Posted on 03/22/2023 6:40:55 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The warm Arctic-cold Eurasia (WACE) climate pattern is the main feature of winter temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 20 years. Extreme cold events related to this pattern have occurred frequently there.
The ability of climate models to simulate WACE directly affects the skill in simulating winter temperature. Past studies have shown that previous generations of climate models were poor at simulating midlatitude atmospheric response to sea ice, making them simulate a weaker than observed WACE.
Now, scientists from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Meteorological Administration and Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology have evaluated the ability of CMIP6 models (i.e., models participating in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) to simulate WACE and revealed the key factors influencing the differences in simulation capability.
The findings were published in Advances in Atmospheric Sciences.
Results showed that the CMIP6 multi-model ensemble mean was better able to simulate WACE, but there were still large gaps among individual models. Models with good ability in simulating climatic states and extremes of Eurasian winter temperatures also showed more skill in simulating WACE.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
Remember back when Pangaea existed?
Warm is good for humans. Review the Roman literature.
Oh man, we used to load up the ol' station wagon and drive across the world.
“Improving climate models” = ‘the phony ones we’ve been using to scare the ignorant haven’t matched actual climate’
Right. There are about 33 general climate models recognized by the IPCC, none of them are accurate none of them even agree with each other.
“Now, scientists from the Institute of Atmospheric Physics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, China Meteorological Administration and Nanjing University of Information Science and Technology have evaluated the ability of CMIP6 models (i.e., models participating in phase 6 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) to simulate WACE and revealed the key factors influencing the differences in simulation capability.”
In other words, climate models are still extremely unreliable and should not be used as evidence to steal money from Americans and give it to tin pot dictators and the WEF.
Our local TV weather guy often shows the score of models he uses for his forecasts. The models for predicted snowfalls frequently show estimates ranging from a trace to multiple inches with no relative agreement. If these much vaunted models canāt reasonably estimate local snowfall for a 48 hour period how can models predict global climate decades in the future?
Amazing!! They make computer models of what already has happened and claim high accuracy in predicting what has already happened.
Models are not science. Models are always abstractions of what is being modeled. That means you never have all the variables, data, and behavior. Proof: if you did, you would have the real thing. The scientific process requires peer review and peer replication of experiment results. Pumping the same data through a model will always yield the same results. Peer review then amounts to monkeys pushing a button on a computer.
I am not saying modeling is useless. I spent nearly 30 years modeling software as a software engineer. But that is just a step in creating software. Ultimately, the actual software was written. The real thing was created, in full, without abstraction. It was concrete.
Climate models are never the real thing. A real, concrete climate requires a duplicate of Earth, the Sun, the moon and everything that influences climate.
I am not aware of a single climate model or simulation that has successfully completed Independent Verification & Validation (IV&V).
I have yet to see a climate model or simulation that can return a consistent result for the same set of test inputs.
The best prediction has the Russian model (forgot the name).
Unlike the others, it does not follow the heard mentality of the others.
Interesting. Just out of curiosity, a brief online search didnāt yield evidence that the IPCC has adopted 33 climate models. Maybe Iām not looking in the right place.
Real or implants?
Computer models = GIGO
The best prediction has the Russian model (forgot the name). Unlike the others, it does not follow the heard mentality of the others.When that idiot Michael Mann went looking to count tree rings in Siberia, he already knew what he wanted to find. Confirmation bias is of the worst evils in this world.
“Real or implants?”
Who cares, LOL. As long as she’ll escort me to the next Annual Moovova Extended Family Picnic.
I want to see some jaws drop.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.