The trillion dollar guess and the zombie theory - Climate Change: The Facts - page 115

could have caused the pause. 19 Likewise, volcanoes could have cooled the Earth lately
with aerosol particulates 20 (although peak volcanic aerosols were higher in the 1980s and
1990s. 21 ) A new force called 'natural variability' has been invoked too. But no one can
quite explain why nature only cools the world and never causes the warming.
Likewise, it's also possible that the missing heat could have gone to the deep ocean.
But what if it didn't? Awkwardly, since 2004 the oceans are rising slower than previously,
despite all that CO 2 . 22 One study claimed the ocean has warmed by 240 sextillion joules
since 1955, which sounds a lot more exciting than it is. 23 It translates to just 0.09°C
in 50 years, and it's a rather brave and ambitious claim that we can measure the ocean
temperatures to one hundredth of a degree even today, let alone in 1960. As far as
measurements go, we left the Dark Ages of ocean heat with the 2003 ARGO program—a
global array of more than 3,000 free-drifting profiling floats that measure the temperature
and salinity of the upper 2000 metres of the ocean. Now there is almost one thermometer
for each 200,000 cubic km of ocean. Is this what 95 per cent certainty looks like?
As it is, the ARGO data that has come in is like the thermometers on the surface, like
sea-level measures, and like radiosondes in the upper atmosphere it doesn't show as much
heat as the models predicted.
Instead of saying 'the pause' fits with 'missing energy' which fits with 'missing sea
level rises' the excuses pile on excuses. What happened to the missing sea level rise?
Apparently the ENSO effect dumped it on Australia. 24 So sea levels need adjustment too.
When the data doesn't fit, we don't adjust the model, but we do adjust the data. What bad
luck—all the major instruments are cold biased. What are the odds?
In any case, excuses for the pause don't solve the other flaws. The models not only fail
on global scales, but on regional, local, short term, 25 polar, 26 and upper tropospheric scales
too. 27 Theyfailonhumidity,rainfall,droughtandtheyfailonclouds. 28 Thecommontheme
is that models don't handle water well. A damn shame on a planet covered in water.
These doctors of dead science were surely given wings by a religious faith in their own
insight. Only the true believers could believe thousands of instruments are biased against
them (and in the same direction) and know that their 95 per cent certainty hides in the deep
abyss.Thescience'maybesettled'indeed,butitsettledsomewhereintheMarianaTrench.
95 per cent certainty means 'discrepancies', 'surprises' and 'inconsistencies'
These same people, below, endorse the 95 per cent certainty. Here are their words on the
differences between modelled andobservedtrendsonthemostinfluential feedback system
in the climate models: