[N_Fiddledog]

fifeboy fifeboy:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The one you seem to think is me, apparently.

I never listen to your prattle, so why should I listen to the puppy in my pons.

Really? Cause I always thought of you as one of my stalkers. Not complaining. I think it's kind of cute.

Pons? Aren't they the nerves under the brain that bring you dreams or something?

[Freakinoldguy]

0:

71719589_2548533898568092_1048484710470123520_n.jpg [ 67.56 KiB | Viewed 79 times ]

[fifeboy]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

fifeboy fifeboy:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

The one you seem to think is me, apparently.

I never listen to your prattle, so why should I listen to the puppy in my pons.

Really? Cause I always thought of you as one of my stalkers. Not complaining. I think it's kind of cute.

Pons? Aren't they the nerves under the brain that bring you dreams or something?

Ahh...no!

[N_Fiddledog]

Whatever...

Meanwhile back at the "climate emergency":

[PluggyRug]

The average climate nutcase.

[stratos]

"To Many People we need to eat the babies" "Even if we bomb Russia there is to many people" Who let the crazy cat lady lose is my question

I'll give credit where it's do. I think AOC handled that situation just fine.

[PluggyRug]

Journal 'Nature' retracts ocean-warming study
by Joshua Emerson Smith

$1:

The journal Nature retracted a study published last year that found oceans were warming at an alarming rate due to climate change.
The prestigious scientific journal issued the formal notice this week for the paper published Oct. 31, 2018, by researchers at the University of California, San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography.
They released a statement published on the journal's website that read in part:
"Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors.
"Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches."
Lewis, a mathematician and critic of the scientific consensus supporting the climate crisis, posted a critique of the paper shortly after its publication.
Co-author and climate scientist Ralph Keeling at Scripps has taken the blame for the mistake.
The report used a new approach to measure the ocean's temperature based on measuring the amount of oxygen and carbon dioxide rising off the oceans' plants. Much of the data on ocean temperatures currently relies on the Argo array, robotic devices that float at different depths.
The retraction of the article came on the same day that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report on the impacts warming on oceans and ice-covered regions.
The findings were some of the most dire to date, warning that if emissions continue, sea level rise could reach 3 feet by the end of the century, a more than 10% increase from 2013 predictions. At the same time, the report found that in some cities and islands hundred-year floods will become yearly events.
Climate contrarian uncovers scientific error, upends major ocean warming study
More information: L. Resplandy et al. Retraction Note: Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition, Nature (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-019-1585-5
L. Resplandy et al. Quantification of ocean heat uptake from changes in atmospheric O2 and CO2 composition, Nature (2018). DOI: 10.1038/s41586-018-0651-8
Journal information: Nature

https://phys.org/news/2019-09-journal-n ... rming.html

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is kind of a big deal when a peer reviewed paper is so utterly trashed that it has to face a formal retraction.

Seems those peers don't really bother checking the data just the politics.

Did you read the retraction posted in the article?

$1:

Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept. Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches. The revised paper, with corrected uncertainties, will be submitted to another journal. The Retraction will contain a link to the new publication, if and when it is published.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5

This is the purpose of 'peer review'. To catch errors in calculations, no matter how small and underestimated they may be.

Hardly political. The politics was purely in the article Bart quoted.

[PluggyRug]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is kind of a big deal when a peer reviewed paper is so utterly trashed that it has to face a formal retraction.

Seems those peers don't really bother checking the data just the politics.

Did you read the retraction posted in the article?

$1:

Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept. Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches. The revised paper, with corrected uncertainties, will be submitted to another journal. The Retraction will contain a link to the new publication, if and when it is published.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5

This is the purpose of 'peer review'. To catch errors in calculations, no matter how small and underestimated they may be.

Hardly political. The politics was purely in the article Bart quoted.

Did I say it's political?

[PluggyRug]

This guy is hilarious. Long video but worth a watch.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Did you read the retraction posted in the article?

$1:

Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept. Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches. The revised paper, with corrected uncertainties, will be submitted to another journal. The Retraction will contain a link to the new publication, if and when it is published.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5

This is the purpose of 'peer review'. To catch errors in calculations, no matter how small and underestimated they may be.

Hardly political. The politics was purely in the article Bart quoted.

Did you read your own quote, Doc?

$1:

Shortly after publication

Peer review didn't catch this. A climate skeptic did. That's why you need what you call "deniers."

Here...in case you forgot what peer review is.

$1:

Peer-reviewed (refereed or scholarly) journals - Articles are written by experts and are reviewed by several other experts in the field before the article is published in the journal in order to ensure the article’s quality.

[DrCaleb]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

This is kind of a big deal when a peer reviewed paper is so utterly trashed that it has to face a formal retraction.

Seems those peers don't really bother checking the data just the politics.

Did you read the retraction posted in the article?

$1:

Shortly after publication, arising from comments from Nicholas Lewis, we realized that our reported uncertainties were underestimated owing to our treatment of certain systematic errors as random errors. In addition, we became aware of several smaller issues in our analysis of uncertainty. Although correcting these issues did not substantially change the central estimate of ocean warming, it led to a roughly fourfold increase in uncertainties, significantly weakening implications for an upward revision of ocean warming and climate sensitivity. Because of these weaker implications, the Nature editors asked for a Retraction, which we accept. Despite the revised uncertainties, our method remains valid and provides an estimate of ocean warming that is independent of the ocean data underpinning other approaches. The revised paper, with corrected uncertainties, will be submitted to another journal. The Retraction will contain a link to the new publication, if and when it is published.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5

This is the purpose of 'peer review'. To catch errors in calculations, no matter how small and underestimated they may be.

Hardly political. The politics was purely in the article Bart quoted.

Did I say it's political?

Are you impersonating Bart now?

[N_Fiddledog]

Can't answer the question, eh?

[N_Fiddledog]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

ROTFL The average climate nutcase.

OMG! You mean that was real?

I saw that one as a comedy spoof and thought, 'can that even be funny as satire because who's going to believe it relevant or even possible?'

I have to go back and watch the spoof again so I can get my chuckles.

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's a link worth considering:

25 SIMPLE BULLET POINTS PROVING CO2 DOES NOT CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING: BY A GEOLOGIST, FOR A CHANGE (DR ROGER HIGGS)