometricians, and economists have been published in response to those questions. References... This is a very good description on what cointegration between time series is: http://www.kva.se/globalassets/priser/nobel/2003/sciback_ek_en_03.pdf Gekkoquant.com has some nice articles on ADF tests, cointegration, statistical arbitrage etc.: http://gekkoquant.com/2012/12/17/statistical-arbitrage-testing-for-cointegration-augmented-dicky-fuller/ http://gekkoquant.com/2012/10/21/statistical-arbitrage-correlation-vs-cointegration/ Another excellent blog with various good articles on the topic is by Ernest Chan. Search for “Cointegration” on the blog to find many more articles like these two: http://epchan.blogspot.ch/2006/11/cointegration-is-not-same-as.html http://epchan.blogspot.ch/2013/11/cointegration-trading-with-log-prices.html Article on Pairs Trading at Godotfinance.com: http://www.godotfinance.com/pdf/PairsTrading.pdf Said, S. E.; Dickey, D. A. (1984). "Testing for Unit Roots in Autoregressive-Moving Average Models of Unknown Order". Biometrika Greene, W. H. (2002). Econometric Analysis (Fifth ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall. ISBN 0-13-066189-9.[page needed] Said, S. E.; Dickey, D. A. (1984). "Testing for Unit Roots in Autoregressive-Moving Average Models of Unknown Sorry for the jargon, but I have been working in stats for the last 18 and a half years...
it's not the absolute numbers that we should be interested in. It's the trend. Kind of like 'Mass Shootings' everyone gets all jacked up due to the numbers of victims but I believe that there is a study that deaths due to guns has been trending down for years. So, yes the oceans are trending warmer but we didn't have scientific buoys collecting data since the 1500's
historically there was a major warming period just prior to about 1000 AD... during that time the vikings went west and settled greenland and iceland and were FARMING there... they withdrew when something happened to the climate... and stopped going west... to much ice and cold... IIRC there was a Irish monk that wrote about the skies going dark and many at the monastery thinkin it was the end times over it... happened around 1000 AD IIRC... got real cold real fast... the earth has been considerably warmer in it's history... and that prior to man made anything... so????
@Witch Doctor 01 Damn! You sound just like my old Stats Professor! He taught at West Point at one time and - well - he instilled fear in the entire class, loved to put us through the ringer. LOL! I did learn a lot from him though... @OldDude49 "IIRC there was a Irish monk that wrote about the skies going dark and many at the monastery thinkin it was the end times over it..." Nah... That was just Ragar Lothbrok coming to pay them a visit. I saw it on TV so it had to be true... (BTW that 'Bug in a Box' always drives me around the bend but now my cat saw it and he is trying to attack my monitor!) "If these “errors” were intentional, did they committed fraud?" It would be almost impossible to prove... It doesn't really bother me if they did make a mistake; however, if they make a mistake and refuse to admit then that is a real wrong. I wonder if they will have to give back the research/grant money...I doubt it.
its interesting the code looks like it has a lot of uses but I normally work in SPSS or SAS... so I do not have a definitive view...
