|
Post by acidohm on Sept 2, 2020 12:05:32 GMT
I live for the day science such as this gets as much media attention as, say, demonstrations by twonks telling us to listen to the science... If males in your family live long lives, you could be lucky. I could be OK then đ
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 2, 2020 13:38:31 GMT
My problem with the CMIP6 approach is that it is a totally incorrect approach to ensembles. In real meteorology a single weather model is repeatedly run. The first run is with the most likely start parameters, then subsequent runs are made with possible variances in the start parameters out to say the 90th percentile possibility. This forms a set of model outputs from the same model that indicate the spread of results within likely bounds of start parameters for that model. The CMIP approach is completely different. Using the same start parameters multiple models are run that indicate the spread of the results of multiple models. An 'average' of these models is then produced. However, the models are all using different 'tuning parameters' or different parameterized effects of those tuning parameters that have been adjusted to make each model hindcast the past. So one model may have very little aerosol sensitivity but high sensitivity to cloud cover, another will do the opposite. They also have unreality checks that stop/reset values if they go to extremely unlikely levels - automated fingers on the scale of the models. Apart from the presentation of the results at the end - showing a set of different lines on a graphical output, there is no similarity between meteorological ensemble and a CMIP ensemble. The CMIP ensemble is dishonest as if a set of broken caculators were fed 2+2 and the results varied from -1 to 6 but were then averaged to give 5. How anyone can accept the CMIP as a scientific approach is mystifying. I could accept models that all used the same values for the same parameters but had different algorithms and different input values say one using SST while the other used 2 meter temperature. But using the same parameter as a tuning parameter and using different values - then averaging the result makes no sense.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 2, 2020 13:44:58 GMT
I live for the day science such as this gets as much media attention as, say, demonstrations by twonks telling us to listen to the science... The Morality Police will never agree. The morality cocktail may be shaken but NEVER stirred.
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 2, 2020 13:53:05 GMT
My problem with the CMIP6 approach is that it is a totally incorrect approach to ensembles. In real meteorology a single weather model is repeatedly run. The first run is with the most likely start parameters, then subsequent runs are made with possible variances in the start parameters out to say the 90th percentile possibility. This forms a set of model outputs from the same model that indicate the spread of results within likely bounds of start parameters for that model. The CMIP approach is completely different. Using the same start parameters multiple models are run that indicate the spread of the results of multiple models. An 'average' of these models is then produced. However, the models are all using different 'tuning parameters' or different parameterized effects of those tuning parameters that have been adjusted to make each model hindcast the past. So one model may have very little aerosol sensitivity but high sensitivity to cloud cover, another will do the opposite. They also have unreality checks that stop/reset values if they go to extremely unlikely levels - automated fingers on the scale of the models. Apart from the presentation of the results at the end - showing a set of different lines on a graphical output, there is no similarity between meteorological ensemble and a CMIP ensemble. The CMIP ensemble is dishonest as if a set of broken caculators were fed 2+2 and the results varied from -1 to 6 but were then averaged to give 5. How anyone can accept the CMIP as a scientific approach is mystifying. I could accept models that all used the same values for the same parameters but had different algorithms and different input values say one using SST while the other used 2 meter temperature. But using the same parameter as a tuning parameter and using different values - then averaging the result makes no sense. Averaging is done to extend the largesse across multiple potential competitors, thus limiting the possibility of renegades upsetting the income stream. If actual competition were in play, you might see some radically different results.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 4, 2020 19:32:28 GMT
"Itâs Coming! Climate Hustle 2 Set for Sept. 24 Worldwide release!
Exposes agenda behind Green New Deal & UN Paris Pact
The film profiles Vaclav Klaus, the former President of the Czech Republic, who lived under Soviet domination of his country. âThe green agenda and the environmentalist agenda and the fighting climate agenda is trying to basically stop the existence of the free market system which we were fighting for and we were dreaming about in the communist era for decades,â Klaus explains in the film. âThey want to dictate it, control, regulate, mastermind from above,â he added.
The film is the sequel to the smash hit Climate Hustle which was released in 2016 in 400 theatres nationwide and in Canada. The film torches Hollywood hypocrisy, climate financial corruption, media bias, kidsâ classroom indoctrination, political correctness, and pulls back the curtain on the massive global warming establishment. The film features the reporting of Marc Morano, the number one ranked âclimate contrarianâ in the media according to a 2019 Study in the Journal Nature. The 2020 Climate Hustle 2 is set to be a pivotal force as 2020 elections shape up to be a national referendum on the U.S.âs future regarding the Green New Deal and participation in the UN Paris Climate Pact. âAre They Trying to Control the Climate Or You?â Climate Hustle 2 pulls no punches and goes right to the heart of the Green New Deal and the UN Paris climate pact and exposes the motives behind the climate agenda. The film features prominent scientists, and policy experts who explain how the agenda to control the climate is about controlling YOU. It is a film Al Gore, AOC, and the United Nations DO NOT want you to see."More here> www.climatedepot.com/2020/09/04/its-coming-climate-hustle-2-set-for-sept-24-worldwide-release-exposes-agenda-behind-green-new-deal-un-paris-pact/
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 16, 2020 14:24:32 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 20, 2020 23:42:40 GMT
They seem to have no doubt that they know what is happening. Would-be mortal Gods should have more humility. Geoengineering Is the Only Solution to Our Climate Calamities One might recoil at such audacious plans to intentionally alter the geophysical environment, yet that is precisely what we have unintentionally been doing for the past century. At least this time we can direct our efforts in the right direction. As Stewart Brand memorably wrote in the first edition of the Whole Earth Catalog in 1968, âWe are as gods and might as well get good at it.âwww.wired.com/story/geoengineering-is-the-only-solution-to-our-climate-calamities/
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Sept 20, 2020 23:57:20 GMT
We cannot spare this man. He fights.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 21, 2020 22:11:01 GMT
This may improve things...
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Sept 30, 2020 20:28:34 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 26, 2020 18:47:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Oct 26, 2020 21:34:32 GMT
This may improve things... That should raise some eyebrows and bra straps. Heads exploding.
|
|
|
Post by Ratty on Oct 27, 2020 1:28:39 GMT
This may improve things... That should raise some eyebrows and bra straps. Heads exploding. ... if he makes it there.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Oct 30, 2020 14:03:45 GMT
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Nov 6, 2020 15:24:47 GMT
"Comparing USCRN and nClimDiv to USCHN
Steven Mosher complained about my previous post on the difference between the final and raw temperatures in the conterminous 48 states (CONUS) as measured by NOAAâs USCHN. That post can be found here. Mosherâs comment is here. Mosher said the USHCN is no longer the official record of the CONUS temperatures. This is correct as far as NOAA/NCEI is concerned. They switched to a dataset they call nClimDiv in March 2014. Where USHCN had a maximum of 1218 stations, the new nClimDiv network has over 10,000 stations and is gridded to a much finer grid, called nClimGrid. The nClimGrid gridding algorithm is new, it is called âclimatological aided interpolationâ (Willmott & Robeson, 1995). The new grid has 5 km resolution, much better than the USCHN grid.
While the gridding method is different, the corrections to the raw measurements recorded by the nClimDiv weather stations are the same as those used for the USCHN station measurements. This is discussed here and here. As a result, the nClimDiv and USHCN CONUS yearly averages are nearly the same as seen in Figure 1. The data used to build the nClimDiv dataset is drawn from the GHCN (Global Historical Climate Network) dataset (Vose, et al., 2014)."Much more here:> wattsupwiththat.com/2020/11/06/comparing-uscrn-and-nclimdiv-to-uschn/
|
|