Tag: climate simulations

1880-2020 Trends in Ocean Heat Uptake, Thermal Expansion Challenge Human Forcing Claims

In a new study scientists have acknowledged the modeled assumptions forecasting nature’s response to the presumed human-driven radiative forcing of ocean heat uptake, thermal expansion, and sea level rise rates do not align well with observations from recent decades.

A scenic view of the ocean with sunlight reflecting on the water's surface and dramatic clouds in the sky.

From No Trick Zone

By Kenneth Richard

Fundamental assumptions in projections of alarming, CO2-induced global warming in the coming decades are undermined by a new long-term energy budget analysis.

In a new study scientists have acknowledged the modeled assumptions forecasting nature’s response to the presumed human-driven radiative forcing of ocean heat uptake, thermal expansion, and sea level rise rates do not align well with observations from recent decades.

A diagram illustrating the global ocean heat uptake rate from 1880 to 2020, featuring multiple graphs representing various studies on effective radiative forcing and Earth's radiative response.
Image Source: Wu et al., 2025

The apparent misalignment is especially pronounced during 2000-2020 (Fig. 2 in the image), as the assumed uptick in radiative forcing (which is said to be a consequence of rising human CO2 emissions) was not accompanied by a sharp increase in Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI). Instead, the assumed forcing values are 50% greater than EEI estimates during this period.

When the entire 1880-2020 period is considered, it is notable that the fraction of forcing that delivers heat energy to the Earth has been (much) smaller in recent decades than in the first half of the 20th century despite the assumed cause of the forcing (human CO2 emissions) being several times larger since about 1980.

Consider that from 1910 to 1945 human CO2 emissions remained relatively flat at ~1 GtC/year, but then emissions rose to ~6 GtC/year by 1990 and to nearly 10 GtC/year by the 2010s. Despite this dramatic increase in the assumed radiative forcing from CO2 emissions, the heat uptake (Fig. 1 and S6), thermal expansion (Fig. S17), and sea level rise rates (Fig. S17) were nearly as pronounced in 1910-1945 as they were from 1980-2010. In fact, there was a decline in the heat uptake, thermal expansion, and sea level rise rates from 1945 to 1975 despite the coincident sharp increase in CO2 emissions during this period.

“We find two distinct phases in the global energy budget. In 1880–1980, Earth’s energy imbalance closely followed the radiative forcing. After 1980, however, Earth’s energy imbalance increased at a slower rate than the forcing; in 2000–2020, the imbalance amounted to less than 50% of the forcing.”

Since nearly all projections of catastrophic global warming, ocean heat uptake, and thermal-expansion-driven sea level rise are rooted in the presupposition that dramatic increases in radiative forcing from rising CO2 emissions will lead to pronounced increases in the EEI, scientists are now indicating we may not sufficiently understand these processes and thus we need to consider further study.

“Because the global energy budget before and after 1980 implies very different global warming in the future, further studies are required to better understand the cause of this historical variation.”

Graph depicting the global energy budget and ocean heat uptake rates from 1880 to 2020, illustrating sea-level rise contributions from thermal expansion and ocean mass change.
Image Source: Wu et al., 2025

Peak hyperbole: Government leaks anonymous rumours of “intense”, “dire”, “diabolical” new secret climate modeling

In a new PR tactic, the Labor government has leaked that it has “held back” an intense and scary report. This means the Blob-Media can put out frightening headlines about how dire the report is (and none of those horrid critics can ridicule the assumptions).

A high-tech control room labeled 'Ministry of Climate Panic,' featuring multiple screens displaying data, with several individuals in suits monitoring the information.

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

A serious man in a suit sits at a desk with a crystal ball, surrounded by scrolls and a computer, under a banner labeled 'Ministry of Climate Panic'.

Could it get more vacuous? We used to think climate simulations were bad. Now we don’t even have the modeling, we have unverified, imaginary, rumors of modeling…

In a new PR tactic, the Labor government has leaked that it has “held back” an intense and scary report. This means the Blob-Media can put out frightening headlines about how dire the report is (and none of those horrid critics can ridicule the assumptions).

This new extended version of vague “non-releases” allows the Ministry of Climate Panic to get in a few extra weeks of baseless media speculation, hyperbole and uninformed discussion. Furthermore the Greens can pretend to be relevant by demanding its release, as if they want transparency, and as if the government is “covering up” the climate disaster while they actually promote it. It’s a win-win for the Blob.

Headline from the Financial Review: 'Labor keeps 'dire' climate report under wraps'

The reason for the tabloid theatre is that next month the Australian government is announcing new sacred emissions targets for UN Climate Piety and Net Zero goals by 2035. Hence if there actually was a climate crisis, and if Australia could make any meaningful contribution to solving it, the report should have been released late last year when “the modeling was done”. Instead, like a Hollywood movie release, the leaked secrets have been not-dropped a month ahead, just in time to wind up the crowd without allowing for any meaningful scrutiny. Just like the original emissions target, which was “held back” instead of being released before the election.

Obviously, if the modeling was bad AND convincing, they would have released it all months ago.

From the Australian Financial Review: we have “anonymous” sources

Sources familiar with the modelling, who asked for anonymity to speak about sensitive government information, described some of the scenarios outlined in the report – known as the National Climate Risk Assessment – as “dire”, “diabolical” and “extremely confronting”.

The report’s modelling has been largely complete since late 2024 and stakeholder groups have been repeatedly notified about its imminent publication.

What Stakeholders have been notified? It seems everyone who expects to score money from this has been told about it, and everyone who has to pay for it doesn’t count. In this case “stakeholders” means people in on the grift. Not people who have a “stake” in the outcome.

A woman and her dog paddle past a fire risk sign in Maitland, New South Wales, showing increased fire risk due to flooding in the area.
The Guardian

Why “hide” the dire report?

Wait for it…  the excuse for holding back a science report about a coming catastrophe is that there is a big budgetary shock coming which will be “severe”. Presumably they are afraid people will have heart attacks and they haven’t got enough epipens and defibrillators or something:

A major reason for the hesitation to release the assessment is related to the budgetary implications of the associated adaptation measures required by the government, which are expected to be severe, the sources said.

Is anyone buying this? “We’re hiding news of the tidal wave to protect you from the budgetary shock”?

In a nation of adults, the Investor Group on Climate Change has been forewarned, but not the farmers, landowners, firefighters and taxpayers. So the industry reps for 100 Superannuation Funds (the pension funds) have been forewarned, but not the fourteen million employees who are forced to put their money into these funds, and whom, supposedly the funds, and the government are supposed to serve.

Clearly the government are winding us up to expect very tough carbon emissions targets. Will the opposition get its act together before Anthony Albanese sells out the nation in a vainglorious race to “win” the right to host a pointless UN conference of private jet flying lecturing celebrities?