After correcting the math error, Lewis found that the paper's rate of oceanic warming "is about average compared with the other estimates they showed, and below the average for 1993–2016."
>After correcting the math error, Lewis found that the paper's rate of oceanic warming "is about average compared with the other estimates they showed, and below the average for 1993–2016."
If true, it's good news - it shows that the established scientific understanding was not far wrong compared to the original claims of the study.
This is how scientific consensus is built, by constantly testing and reconsidering assumptions and theories.
If true, it's good news - it shows that the established scientific understanding was not far wrong compared to the original claims of the study.
This is how scientific consensus is built, by constantly testing and reconsidering assumptions and theories.
(post is archived)