Weather

The end of an era – Vale Patrick Michaels – Ecstatic with it?


By Jennifer Marohasy. Reposting from her blog.

There was a time when an error could be pointed out by rebutting it as a note in a scientific journal – even a journal. Nature, even if it goes against the agenda of anthropogenic global warming. The late Patrick Michaels had a note published in 1996 (volume 384, p. 522) explaining that there was a major flaw in the results of Ben Santer’s study – findings so important that they reinforced the main statement in the second IPCC report that ‘the balance of evidence shows a discernible human influence on the global climate. ‘

Pat Michaels’ career spans the emergence of global warming as a dominant model underpinning not only atmospheric research but, more recently, energy policy. His death last week represented not only the loss of a great mind but also the end of an era.

Pat Michaels is past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, program chair of the American Meteorological Association’s Committee on Applied Climatology, and research professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of California. Virginia scholar for 30 years, and author and critic of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report – reports that more than anything else has created the illusion modern about catastrophic warming.

Today, a TV news report almost always covers climate change – based on the assumption that there is something unusual about the modern climate; So much so that it’s been so disturbed by human activity that we’re heading towards disaster. There will be some ethical issues, and an appeal to the authority of science. Some are enlivened by these reports, some are frightened, but very few are able to put any of this into any meaningful historical context. If we could, we would recognize that fear of anthropogenic climate change is a recent phenomenon. The late Patrick Michaels understood how the theory of public choice in economics combined with an almost textbook example of how nonsense models can take hold in scientific research have created the false story. Currently.

The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) to assess available scientific information on climate change, assess environmental impacts and socioeconomics of climate change and development of response strategies. The first IPCC assessment report (AR1) was published in 1990, the second report (AR2) in 1995, the third report (AR3) in 2001, and the sixth and most recent report only on August 2022 (AR6). Each IPCC report includes reviews of the surface science on climate, divided into chapters. Each chapter has several main authors, plus several collaborators. In the Second Assessment Report (AR2), it was stated on page 4 that:

The balance of evidence suggests that there is a clear human influence on the global climate.

This is the first unequivocal statement of human influence on the climate to be reported by the world’s leading experts and in an authoritative report. That statement was read and reported by opinion leaders around the world as a breakthrough; that is the reach of IPCC assessment reports.

This claim builds on the work of Ben Santer, a physicist and atmospheric scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, whose work is modeling the effects of climate change caused by climate change. caused by humans. The nature of the research led to his appointment as lead author of Chapter 8 of the 1995 report (AR2).

Ben Santer had not actually published significant research based on this claim at the time of AR2, 1995. This study was not published until the following year, 1996. Soon after it was published, it was published. fact-checked by Patrick. Michaels, who later published a devastating review in the magazine Nature.

Ben Santer’s ‘fingerprint’ study looked for geographically limited observed patterns of climate change to compare with those predicted by general circulation models (GCMs). The idea is that by finding a pattern in the observed data that fits the predictive model, it is possible to confirm a cause-and-effect relationship. Except that Patrick Michaels pointed out that the study based on the 1995 IPCC key claim of identifiable effects used only a fraction of the available atmospheric temperature data.

Santer’s research is flawed because of the fallacy of incomplete evidence – also known as cherry picking.

Patrick Michaels explained the problem in the chapter he wrote for Climate change: The truth 2017. (That chapter was just made available online with permission from IPA, click here.)

The peculiarity of [Ben Santer] The article is that it covers the period from 1963 to 1987, although the aerial data required for three-dimensional analysis has been reliably cataloged since 1957 – by one of the thirteen authors. Author of the paper – Abraham Oort of the Laboratory of Geophysical Fluid Dynamics at Princeton . The start of 1963 is also a very good time in the global records, as temperatures were cooled by the 1962 eruption of Mount Agung in Indonesia, one of the four great strata of the twentieth century, and the largest since Alaska’s Katmai in 1912.

1987 also seems to be a strange ending point. Data are certainly available until 1994, seven years later and possibly up to date 1995. It is noteworthy that 1987 was an El Niño year, and therefore relatively warm compared to the rest of the study period. .

The concordance between the observed three-dimensional temperature profiles and the modeled profiles is convincing because of the expected difference between warming in the two hemispheres, with a significant ‘hot spot’ – both simulated and observed – in the lower Southern Hemisphere and mid-troposphere. …

However, the omission of data from the years 1957–62 and 1988–95 is confusing. The reason these data were not included became clear when I added them. If all data were used, there would be no significant match between the modeled data and the observed data. Santer et al. simply discarding data that do not fit their predetermined hypothesis.

Pat Michaels has shown that when the entire data is used, the previously identified warming trend disappears. His thoughtful rebuttal, published in a peer-reviewed journal, could be a game changer. But there was an extraordinary lack of political will to do the right thing that persists to this day. There is a complete lack of political will to make fake findings.

Back in 1996, because of scholar Patrick Michaels’ rebuttal in Nature (co-authored with Chip Knappenberger, volume 384, p. 522), Ben Santer should and could have been suspended before a committee and full set of IPCC processes stalled.

Pat Michaels took the time to explore the data underlying the key findings of the second IPCC review report, and he found it flawed. His summary of cherry picking explicitly showed the conclusion to be unwarranted as it included only a portion of the available data.

Pat Michaels, the scientist, loaded the gun with that note published in Nature in 1996. But no politician was prepared to pull the trigger. Now it’s not even possible to get this kind of rebuttal published.

Had an IPCC overhaul been done at that time, back in 1996, there would have been no Third Assessment Report (AR3) and arguably no global warming hockey stick graph. demands to seal the fate of sound evidence-based discussions about global climate change.

Pat Michaels continues to incorporate the theory of public choice into his writings. He will emphasize that it does not judge someone’s honesty or dishonesty. It simply implies that the incentive structure that climate scientists currently present creates a biased bias in which problems must be exaggerated to attract funding… and that This political process creates symbiotic relationships between politicians and scientists that work to both their advantage. Scientists get resources for their research, and keen politicians can call for their funding for benevolent causes.

On the state of climate change, Pat Michaels explains:

We know, with a very small margin of error, the amount of climate change for the foreseeable future, and that is a modest value to which humans have adapted and will continue to adapt. There is no known, workable policy that can prevent or even slow down these changes in a scientifically measurable way.

Pat Michaels is interested in the measurement and its statistical significance. And he was prepared to be bold and publish his inconvenient findings and then he was ready to be interviewed about them and explained all in plain English. There are very few of them left in government agencies – as far as I can tell most publicly funded climatologists are either full of exaggeration or cowardice.

***

The image at the top of this email is Pat Michaels back in 2009 talking about Climategate emails on CNN, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffgj6Deni_Y

To read his chapter in the book I edited in 2017, click here.
https://ipa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/IPA_CCTF2017_CH18_MICHAELS_Lukewarm-Paradigm.pdf

Critical rebuttal published in Nature To be
Michaels, P., Knappenberger, P. Human influence on global climate? Nature 384, 522–523 (1996).
https://doi.org/10.1038/384522b0



Source link

news7g

News7g: Update the world's latest breaking news online of the day, breaking news, politics, society today, international mainstream news .Updated news 24/7: Entertainment, Sports...at the World everyday world. Hot news, images, video clips that are updated quickly and reliably

Related Articles

Back to top button