The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models have always run hot, predicting more surface warming than measurements are able to confirm. [some emphasis, links added]
Rather than accept that their models are wrong, along with their underlying hypothesis regarding CO2-induced anthropogenic global warming (AGW), IPCC members have struggled to find an excuse.
For a while, the excuse was that aerosols in the atmosphere, such as dust, sulfate particles, sea salt, industrial smoke, and volcanic ash, were masking the effect of CO2-induced AGW.
By virtue of their ability to scatter and reflect sunlight back into space, they produce a cooling effect. However, upon further investigation, that theory came up short in providing the answer to the missing heat.
The next idea to gain prominence was the theory that the ocean was absorbing all the additional heat generated by AGW. IPCC scientists estimated that 90% of the additional heat was taken up in the oceans.
It was an interesting theory that is almost impossible to confirm. The ocean possesses a vast heat storage capacity, and it would be nearly impossible to detect a change in its temperature.
However, IPCC scientists were convinced that a temperature rise could and would be detected.
IPCC member states embarked on a massive program to place monitoring buoys in the ocean that would measure an infinitesimal change in global ocean temperature.
These buoys would periodically submerge to various depths, measure temperature, and then pop back to the surface to relay their information to satellites that would disseminate it to IPCC scientists.
IPCC scientists are proud of their latest science project. Unfortunately, they have also been sloppy with it.
A new report entitled “IPCC’s Earth Energy Imbalance Assessment is Based on Physically Invalid Argo-Float-Based Estimates of Global Ocean Heat Content” examines how their numbers are actually calculated.
It reveals them to represent computational artifacts rather than measurements of real physical energy, rendering the entire process a category error.
Why am I not surprised? When you see this pattern with the IPCC again and again, you lose confidence in its scientific prowess and conclude that it is primarily an ideologically-driven political body.
Top: Ocean buoys track rising temperatures, but data interpretation can exaggerate warming claims (right).
Read more at American Thinker
Over the past 20 years, approximately 4,000 scientific papers have been written using data from the Argo program, which has been a significant contributor to ocean and climate research.
why is it assumed that one of these 4000 papers is right and the others are wrong?
article presents the usual conservative delusion
that everything the IPCC says is wrong
and every measurement they use is wrong
the average 1970s climate model
when programmed with actual CO2 increases
since the 1970s predicted
+0.2 C degree warming per decade
actual surface warming since the 1970s
was +0.2° C per decade
= the models on average were correct
(UAH satellite warming
was +0.16° C per decade
since 1979)
conservative writers have been lying about this fact since 2013
conservative writers have been lying about this fact since 2013
Satellite Cross-Validation:
Independent estimates of EEI from space-based tools, such as the CERES (Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System) and satellite altimetry/gravimetry, show strong agreement with in situ Argo data.
argo has very little data
for the 50% of ocean volume
below 2000 meters,
so they are incomplete data
Conservatives do not believe everything the IPCC says is wrong. For instance the IPCC acknowledges that extreme weather events are not increasing. Other groups say the same thing.
Since the Obama administration researchers have received millions of dollars to produce political correct papers. It is well know that if an author did not come to the “correct” conclusion on climate change they would receive no more funding. Some have estimated that the funding gap between what was available to those who supported the climate change narrative and those who did not was a thousand to one. That is why the liberals were so up set that President Trump ended the federal funding. In addition, the journals that publish the papers maintain censorship and refuse to publish anything that doesn’t support the climate change movement. The funding and censorship of the papers create a fraud supporting the climate change movement. Then people like Richard Greene believe it is valid to use this fraud so support the climate change narrative.
In citing 4000 papers Richard is again using the concept of consensus. As stated many times on this site, consensus has no place in real science.
Prior to the year 2000 the 102 temperature model average was fairly close to satellite data. Today the models are running hot in comparison to the satellite data. I attribute this to political motivation were the algorithms and input data were adjusted to better support the climate change narrative.