It's all over but for the sweating?

[TheEnemy]

Freebeard: SpaceWeather.com -- News and information about meteor showers, solar flares, auroras, and near-Earth asteroids They confirm much what the poster posed on that youtube video.

Funny thing, before the SORCE satellite suffered a battery failure it was measuring a slightly greater average TSI despite lower solar winds and sun spots.

[TheEnemy]

I went back quite a ways, the only post I saw you have any kind of link was post number 1077, I don't have a subscription to read that article

I also found the best output of my model here

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...-23123-83.html

Not sure what all I messed up since then, but it was way more accurate than what I have now.

Edit: look at the second post not the first.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

I went back quite a ways, the only post I saw you have any kind of link was post number 1077, I don't have a subscription to read that article.

Yep, post #1077.

I have a hard copy of the article so when I can access it I can post up the models used and the papers immediately referenced in it if you want.

It isn't hard to find more though if you know how to search:

ScienceDirect - Search Results: ALL(pliocene climate model)

I don't know for sure if this is (one of) the papers discussed but it looks to be:

Comparison of mid-Pliocene climate predictions produced by the HadAM3 and GCMAM3 General Circulation Models

Maybe this one too:

Magnitude of climate variability during middle Pliocene warmth: a palaeoclimate modelling study

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

Could you or anyone else design a Boeing 787 by yourself? I didn't think so.

Well it seems that not even Boeing can design a 787, or at least one that works. Another one made a forced landing yesterday.

Originally Posted by Occasionally6

No one individual can hope to match the similar professional efforts in understanding climate science...

I don't disagree with that. But if this science is going to be used to drive policies on more or less every aspect of society, sometimes counter to the views of the people who those policies may affect and have to pay for them and potentially at serious cost to others then it needs to be solid, open, testable and verifiable.

A lot of it like your example is - that is excellent. A lot of the headline grabbing scary stuff isn't but it gets a headline and then everyone forgets the "correction".

An example - the recent (yet another) "97% consensus" paper (non-science anyway IMHO) has been published, is being quoted by politicians up to and including a tweet from TPOTUS and our own minister who controls UK Energy policy. Yet the data behind it STILL hasn't been entirely released - which is contrary to the policy of the journal in which it appeared, it seems to get a free pass on that aspect.

[TheEnemy]

Originally Posted by occasionally6

yep, post #1077.

I have a hard copy of the article so when i can access it i can post up the models used and the papers immediately referenced in it if you want.

It isn't hard to find more though if you know how to search:

sciencedirect - search results: All(pliocene climate model)

$38

i don't know for sure if this is (one of) the papers discussed but it looks to be:

comparison of mid-pliocene climate predictions produced by the hadam3 and gcmam3 general circulation models

$40

maybe this one too:

magnitude of climate variability during middle pliocene warmth: A palaeoclimate modelling study

$37

[TheEnemy]

Here is one I found that didn't require me to pay to read, concerning the transition between the Pliocene warm period to the cooling.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/w49....etal.2013.pdf

None of the currently proposed mechanisms can reproduce all of
the key Pliocene climate features by itself. Some mechanisms address
one aspect of the structural change, but often at the detriment of the
other features; a major problem is to simulate reduced temperature
gradients without raising warm pool SSTs. Increases in greenhouse
gases alone are not sufficient, whereas shifts in oceanic gateways have
much smaller effects than sometimes suggested. The most promising
dynamical mechanisms involve lower extratropical cloud albedo or
enhanced ocean mixing. For these mechanisms to explain the stark
differences between the Pliocene and today’s climates, the corresponding
model has to be modified.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by TheEnemy

$38

$40

$37

Like I posted, most people don't have access to the full papers, and therefore little idea of what they do actually contain, let alone the work that goes into them. Actually, I expect few people will be aware there are search engines specifically for scientific papers (Science Direct is just one of them).

The abstracts and references to related papers are still useful to get a feel for them though.

[P-hack]

Useless, "pay for the findings we condemn you with". NO! Don't we fund most of this with taxes already? In the one paper it was found incomplete anyway.

That is not an acceptable form of sharing information, that ISN'T sharing information.

[Occasionally6]

Originally Posted by P-hack

Useless, "pay for the findings we condemn you with". NO! Don't we fund most of this with taxes already? In the one paper it was found incomplete anyway.

That is not an acceptable form of sharing information, that ISN'T sharing information.

It is the journals that charge for access, not the authors of the papers. I did note earlier that there has been a trend towards more open access, with journals like PLOS ONE. It doesn't matter though, because anyone capable of making use of the papers (more than just the abstracts) will have the resources to access them.

Why make a particular objection to being unable to access papers relevant to climate change alone? Why not accept that the scientists who do the research and write the papers, do know what they are doing and are constantly checked, simply by the scientific process? We do so, without a second thought, for other areas of science; the fundamental truth will be always be approached.

A simple three word search, specifically about Pliocene climate modelling, in a single search engine, produced 12188 results (papers). Maybe at least a few of those are going to be accurate.

[P-hack]

You are too presumptuous. Climate research is driving policy that implicates humans as modifying the climate. Who are our accusers and what is the evidence? Everyone should have free access. I refuse to accept evidence for ransom. a million rabbit holes with thousands in fees. You can present actual evidence if you like, but otherwise those links are junk.