Dr. Patrick Michaels, former Virginia State Climatologist has some strong comments about climate models during an interview with Mark Levin:
“It is nowhere near as warm as it’s ‘supposed’ to be,” says climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels. “The computer models are making systematic, dramatic errors.”
There are 32 different computer models used to predict the climate, all of them run by government entities. And all of those models, except for the Russian model, are predicting far, far too much warming. The Russian model pretty much matches reality.
Because they are “parameterized” (fudged), says Michaels. “We put in code steps that give us what we think it ‘should’ be.” The models were ‘tuned.’ “We forced the computer models to say, aha! human influence, CO2 and other stuff.”
The models “tell us what we wanted to see,” says Michaels. The models have been tuned “to give an anticipated, acceptable range of results.”
Phony models?
In order to clarify what he is hearing, interviewer Mark Levin paraphrases Michaels: “so you’re telling us that we have a massive bit of public policy that has an enormous effect on society that is built on phony models.”
Michaels nods his head ‘yes.” “It’s built on a house of cards,” says Michaels.
I wonder if they will draw and quarter him or just hang him after tar and feathering him.
They’ve previously tried to have his doctorate revoked.
As its a Russian model don’t you mean tsar and feathering?
Tonyb
You get my internet star for the day sir.
GROOOOAAAANNNNNN
This fellow just committed the equivalent of blasphemy. He calls into question the fundamental validity of the much-lauded “climate models” which are “informing policy” in Western Democracies (developed, functional countries) across all hemispheres.
If the UN were a respectable caliphate, they would have him stoned in the town plaza tomorrow morning.
Maybe they will give him the Giardano warm-up?
I believe the Earth has around 6 hemispheres…it’s sort of like the number of human sexes.
Only two hemispheres (kind of defined by the prefix hemi).
Only two sexes.
Lots of confused people with multiple gender issues.
But I agree with your sentiment…
Now there IS a third sex.
All those people to whom deserve the Euphemism
Go ____ (thank) Yourself are obviously of a third sex to be able to accomplish that particular task
Mostly they are able to suppress contrary views and criticism (you won’t even see it in mainstream media) but if necessary they have a list of approved scientists to muddy the waters. Of course if you’re in the system you will find your budget slashed, grant applications rejected, work conditions made untenable: there’s plenty of techniques that don’t attract any outside attention – and after twenty years of it they pretty much control the faculty (since it was a technique already in use to promote or impose leftist ideas it was simple to adapt for climate alarm)
“since it was a technique already in use to promote or impose leftist ideas it was simple to adapt for climate alarm”
No adaptation needed – climate alarm _is_ a leftist idea!
Unfortunately, Mr. Michaels is confused.
There WAS fudge.
There WERE models.
And there WERE government bureaucrats with science degrees.
Here’s how the Official Fudging Process*** works.
*** Known internally as the global average temperature compilation process:
(1)
The government bureaucrats sit around a conference table eating fudge.
(2)
They decide if they want to make the same scary climate prediction (“hottest year on record”) as they made the prior year.
(3)
The usual comment is: “Why not, no one ever checks to see of we were right ?
(4)
The person who gets the last piece of fudge (aka “the fudge game loser”) gets responsibility for determining how many hundredths of a degree C. the current year will be warmer than the prior year.
(5)
The Global Circulation Model is programmed to get that result, and then “the fudge game loser” has to write the press release.
Of course everyone here knows computers do what the programmers tell them to do, and GCMs, therefore, are just stating the personal opinions of the people who own & program them.
The answer lies with Karl Popper
https://rogerfromnewzealand.wordpress.com/2018/05/09/ever-been-told-that-the-science-is-settled-with-global-warming-well-read-this-and-decide-for-yourself/
Cheers
Roger
The outcome is what the “researchers” want it to be. I had enough of that hoax when I was going for a Ph.D. in economics. I finally realized that most of what published economists put out is garbage. Looks to me like “climate scientists” are much the same in outlook and conduct.
So the Russian INM-CM4 is still the only model not producing fantasy? Could it be that the Russian government has not bought into CAGW?
Some Russians climatologists have been predicting three to even four decades of global coiling predicated on the oncoming Dalton Minimum. Imagine that!
IIRC Russian scientists made a prediction about 20 years ago, maybe a bit less, of significant cooling starting around 2020 – 2030 or there abouts lasting decades. Seems to me they were not far off the mark.
Not global coiling!!!!!!
EeeeeeeeeeK…….Run for the hills!!! 🙂
I, for one, welcome our new ophidian overlords! 😉
Learn how to make Wadka a little Russian Antifreeze to stay warm on the inside
The Milankovitch cycle is also trending down longer-term, altho’ there will likely be a warming period ~ 2024-2028, if the cycle holds. This then will be the catastrophists’ last chance to bleat about global warming before another, multi-decadal Pause or possibly even some cooling. Perhaps that is what is behind the green meme that the “climate crisis” will come to a head by 2030 — when what what will actually end is warming driven by orbital mechanics.
If we have warming through 2028, that’s a lot of time to do economic damage with wasteful, misguided spending. If things like carbon taxes and wealth transfers are widely institutionalized, it will take more than a 20-year cooling/pause cycle to convince the True Believers that they were wrong.
The Russian Model is also dubious for very different reasons.
The other models all roughly agree with each other but not at all with reality so they clearly prioritise being part of the consensus rather than being useful. They are not real science; they are consensus science.
The Russian Model is not consensus science but I still have my doubts.
When I go the races and meet a guy who gets 5 out of 7 winners right I think he knows his stuff. But the guy who gets 7 out of 7 is an expert.
Next time the expert gets 7 out of 7 again and I tell my friends all about the prodigy.
The third time he gets 7 out of 7 again and I bask in my knowledge of his knowledge.
But after that, when he gets 7 out of 7 I start to worry.
He’s either Past-The-Posting or fixing the races.
In climate terms, Russia doesn’t control the weather (or they would have better weather) so they are Past-The-Posting.
No-one knows anything useful. So prepare to adapt to what eventually happens.
They are building nuclear icebreakers and we are contemplating Arctic summer vacation spots.6
Tom
The Russian Government certainly has not bought into large investments in renewable energy, as an easy Google search will show.
This does not mean that the Russians have rejected Global Warming as an impending crisis, but rejecting renewables is easily consistent with Global Warming rejection.
Much of the acceptance of Global Warming by other countries came from strong support from their Learned Societies. If these Societies conducted honest, unbiased studies of the Science, instead of reliance on the off-the-cuff comments of a few of their bureaucratic office holders repeating dogma, the world would be a better place now. Geoff S
Russia stands to benefit from global warming more than just about any other country if, in fact, the higher latitudes do warm as predicted. As far as energy is concerned, they’ll be just fine. Tapping the Arctic oil fields (which is what their nuclear barge will support) is just one facet. They’ll also deploy nuclear with much less fuss than anyone else, because they have the know-how, public resistance is never a factor there, and they own 20% of U.S. uranium.
I can’t imagine Putin leading Russia to spend money to keep it cold in Russia, for the benefit of other countries. Whether they are bought in to the CAGW idea or not, they’re not going to be making any sacrifices.
It’s collusion. We need a Special Counsel to investigate it for 650+ days with over 500 witnesses.
And don’t forget, we get force-fed results for RCP 8 – “business as usual”
There is more than one Russian model.
I’ve been following all the Russian models for years:
[SNIP – WILDLY OFF-TOPIC SPAM – stop it. Anthony]
Michaels nods his head ‘yes.” “It’s built on a house of cards,”… BOOM! Michaels drops the mike and walks off…
Sorry, computer models are NOT science. I DO believe in science. REAL science. Climate Computer models are the tools of advocacy. Nothing more. Perhaps when they are “tuned” to replicate REALITY … they might become actual tools than can contribute to our climate knowledge and understanding.
The general public still hears the word “computer” … and think it means “infallibility” … thinks it means “perfection”. Rubbish. Garbage in – garbage out.
Models are part of most science as well as virtually all engineering in existence today. E = MC squared is a model. All equations are models. Models are like anything else in science, life, math, or engineering – there are effective models, and there are ineffective models. They can be used or il-used.
“Model” is not a bad word.
Bad science is bad science.
Models are part of most science as well as virtually all engineering in existence today. E = MC squared is a model. All equations are models.
BUT models which predict future climates have a crucial difference with equations such as E=MC^2. Most engineering is not done using unverified hypotheses, which climate models are, and you’d better be pretty damn glad that the bridges you drive on are not. THAT would be bad science.
Good science can be replicated in the lab. Climate predictions – and particularly its corollaries such as “scientists agree that global warming is anthropogenic within a 97% range of probability” – can’t. All those 32 different models will remain unverified until their 100 years are up.
Models are incapable of predicting anything.
If “models” are functioning correctly, they are only capable of “simulating” the potential results of the modeler’s input parameters/criteria.
Thus, be wary of, ……. GIGO.
Models are only necessary to “fog” the issue and provide cover for the decision-maker.
All models are used to predict future performance of some thing, or system. Otherwise there is no need for a model.
Engineering models are used to engineer virtually everything that is engineered, and predicts the future performance based upon the model itself, which is based on scientific observations and data collected.
All models involve uncertainty. In engineering, the uncertainty that all models have is accounted for by using “factors of safety”. Engineers don’t design systems with factors of safety that are close to 1.0. Depending upon the consequences of a failure, which can range from “minor annoyance” to “catastrophic loss of life and destruction of system”, as well as based upon the precision and scatter of data used to calibrate the model, the FS may vary from only a little more than 1.0 to many multiples of 1.0.
Again, a lot of people who are climate alarmism skeptics have a misperception that models are bad, that models are a substitute for science and engineering. Models are absolutely essential to science and engineering – they are what help us understand how stuff works, and what kind of performance we can anticipate from a particular design of a component or system.
But like everything else in life, models can be used as well as mis-used. Even a relatively poor or imprecise model can have engineering value, if its limitations are well understood and a sufficient safety factor is applied. The problem with just increasing the safety factor is that it makes designs excessively conservative and expensive to build.
Think of the Great Pyramid of Giza – it is 450 feet tall, and has stood for 4,500 years without collapsing. The engineering model used by the Egyptians to design and build the Great Pyramid was extremely crude, and the resulting design was expensive as heck requiring millions of tons of rock and decades of labor to build it. And it only housed a single Pharoah’s tomb, and served no other social function.
In the 21st century we are now building towers rising to near 3,000 feet tall, requiring but a tiny fraction of the mass of the Great Pyramid, and the buildings contain tens of thousand of square feet of highly useful office and residential and commercial space, serving tens of thousands of persons, and can be built in but two or three years at far less cost than a pyramid.
All because of better models, and better data, and better materials, and as a result of all that, far better engineering.
Duane – July 3, 2019 at 5:57 am
“The engineering model used by the Egyptians to design and build the Great Pyramid was extremely crude, and …….”
The above excerpted statement explains the rambling tripe n’ piffle of your posted comment.
Next time, do some research on topics you wish to comment on.
Climate models are no different than other models used in science. The problem is that they are never validated using unbiased observations. Real science only accepts a model after it has been shown to predict actual outcomes in every (not just most) situation in which it applies. The differences between predictions and outcomes were sufficient to demonstrate that most climate models were incorrect (along with the underlying theory) decades ago.
Chaotic systems cannot be modeled successfully. There are too many variables to code into the start point of the program. “Climate” is a coupled group of chaotic systems.
Consider just the H2O component in the atmosphere: Its percentage, by volume, varies from place to place on the globe with an unpredictable variance over time. It may be liquid, solid or gas, depending on both altitude and distance from the Equator.
Since radiation absorption and reflectivity vary by physical state, the “average” status of H2O in a cubic mile of atmosphere tells you nothing.
Oceans present a different, but equally complex, set of constantly shifting variables.
These are the two most significant chaotic sub-systems, and their interface is also chaotic.
I spent 40 years in system development and management. New, faster technology and innovative programming languages cannot overcome the realities of math and logic!
Facts are facts, …….. aren’t they, …. jiminindy?
Too bad the “clueless” continue to hang-on to their silly beliefs about how great “computer models” are.
Computer models are responsible for virtually every single thing that mankind engineers and builds today.
The clueless are the ones who don’t know what they don’t know.
Duane sez:
Computer models are responsible for virtually every single thing that mankind engineers and builds today.
The clueless are the ones who don’t know what they don’t know.
Patronizing at best. And irrelevant — climate prediction isn’t something engineered or built. Duh…..
‘Chaotic systems cannot be modeled successfully. There are too many variables to code into the start point of the program. “Climate” is a coupled group of chaotic systems.’
Ah but that’s the beauty of a chaotic system with too many variables to code. You can just stick a few into a computer and come up with a unified simple model. You’re all doomed!
It certainly has resonated and you can always parameterise the models to push the dooming out further into the future if it doesn’t do the dooming right away. You never want to put a fixed date on dooming. Besides we all know we’re doomed sometime so it’s comforting to know the dooming has been put off for a while and we’ve got one more chance before being doomed for certain. Should you unfortunately be doomed earlier than the predicted mass dooming it’s comforting to know everyone else will be doomed too as it’s no fun being doomed alone. That’s how dooming resonates.
Agreed. Also, if you could model a chaotic system, it would cease being chaotic.
That reminds me the commercial: The girl meets a guy on the line. He’s French, it was on the internet so it must be true.
Wrong Duane:
A prototype climate model that makes wrong predictions is a failed prototype model — it is not a real model of any climate change process on this planet — and the word “model” should not be used, unless it is preceded by the word “failed”, as in “failed model”.
A real global circulation model CAN NOT EXIST because there is no correct climate change physics model as it’s foundation.
Declaring, without scientific proof, that 4.5 billion years of natural climate change suddenly ended in the 20th century, and man made CO2 took over as the “climate controller”, is leftist science fraud — a CO2 is evil cult religion, not real science.
You’re generalizing, but we get what you’re saying. More specifically, computer models are used extensively to test theories and are a valuable tool to validate them, especially when you need to do a massive number of computations. But they are just models and if the model results are different than measured data, the models do not accurately mimic nature. You need to revise your theory and the model. The climate models do not accurately mimic nature and this has been known at least since it was noted in IPCC AR5 (2013) and probably long before. See here:
The problem is that the climatistas keep basing all their alarming claims on the climate models, quietly sweeping under the carpet the fact that they are inaccurate. To say that they are accurate is a flat-out lie and to base your science on them is a fraud.
In my work, I use multiple equations. Mostly written in computer language for ease of use. These equations have a basis in REALITY and in mathematics. They work perfectly at predicting results. They aren’t sophisticated computer “guesses”. Big difference.
Models reflect the modeler’s understanding of the underlying science, as well as their skill at applying mathematic modeling techniques.
If the understanding of the underlying science is either incorrect, or incomplete, then the modeling results are not useful or accurate.
It is not the modeling technique per se that is at fault, it is the understanding of the underlying science that is at fault.
Dismissing modeling – which is the most fundamental tool humans have for understanding and applying scientific and engineering principles to designing real world stuff – out of hand is nothing but Knownothingism and Luddism.
Ignorance is not a solution to challenging the climate alarmists .. all that does is feeds their constant claim that the skeptics are “science deniers”. Denying the usefulness of models is indeed science denial.
The correct approach and mindset is to challenge poor modeling efforts from the alarmists, and to devise and apply much better models that more accurately describe the natural world.
“[i]It is not the modeling technique per se that is at fault, it is the understanding of the underlying science that is at fault[/i].“
If the underlying science is at fault, then the modeling technique most likely is faulty also. Otherwise you could say it is highly likely that 20 monkeys could type Shakespeare’s works given enough time when the chance is really infinitely small.
Garbage in – garbage model – garbage out.
They have a place.
There are a couple of problems. I’ll deal with one. That problem is that the climate is a chaotic system. That means basically that it can’t accurately be predicted using a GCM type computer model. Period! In one of the IPCC reports, they actually admitted that but since then they haven’t done so.
Other than hand waving, there is no rigorous theoretical justification for using GCM computer models to predict the future climate.
On the other hand, for engineering work, there are dozens and dozens of valid and very useful computer models. People literally bet their lives on the accuracy of such models.
Engineering models are subject to verification and validation (V&V). Point you favorite search engine at the term and you will find masses of information on this subject in the archival literature. The kluges that are called GCMs have never been subjected to third party audits let alone rigorous V&V. The FAA has published volumes on how do do V&V of the engineering models used in the development and manufacture of air frames, jet engines, avionics and all else that leads to the production of the aircraft that the Climate Scientists™ use to travel to their conferences in desirable tourist destinations all over the world. Subject the GCMs to a thorough V&V or throw them out.
Some computer models are science. Climate computer models are not, though. The difference is in the ability to predict correctly.
Models are tools, they aren’t science.
Likewise a microscope is a tool used by scientists, but it isn’t itself science.
Science is not possible without its tool bag. Galileo without a telescope is what?
The missing links are infilled with brown matter.
Confirmed recently by a limited frame model of the cold tongue.
The 32 models are like an Archipelago of Cargo Cult science practicing natives. 32 separate islands of idiots, each dutifully adjusting their particular climate model, waiting for those cargo planes to land and off-load ‘Much Big climate warming’.
The island chief and senior priests of each island get together every few years in ‘Big PowWow’, drink lots of fermented juices and compare everyone’s model to their own. At the end of ‘Big PowWow’, they all say, “Those wondrous cargo planes carrying warmth will certainly land any day now.” They publish their junk cargo cult models as an ensemble for all the world to see and dutifully hand-over more treasures to the Archipelago for their next round of revisions.
CNN will run the other way on that one….at high speed.
Too bad for misinformed viewers, voters, and any uncertain leaders out there.
“And all of those models, except for the Russian model, are predicting far, far too much warming. The Russian model pretty much matches reality.”
It would be interesting if we could get our hands on the Russian models for review here in this forum.
Or just have a regularly updated posting of its monthly output here.
I like that idea (updated posting of monthly output) quite a bit. Wouldn’t it be nice if we could have a static page whose job was to represent the various model outputs? That would be nice.
The updated Russian model, INM-CM5 actually simulates the 2000-2014 “pause”.
Wait for this: The new CMIP-6 model suite is about to make its public debut…and people tell me it is WARMER than the previous CMIP-5. Be interesting to see what it does in the tropical troposphere.
Yes, I would love to get my hands on a Russian model.
It is 20 years past time to be blunt! Good on Dr. Patrick Michaels. Now is the time to step forward and put an end to the massive scam called Global Warming. It has persisted far too long. Bury it today!
Here’s another excellent interview with highly relevant Canadian content regarding the recently declared ‘climate emergency’ and the “racket” of mitigation efforts like large scale renewables, entitled ‘Climate Change Narrative is Driven by Agenda of Political Control’:
https://cei.org/content/video-climate-change-narrative-driven-agenda-political-control
Shocking…well not really. It’s very necessary that people of note such as Dr. Patrick Michaels continue to out the lies the mass public is being told.
When the climate modelers say they tune their models to obtain ECSs that are “about right,” you know they are modeling to get predetermined outcomes.
Anthropogenic Climate Change: “A knife without a blade, for which the handle is missing.”
+50
Good for him. I only wish more scientists would have the civil courage to call out this wholesale jettisoning of sound scientific principles known as the “climate science consensus”.
You’ll find he had a lot of professional company interviewed in “The Great Global Warming Swindle” video that was released over a decade ago and viewable at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIRICfZOvpY .
“..former Virginia State Climatologist…”
Former? I assume that he was the Virginia State Climatologist right up to the point where he decided to tell the truth…?
I think he might be retired.
No actually negotiating some contracts now.
Thank you, Dr. Michaels. I hope you keep a high-profile in continuing to combat the relentless disinformation masquerading as Science.
No, he has always been a skeptic and has never shied away from saying so. He has been regularly attacked by the ‘consensus’ for decades via the usual straw man, oil shill, fool, not a climate scientist, etc. arguments and survived it all.
As I recall, he was one of the first of several who were dismissed for dissenting back in the late 90s through early 2000s.
To add to this, there was Delaware’s David Legates and Oregon’s George Taylor, and David Stooksbury of Georgia. I’m pretty sure there were others, but I’m not sure who. This pattern surely had a chilling effect on further dissent and set the tone, throughout the Obama era, of government supporting only one side of the argument. With grant funding as the carrot, and outright dismissal as the stick, is it any wonder so few climatologists are willing to speak up?
Yeah, your right about the perils of not going along with the team, but then what are you really if you kowtow to the catechism.
Yes. We could do with a movement similar to the feminist “Me- too” movement. Sadly however very dangerous for those participating; so I doubt it would get off the ground.
Garranteed? anonymity would be helpful; but there is always the hacker lurking in the background.
In some respects the situation is a replay of the way heretics were dealt with in yester years.
Psion – here is an old, incomplete list:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/27/a-big-goose-step-backwards/#comment-1398189
Here is a list of those forced from their institutions by global warming thugs:
George Taylor – Oregon State Climatologist
Sallie Baliunas – Harvard University
Pat Michaels – University of Virginia
Murry Salby – Macquarie University, Australia
Caleb Rossiter – Institute for Policy Studies
Nickolas Drapela, PhD – Oregon State University
Henrik Møller – Aalborg University, Denmark
Bob Carter, James Cook University, Australia
Peter Ridd, James Cook University, Australia
Regards, Allan
Yes. He was fired by the green Democrat and general idiot Governor Kaine for not supporting the Henny Penny story.
Actually, that’s pretty much what happened. But the smoking gun is how he pressured UVa to pull the trigger. That’s just against the rules.
Bit by bit, little by little, the fraud is being exposed and another ridiculed “Trumpism” is proving true.
If 32 models give different predictions, then at least 31 of them are wrong. And most probably all 32 are wrong.
Climate “science” just takes the 32 wrong models and presents the average as the right answer.
https://holoceneclimate.com/climate-models.html
It is more of a foot note given the whole GHE is fudged. I just wonder how long it is going to take until people realize..
https://de.scribd.com/document/414175992/CO21
It’s the worst apocalypse. Ever.
It’s the vibe … https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMuh33BMZYY
PS. Travis T. Jones and the Missing Heat have a song for your amusement: No Global Warming Catastrophe
https://travistjones.bandcamp.com/track/no-global-warming-catastrophe
Cue Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt et al., to fire off ad-hominems in Patrick Michaels’ direction within a week.
Dont Schmidt and Mann look like Twins of (T)Error
Although I do speak some russian, I have no idea what the Russian model is is about, I bet that my single component model is just as good (r^2 = 0.85) but works only 10 years ahead.
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/CT4-GMF.htm
Model is based on a hypothesis with consistency of a lump of Swiss cheese, if interested it is briefly outlined here
http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/GCR-ClimateChange.htm
Didn’t George Washington tell us it was okay to tell climate lies as the one exception to his sayings?
These models can’t be more accurate and faithful :
– indeed, they regurgitate exactly what alarmists want them to regurgitate.
Note it is only the old pensioners who will come out and say the data being given is wrong – that it is being manipulated. Why? Because all the youngsters in this industry know it will be career-ending to stand up and say the same.
This is the whole reason this bandwagon keeps rolling – because it has internal momentum, and nobody inside the system dare stop it. So it is up to those outside the system to stop it.
Ralph