Bad models, bad data and clear agenda-Watvat?

Abstract

The global average sea surface temperature (GMST) is a basic diagnosis of climate change, but has an incomplete understanding of the number of changes in many years of warming and annual changes. Since 1985, using satellite observations and combining statistical models that combine variability and variable driving factors, we have determined the increase in GMSST's rise speed. This accelerated ocean surface warming is related to the upward trend of Earth's energy imbalance (EEI). We quantified each GJ M GMST increased by 0.54 ± 0.07 k^{– 2} Cumulative energy, equivalent to 0.17 ± 0.02 k ten years^{– 1} (W M².^{– 1}Essence Use the statistical model to separate the trend from changes in age. The basic change rate of GMSSST is from 0.06 K for ten years from 0.06 K^{– 1} From 1985-89 to 0.27 k ten years^{– 1} 2019-23. Although the variability related to the southern oscillating of El Nino triggers GMSST, which is abnormally high in 2023 and early 2024, 44 % of the +0.22 K difference between +0.22 k different from the peak value of 2023/24 (90 % confident interval: 35 % – 52 %) incidents and events in 2015/16 cannot be explained, unless the GMSST trend accelerates. According to the recent trend, the application of EEI in the future, the increase in GMSS may be faster than the linear inference in the past 40 years. Our results provide evidence of observation, indicating that the increase in GMSSST, which inferred in the past 40 years, may exceed the next 20 years. Policy makers and wider society should realize that in recent decades, the speed of warming globe has been a bad guide for the faster changes in the next decades, which highlights the urgency of the deep reduction of fossil fuel burning. Essence

https://iopScience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/adaa8a

Of course, the news reports are ready to publish the embargo.

Marine ground warming is four times faster than the late 1980s

As the level of greenhouse gas continues to rise, the ocean temperature rises

Our marine surface is four times faster than the late 1980s

On the other hand, another climate “crisis” announced by scientists seems to be more interested in promoting policies, rather than strict, fair science. The latest entry of this alarm parade comes from businessmen and others. They claim that they have Prove Due to the Energy Energy Energy (EEI), the temperature (SST) accelerates at an amazing speed. Their solution? The conventional-reduction and severe reduction of fossil fuel use. However, before we succumbed to the order of modern civilization to the climate activist, let's study this article carefully to see if its conclusions are concluded.

Spoiler: They don't.

The card house is built on uncertain data

The basis of the arguments of merchants and others is that the warrior of the earth is faster than before, which is caused by energy imbalance. question? The data they use to conclude that this conclusion is full of uncertainty.

They are seriously dependent on satellite observation to measure EEI, that is, the imbalance between the transmitted solar radiation and the calories. However, they publicly admit that the absolute accuracy of these measurements is Not accurate enough to detect the imbalance of ~ 1 W/m² Full of confidence. In other words, they try to measure a trend Smaller than using the error in the instrumentEssence This one alone is enough to refute this research.

But the situation became worse.

Because the data is unreliable, they use agent data and modeling mixtures to estimate it with EEI by “rebuilding” by 2000. This means that nearly half of the data set is not even observed directly Guess of modelingEssence However, they use it to claim that they can measure Through the trend of many years You can be sure.

accelerate? Or does the magic?

If you want to find an acceleration, you may find it-especially if you design a statistical model to ensure the results. This is the businessman and others. Do it.

They tested three models to explain the temperature trend of the sea surface:

1. Linear warming model -The forecast stable and slow trends.
2. Secondary model -From an acceleration trend.
3. EEI -driven model -In use their highly uncertain EEI data to “explain” why warming will accelerate.

It is not surprising that they find that the most suitable model of the acceleration is first they want to prove. This is not science, it is Camouflage for research circulation reasoningEssence

What they do not do is to consider the alternative interpretation of temperature changes in the sea surface. Natural marine cycle Pacific 10 -year oscillation (PDO) and Ocean for many years (amo) Temperature fluctuations can be promoted at the scale scale. These are well -founded, but businessmen and others. Fully ignore them, and prefer to attribute each part of each part to human emissions.

Exaggerate future warming to the greatest extent

Then, the author adopted a suspicious acceleration trend and inferred that it promoted forward to claim that the future ocean warming will Far far exceeding the previous estimateEssence They built three situations:

1. Popularity -EEI continues to rise, causing catastrophic warming.
2. Ease -The warming is still accelerating, but not so fast.
3. ease -Even if it is cut off, warming will still be accelerated.

This is just a glorious version Climate World Doomsday scene script-But a model with acceleration, insert any assumptions about future emissions, and produce the worst predictions, and these predictions are exactly in line with the climate policy agenda.

Ignore contradictions that are uncomfortable

This study claims that EEI has been rising Around 2010 This is pushing SST acceleration. But they also admit Human -soluble reduction (that is, clean air) May be responsible for some trends observed. If pollution is reduced to allow more sunlight to reach the ocean, it does not mean that the war warming in the past is Be suppressed Is it out of control through pollution, rather than proved to be driven by CO -driven?

If that's true, that's not The climate model has always overestimated the role of CO型Intersection Merchants and other. It is easy to ignore these contradictions because they do not support their accelerated narrative.

The real purpose of this research: climate policy, not science

The biggest danger signal in this article is the final conclusion of the author:

“Policy makers and a broader society should realize that in recent decades, the speed of warming global warming is a bad guide for the faster changes in the next decades, which emphasizes the profound reduction of fossil fuel burning.”

Pay attention how they Jump from scientific claims to policy needs Don't hesitate? This is the real goal of this article: creating an emergency climate crisis, which proves serious intervention.

The alternative interpretation of warming observed was not mentioned.
There is no uncertainty in the method.
Do not consider the cost or consequences of its proposed policy.

It is just a predetermined conclusion that covers scientific rigor.

Final judgment: garbage science serving action doctrine

This article is not an objective scientific analysis, it is Promoting files for camouflage as researchEssence It relies on the uncertain data, manipulates the statistical model to strengthen the preferred narrative, and exaggerates future warming to scare the CareManter decision maker.

The fact is that in view of the uncertainty involved, We didn’t see any reasons worthy of attentionEssence The climate has been fluctuating, and the slight changes in the temperature of the sea surface are It belongs to natural mutationEssence The only acceleration here is The despair of climate activist Keep their funds and political influence intact.

Next time you see the title of difficulty breathing “Accelerate the warmth of the ocean”Remember: Bad models, prejudice assumptions, and agenda -drive science are the real driving force behind these claims, not reality.

Related