Tuesday
Sep172013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill McKitrick explains the models
Sep 17, 2013 Climate: McKitrick Climate: Models Ross McKitrick has a must-read article in the Financial Post, looking at climate models and their environmentalist-like divergence from reality:
The IPCC must take everybody for fools. Its own graph shows that observed temperatures are not within the uncertainty range of projections; they have fallen below the bottom of the entire span. Nor do models simulate surface warming trends accurately; instead they grossly exaggerate them. (Nor do they match them on regional scales, where the fit is typically no better than random numbers.)
Reader Comments (53)
@ richard verney
As DWLWIR is the negative component of the total flux it has no sensible energy. Its opposite component, UWLWIR is only slightly larger in magnitude. The net LWIIR is therefore small (63W/m^2 according to Trenberth). The temperature difference driving that net LWIR is that between the surface of Earth and the approximately 2degK of space. If you place a collector between the surface of the Earth and space then the flux will be defined by f(T1Kelvin-T2Kelvin) but in this case T1&T2 (temperature of collector) will be near identical and the flux approximately zero.
The puzzlement to me is how Trenberth measured his UWLWIR and his DWLWIR.
@ Terry S: "Let me just twiddle a a couple of knobs ...."
You are a climate scientist and I claim my £5!! :)
Richard & Terry. His grace doesn't like radiative physics of his threads, even in plain English. There is a thread on the discussion tab titled 'Can Trenberth do sums?' If this is to continue, it may be better there.
The model predicts certain outcomes for various interventions designed to increase trust in science
Why would Cook's friends want to increase trust in science? Sure that might lead to more trust in climate scientists.
But it would also lead to more trust in genetic modification. More trust in nuclear technology. People might believe scientists who tell them there is no point buying "organic" as it likely more dangerous. There might even be spillover to more trust in economists etc (God forbid!).
What Greenpeace, WWF etc want is less trust in technology. More trust in "natural" things. Science has to be the baddie in their world view.
I don't think they have thought this through at all well. If they win the people over to trust in science, it will be terrible news for the Greenies.