IPCC models have “run hot” for years. Past excuses included aerosols (dust, sulfates, sea salt, smoke, volcanic ash) masking CO₂-driven warming by reflecting sunlight.

When that didn’t fully explain the gap, the narrative shifted to the oceans absorbing ~90% of the “excess heat” from anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

This led to the Argo float network- thousands of drifting buoys that dive, measure temperature/salinity to ~2,000 m depth, surface, and transmit data via satellite.

Ponton cites a March 10, 2026, paper uploaded to Zenodo (and published in Science of Climate Change): “IPCC’s Earth Energy Imbalance Assessment is Based on Physically Invalid Argo-Float-Based Estimates of Global Ocean Heat Content” by J. Cohler, D.R. Legates, K.C. Green, O. Humlum, F. Soon, and W. Soon.

The core allegation is that the IPCC’s Earth Energy Imbalance (EEI) estimate (~0.7 W/m² planetary heat uptake) and derived global ocean heat content (OHC) figures are not actual physical measurements. Instead, they are computational artifacts created by the statistical gridding, extrapolation, and averaging methods applied to sparse Argo data. The authors call this a “category error”- treating derived numerical constructs as if they directly represent real-world energy changes.

The article concludes that repeated “excuses” erode trust, portraying the IPCC as more ideologically driven than scientifically rigorous.

Climate data and modeling remain contested on sensitivity, feedback, and attribution details- not the basic greenhouse effect itself. Ongoing scrutiny, better observations, and transparent methods serve science better than any narrative of settled dogma or perpetual hoax.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Another IPCC ‘dog ate my homework’ excuse laid to rest

From The American Thinker

By Bill Ponton

Pattern recognition (of category error) at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models have always run hot, predicting more surface warming than measurements are able to confirm. 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 to 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 near 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 come to the conclusion that it is primarily an ideologically-driven political body.