Climate models are fudged, says climatologist – Video

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.

165 thoughts on “Climate models are fudged, says climatologist – Video

  1. I wonder if they will draw and quarter him or just hang him after tar and feathering him.

    • 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.

      • 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 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.

  2. 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.

      • 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”

  3. Michaels nods his head ‘yes.” “It’s built on a house of cards,”… BOOM! Michaels drops the mike and walks off…

  4. 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.

        • BUT models which predict future climates have a crucial difference with equations such as E=MC^2.

          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:

      https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/FigTS-14-3.jpg

      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.

    • … computer models are NOT science …

      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.

      • Models are tools, they aren’t science.
        Likewise a microscope is a tool used by scientists, but it isn’t itself science.

  5. 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.

  6. CNN will run the other way on that one….at high speed.

    Too bad for misinformed viewers, voters, and any uncertain leaders out there.

  7. “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.

      • 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.

  8. 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!

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. Anthropogenic Climate Change: “A knife without a blade, for which the handle is missing.”

  12. 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”.

  13. “..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…?

        • 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.

  14. Bit by bit, little by little, the fraud is being exposed and another ridiculed “Trumpism” is proving true.

  15. Cue Michael Mann, Gavin Schmidt et al., to fire off ad-hominems in Patrick Michaels’ direction within a week.

  16. Didn’t George Washington tell us it was okay to tell climate lies as the one exception to his sayings?

  17. These models can’t be more accurate and faithful :

    – indeed, they regurgitate exactly what alarmists want them to regurgitate.

  18. 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

    • Indeed, excellent example of the junk science mantra :

      “If the data do not fit the models, fudge the data.”

    • After reading the article, and their throwing away bad ARGO floats etc., I came to think about the water’s max density at 4°C. How much of the ocean is warmer than 4°C and how much is colder, and how does that influence the thermal expansion?

      • Thermal expansion is one of those issues that seems to be accepted at face value when it’s probably a whole lot less than what it’s claimed to be. For example, if the Gulf of Mexico heats up, does that affect sea level in San Francisco? Well no, it wouldn’t*, but you can bet that local areas are thrown into the calculations for average ocean temperature when you’re being told that the estimated rate of thermal expansion, or thermosteric sea level rise is so many millimeters per year.

        * Some people probably think it would.

      • Catch here is that 4C max density for water is only fully true for the nearly pure water in a chemistry lab. Actual fresh water is close enough. For salt water, it isn’t nearly as true. The thermal expansion curve is also different for 3% saline water versus laboratory ‘pure’ water. These kinds of errors never seem to be addressed nor properly propagated.

  19. See my previous guest posts, ‘The trouble with models’ and ‘Why models run hot’ for details.

  20. Patrick Michaels is an employee of CATO Institute, which is not mentioned in the blurb. as such, he is most likely biased due to CATO’s majority funding from oil and coal companies.

    and the idea that models are uncertain? well, duh! they are _models_! (sorry, I’m a systems engineer by training. this is obvious to anyone with training and experience in modeling – be it climate, computer systems, military operations, whatever).

    • Typical, can’t refute the evidence, so you attack the messenger.

      Thank your for admitting that you have already lost.

    • chris
      You said Michaels “is most likely biased.” I think that you are playing fast and loose with logic. He MAY be biased, and the probability of bias is likely to be higher than for someone with no financial involvement. But, there is no certainty, and, therefore, it should just be cause for a higher level of scrutiny. In any event, his argument(s) should stand on its/their own merits, and not be dismissed by what is essentially an ad hominen attack. After all, academics have an incentive to publish results that agree with the consensus view, and to write grant proposals with the right ‘buzz words,’ but you don’t attack them for having a bias. You are displaying your particular bias.

      • It also hasn’t been shown that CATO gets most of it’s funding from oil companies.
        That’s just the standard claim that the acolytes role out when they can’t actually refute anything an opponent of theirs says.

    • Based on your “systems engineer” training, what do you call it when 31 of 32 models are consistently way off in the wrong direction?

      I call it, “most likely biased.”

      • When the climate models fail to track reality I call it a falsification of the AGW meme, because the excessive projections are all that AGW meme has to recommend itself upon in the first place.

        Natural variability, UHI and concerted deliberate systematic data record corruption accounts for the rest of the global WX ‘change’ fairly adequately, without too much bother with a non-condensing GHG trace gas effect, which is truly inconveniently rarefied to ineffectual.

    • Alarmists are funded big time by big oil. Most sceptics hardly at all. But that’s okay because “progressives” are on the proper side of the issue.

      https://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-big-lie-sceptics-funded-by-big-oil.html?m=1

      Chris, I dont ever get an answer to this question, but silence is the most eloquent affirmative answer one can get!

      “Are you as alarmed about Anthro catastrophic global warming today as you were a decade or two ago before the “Dreaded Pause”, before climategate, before Ipcc model predictions turned out to be running 300% too hot compared to observations….? Or not so much?

    • “Criteria for Selecting Climate Scenarios” IPCC 16 May 2011, Sourced from:
      http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_scen_selection.html
      This now gets a 404 Not Found – why are we not surprised. It might be retrievable from the Wayback Machine or similar. This is what it said:
      “Criterion 1: Consistency with global projections. They should be consistent with a broad range of global warming projections based on increased concentrations of greenhouse gases. This range is variously cited as 1.4°C to 5.8°C by 2100, or 1.5°C to 4.5°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (otherwise known as the “equilibrium climate sensitivity”).”
      The sensitivity nonsense was mandatory. It was hard-wired into the models. And all but one complied. Presumably the IPCC were unable to intimidate the Russians, but couldn’t leave out their model, so the actual model results are shown in pale grey, so maybe no one will notice that one down the bottom …

    • “chris July 2, 2019 at 2:41 pm

      (sorry, I’m a systems engineer by training.”

      Yeah! I have met a lot of people like you over the years. Lots of training, lots of paper qualifications, little real world experience, mostly useless.

  21. should have added this: “parametrized” is not “fudged” If I need to explain that, then the reader isn’t qualified to understand the difference.

    sheesh

    • Speaking of not understanding, parametrized is not the logical equivalent of “fudged”, however it is how the fudging is most easily introduced.

      • If they’re calibrated to a systematically ‘miraculously’ always cooler past than was actually observed (plus guided by the zeitgeist of UHI effect hysteria) they’re fudged.

  22. “Who you gonna believe, me or your own eyes?” – Chico Marx

    If “the models” (as if they are mysterious manifestations of alien culture) are so wrong, why is it so damn hot here in the National Capitol Area?

    Looking forward to M1 tanks sinking into melting tarmac in two days. … 🙂

    • We have got to raise some money so we can buy us a better class of troll.
      One hot area is proof of global warming? Really?

    • …If “the models” (as if they are mysterious manifestations of alien culture) are so wrong, why is it so damn hot here in the National Capitol Area?…

      If I need to explain that, then you aren’t qualified to understand why.

    • chris,

      You are confusing weather with climate. The climate has only seen an average increase in global temperature of about 1 deg C in the last century, with the majority of that in the Winter and at nights. That isn’t going to melt the tarmac!

      More importantly, the models are wrong because they don’t agree with the measured temperatures! How do you not understand that?

    • “If “the models” (as if they are mysterious manifestations of alien culture) are so wrong, why is it so damn hot here in the National Capitol Area?”

      There is a high-pressure weather system southeast of you that is pumping warm air into your area and into about half of the rest of the United States right now. No CO2 required.

    • “Looking forward to M1 tanks sinking into melting tarmac in two days.”

      Trump wants to put two APC’s and two Abrams tanks on display for the Fourth of July celebrations and the anti-American Democrats throw a fit. They are especially distubed about the military display because the anti-American Democrats are also anti-military. They hate Trump and they hate the U.S. military and Trump’s promotion of the military as a force for good in the world infuriates them.

      Anti-American Democrats. That’s what the Democrat Party has become. Don’t go by their words, because they will deny they are anti-American, but go by their deeds. That will tell you the truth.

      When the Democrats display their anti-Americanism, they should be publicly called on it. They should be called anti-American, because that’s what they are.

    • Chris sez:
      If “the models” (as if they are mysterious manifestations of alien culture) are so wrong, why is it so damn hot here in the National Capitol Area?

      Because you’re in an enormous sea of concrete, asphalt, cars, trucks & buildings, Einstein.

  23. ‘There are 32 different computer models used to predict the climate’

    Sorry. This is absurd.

    The earth has many climate regions. IT DOES NOT HAVE A CLIMATE. What the heck is ‘predict the climate’ supposed to mean?

    • Climate science is the only field of endeavor where you can be wrong everywhere, but still be right on average.

      PS: Even on average, they are wrong, but that’s the claim of the trolls.

      • MarkW July 2, 2019 at 3:24 pm

        Beware of averages. The average person has one breast and one testicle. Dixie Lee Ray

  24. The shrill shills for climate catastrophers have even swung away from the IPCC because of the post Pachari moderation of its views, so you can even use IPCC opinions on lack of changes in weather extremes and no connection with CO2 rise and the comedown in warming threshold worry at1.5C above 1850 by 2100 instead of 2C above 1950!

    Even if it is still exaggerated, its useful against the the new world gov apparat and good to assure ordinary folk that nothing bad is really going to happen.

    Essentially the worry is another rise of ~O.6C by 2100.

  25. “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.”

    Therein lies the reasons why climate model owners never seek to have theri models officially tested, verified and certified.

  26. Duane July 2. He is right about the word Model.

    Its the updated version of Joseph Stalin’s famous quote.

    “”It does not matter how many people vote, what does matter is who counts
    the votes. “”

    If a model is created to give a result the person making it wants, then its a
    false model, but that does not mean that all models are giving false results.

    The old saying, “”The proof of the pudding is in the eating”” comes to mind.

    MJE VK5EDLL

  27. I am always surprised by the ease at which people claim the models are wrong for reasons
    X, Y and Z. Given that the models are open source if you think a model is wrong for a particular
    reason then you can easily change the code and see if it makes a difference. Patrick Michaels
    would appear to have had 30 years to do just that while employed as a climatologist and he also
    seems to know precisely where the “fudge factors” are that makes the climate models inaccurate.
    Hence he would be doing the world a huge favour by correcting the models and showing how his
    improved model correctly predicts the global temperature.

    • Izaak,

      You make it sound trivial to wade into a million lines of poorly documented, Fortran spaghetti-code, written by a team of programmers, and then run it on your desktop computer.

      I have written short programs, which in the absence of detailed documentation, (because I didn’t think it necessary at the time), have proven so intractable a couple of years later that it was easier to start over with all new code. That isn’t practical with something like a million lines of code!

      Everyone acquainted with the modeling knows just where the problem areas are. One of the most significant is the inability to handle the energy exchanges in clouds, using the same spatial resolution as the rest of the measurements and solutions of the differential equations. That means, the clouds have to be handled by parameterization. That means, someone has to make some subjective decisions about how to simplify the energy exchanges. Part of the subjectivity involves trial and error: “That doesn’t look right! Let’s see what happens when I change this constant. There, that’s what I think it should be doing!” It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where the output of the models looks like what the modeler(s) think it should look like. It isn’t just all physics.

      • Clyde,
        it is not trivial but the fact remains that the statement that the climate models are wrong
        because of X can be tested by inspecting the source code locating the error, correcting it
        and demonstrating that the improved code gives better results.

        Suppose for example I make the counter claim that the models give inaccurate results
        because they use incorrect historical forcing. How would you judge between the two claims?
        The recent paper entitled “A limited role for unforced internal variability in 20th century warming.”
        used improved historical forcing and gets the average temperatures almost spot on. So it
        would seem that much of the difference between the models is due to the forcings and not
        the parametrisation.

        • It would be nice ‘n helpful if the 31 models that are clearly wrong were tossed out and not seen or used again in publication.

          Rubbish must go in the bin, or else it accumulates, then invites pests and stinkers to cohabit.

          Earth’s material palaeo-record shows that genuine planetary climate-change detection takes centuries to resolve.

          Furthermore, if a Russian model predicts cooling for a few decades I’m sorry but that’s just long-term weather cycle prediction and not an example of a working global climate model.

          Any way it’s cut, if 31 models are not consistent with reality, then what we SCIENTIFICALLY DO KNOW is that it will take centuries to detect a clear-cut global change of actual climate trend (which presumes any even substantially occurs within the period that is as there may be effectively little to none at all over the coming time interval).

        • Izaak
          If your proposal is other than trivial, than the barrier to implementation by an individual that is not a professional Fortran programmer, and acquainted with using super-computers, and has the funding to pay for a computational run, precludes doing it. Put another way, it is a theoretical answer that is impractical to implement. It is akin to saying that if a climatologist should want to know the temperature on the surface of the moon, all (s)he has to do is go to the moon and stick a thermometer into the lunar regolith. Simple solution!

          As to your alternative claim, has the single claim been replicated?

          • Clyde,
            If the barriers are so immense then why do you believe Patrick Michael when he says
            he knows why the climate models are all wrong? How does he know or is he just guessing?
            He makes the definite statement about why climate models are wrong and you appear to be saying that he is right but it is almost impossible to prove. And if Patrick Michael hasn’t done the work then surely he is just guessing and his claim has zero evidence.

        • Izaak Walton,

          You asked, “How does he know or is he just guessing?” That is an excellent riposte. I suppose one would have to ask him.

          However, the prima facie evidence is that the 31 models do a poor job of predicting temperatures, and an ever worse job of predicting precipitation. Therefore, it is obvious that there is SOMETHING wrong with the models. While the alarmists often claim that the models are based on physics, the reality is that while there is physics in the models, there is also subjective parameterization that can over-ride the physics. As I pointed out above, it is well-known that the energy exchanges involving clouds cannot be handled with first principles and have to be parameterized. Therefore, they are the most suspect. You are right that there isn’t any hard proof as to what the problem(s) is/are. [One would think that the modelers themselves would have explored this!] At one point in time I tried to find information on the Russian model and couldn’t come up with any. A comparison between the Russian model and the other 31 models is something that could be done without access to a super-computer and would be instructive.

          • Clyde,
            Again look at the most recent paper “A limited role for unforced internal variability in 20th century warming” by Haustein et al. They clearly show that using the best available forcings they can correctly simulate all of the 20th Century changes in average temperature. There is a discussion of it at real climate.org (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/06/unforced-variations-vs-forced-responses/) which shows their key results. There is no spurious warming in the climate model. So the claim that the “31 models are wrong” is outdated and even if correct Haustein’s work shows clearly that a major source of error is the use of incorrect forcings.

        • Izaak
          I gave your link to the article on forcings a cursory read. I don’t think it is worth my time to try to digest it completely. They remark, “… In contrast to those earlier studies, we were able to reproduce effectively all the observed multidecadal temperature evolution, including the Early Warming and the Mid-Century cooling, using known external forcing factors (solar activity, volcanic eruptions, greenhouse gases, pollution aerosol particles).”

          Prior to the satellite era, the solar activity (i.e. TOA insolation) was not well known. Indeed, it used to be called the “solar constant.” Similarly, volcanic eruptions were poorly known prior to the satellite era; even today we sometimes observe evidence of an eruption, but don’t know where or how large. Carbon dioxide wasn’t monitored routinely until 1959, and other greenhouse gases weren’t well characterized, again, until fairly recently. In short, actual measurements of the forcings didn’t occur until after about 1980! Therefore, between 1840 and 1980, they must be relying on estimates or proxies. So, any claim that they have improved our understanding of temperature changes by using better forcing data is not supported by the historical facts.

          The issue of the veracity of the climate models is best demonstrated by a graph that David Middleton has used numerous times showing the CMIP-5 results compared to the historical temperatures. I have similarly demonstrated that the model used by Hansen in 1989 to predict temperatures doesn’t agree with his own historical temperature data.

          • Clyde,
            You state that the forcings were not measured until after 1980. In which case how do you
            know that they inaccurate forcings don’t account for the difference between models and measured temperatures. The paper I mention shows clearly that using better forcings gives more accurate results as one would expect. And again the CMIP-5 models are out of date since the results in the Haustein’s results show that excellent agreement is possible if you use the correct forcings. You do not appear to want to discuss the results of Haustein since it clearly shows that models are accurate and thus can be used to make predictions.

          • Izaak
            You stated, “The paper I mention shows clearly that using better forcings gives more accurate results as one would expect.” The point of contention is whether the forcings ARE better. For the period of 1840 to the present day, only those measured since ~1980 are actual values. Everything before that is a subjective estimate. That hasn’t changed and therefore there is no improvement in the majority of the forcings. And, how much better are the post-1980 forcings used by Haustein et al. compared to what others have used?

            You are right! I do not want to discuss something that obviously is indefensible.

    • Izaak,
      P.S. What you are suggesting that Michaels should have done, is what apparently the Russian modelers have done.

    • Izaak, being able to recognize that fudge factors are being introduce can be straightforward for someone knowledgeable of the issue. Knowing what the true factors are is quite a different matter.

      I could produce a model showing that you evolved from an anteater. You would likely be able to shred the model completely, but would you be able to model accurately just how you did evolved?

      They put in values that produced what they wanted the models to produce. No one has been able to produce a valid model because no one completely knows all the natural contributions to climate, much less the weighting factors of those contributions, or how they interact with each other.

  28. It is looking more and more that Miskolczi is correct. It is impossible for additional CO2 to add to the greenhouse effect. The atmosphere maintains a constant optical depth. Miskolczi has derived that constant both through theoretical and empirical means. Measured decreases in atmospheric humidity offset any increase in CO2 to maintain the constant. This is clearly visible in measurements of atmospheric humidity over more than 60 years!

    Ask yourself, why does the temperature always return to the norm after an El Nino or La Nina?

  29. Unless someone can prove otherwise, my understanding of why nearly all computer models forecast the temperature too high is that they have a bad assumption built in to their programming. The bad assumption is that CO2 causes most warming and will continue to do so. In addition, they may also have too much emphasis on positive feedbacks in the programming. Neither positive nor negative feedbacks have been measured with any accuracy. However you will not get a “climate scientist” to admit this.

  30. I believe the problem is much more simple. The atmosphere is far too complex to model at a level where you use precise physics. That means they are not really modeling the physics. They model how they “believe” the average of billions of physical interactions will work out. The word “believe” is the one that gets them the results they expect.

    The Russian model is probably a lot simpler and, if I had to guess, probably doesn’t get into feedback. That is why their results are far cooler. Still wrong, just not as wrong.

    • Richard,
      “… but some models are useful.” It would appear that only the Russian model has enough skill to actually be useful.

  31. If the IPCC really knew what they were doing they would now have only one model without any parameterization and that model would reasonable have predicted today’s global temperatures. Such is not the case so the IPCC does not really know what they are doing. Funding of the IPCC should stop.

  32. According to the IPCC itself, there is no such model that can predict climate evolution :

    “The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future exact climate states is not possible.”

    https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg1/?idp=36

    Strangely, the IPCC has removed direct access to the chapter in which they mention the above statement, but Google still has it in its memory.

    The only bunch of models that gave some realistic predictions are related to the C scenario of James Hansen :
    – a scenario of “draconian emission cuts” in which humanity has constant CO2 emission since 2000.

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/06/30/analysis-of-james-hansens-1988-prediction-of-global-temperatures-for-the-last-30-years/

    The fact is that CO2 emissions since 2000 correspond to the “business as usual” scenario (scenario A).
    So much for the accuracy of these pizza spaghetti models salza peperoni.

  33. If there are 32 different models, all of which Run Hot, I would say
    that either some really bad guesses are been made , very unlikely, or its
    the left wing ideology at work.

    MJE VK5ELL

    • Please give us the qualifications for a Climatologist? DeSmogBlog would say Al Gore is a Climatologist.

    • Leo
      Which of the high-visibility ‘climatologists’ actually have a degree in climatology?

  34. “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.”

    It’s actually warmer

  35. When is deliberate deceit and lies going to be punished. Time after time scientists who know and have the proof of these misdemeanours, I I’m being polite, should activate honest and respected folk within the scientific community, and they should be brought to book, shamed and fined heavily to deter them and those in higher places to be brought into punishment.

    Trump was and is right about the swamp.
    This is germain to this fine site and sadly politics rears its head in a bad way.

Comments are closed.