Offizieller Post von Statistics of DOOM. Neuzugängen wie dem Gauss- oder Vortexgewehr hat ein DOOM-Marine ein Arsenal, to offer you an optimal user experience and to keep track of statistics. Bei Red Bull Stats of Doom entscheiden allein deine Fähigkeiten über Sieg und Niederlage. Beweise dein Können mit den monatlich wechselnden Challenges.
Dem Autor folgenDoom ; ;| #: and Co. (not in work). w oor - - - - 6. 59 | Franklam - - - Do. - • | Earl of Durham. 60 | Gordon House - - || Cockfield, Staindrop - || W.H. Hedley and Co. ;. Werde jetzt Patron von Statistics of DOOM: Erhalte Zugang zu exklusiven Inhalten und Erlebnissen auf der weltweit größten Mitgliedschaftsplattform für. Offizieller Post von Statistics of DOOM.
Statistics Of Doom Archive for the ‘Statistics’ Category VideoR - Terminology Lecture Bei Red Bull Stats of Doom entscheiden allein deine Fähigkeiten über Sieg und Niederlage. Beweise dein Können mit den monatlich wechselnden Challenges. JASP - Descriptive Statistics Example · Statistics of DOOM. Statistics of In this video we explain how to edit your data using JASP statistical software. The files. Werde jetzt Patron von Statistics of DOOM: Erhalte Zugang zu exklusiven Inhalten und Erlebnissen auf der weltweit größten Mitgliedschaftsplattform für. Offizieller Post von Statistics of DOOM.
Technical The system works using the statcopy Command line arguments. External Links statdump by Simon Howard at Doomworld. Categories :.
Universal Conquest Wiki. Current models need much less, or often zero, flux adjustment. Chapter 10 of AR5 has been valuable in suggesting references to read, but poor at laying out the assumptions and premises of attribution studies.
For clarity, as I stated in Part Three :. I believe natural variability is a difficult subject which needs a lot more than a cursory graph of the spectrum of the last 1, years to even achieve low confidence in our understanding.
Natural Variability and Chaos — One — Introduction. Natural Variability and Chaos — Two — Lorenz Application of regularised optimal fingerprinting to attribution.
CMIP5 will notably provide a multi-model context for. From the website link above you can read more. CMIP5 is a substantial undertaking, with massive output of data from the latest climate models.
Anyone can access this data, similar to CMIP3. Here is the Getting Started page. And CMIP3 :. The IPCC publishes reports that summarize the state of the science.
A more comprehensive set of output for a given model may be available from the modeling center that produced it. With the consent of participating climate modelling groups, the WGCM has declared the CMIP3 multi-model dataset open and free for non-commercial purposes.
As of July , over 36 terabytes of data were in the archive and over terabytes of data had been downloaded among the more than registered users.
For the remaining projections in this chapter the spread among the CMIP5 models is used as a simple, but crude, measure of uncertainty.
The extent of agreement between the CMIP5 projections provides rough guidance about the likelihood of a particular outcome.
But—as partly illustrated by the discussion above—it must be kept firmly in mind that the real world could fall outside of the range spanned by these particular models.
See Section It is possible that the real world might follow a path outside above or below the range projected by the CMIP5 models. Such an eventuality could arise if there are processes operating in the real world that are missing from, or inadequately represented in, the models.
Two main possibilities must be considered: 1 Future radiative and other forcings may diverge from the RCP4. A third possibility is that internal fluctuations in the real climate system are inadequately simulated in the models.
The fidelity of the CMIP5 models in simulating internal climate variability is discussed in Chapter The response of the climate system to radiative and other forcing is influenced by a very wide range of processes, not all of which are adequately simulated in the CMIP5 models Chapter 9.
Several such mechanisms are discussed in this assessment report; these include: rapid changes in the Arctic Section Additional mechanisms may also exist as synthesized in Chapter These mechanisms have the potential to influence climate in the near term as well as in the long term, albeit the likelihood of substantial impacts increases with global warming and is generally lower for the near term.
And p. The CMIP3 and CMIP5 projections are ensembles of opportunity, and it is explicitly recognized that there are sources of uncertainty not simulated by the models.
Evidence of this can be seen by comparing the Rowlands et al. The former exhibit a substantially larger likely range than the latter.
How does this recast chapter 10? Model spread is often used as a measure of climate response uncertainty, but such a measure is crude as it takes no account of factors such as model quality Chapter 9 or model independence e.
Climate varies naturally on nearly all time and space scales, and quantifying precisely the nature of this variability is challenging, and is characterized by considerable uncertainty.
The coupled pre-industrial control run is initialized as by Delworth et al. This simulation required one full year to run on 60 processors at GFDL.
First of all we see the challenge for climate models — a reasonable resolution coupled GCM running just one year simulation consumed one year of multiple processor time.
Wittenberg shows the results in the graph below. At the top is our observational record going back years, then below are the simulation results of the SST variation in the El Nino region broken into 20 century-long segments.
There are multidecadal epochs with hardly any variability M5 ; epochs with intense, warm-skewed ENSO events spaced five or more years apart M7 ; epochs with moderate, nearly sinusoidal ENSO events spaced three years apart M2 ; and epochs that are highly irregular in amplitude and period M6.
Occasional epochs even mimic detailed temporal sequences of observed ENSO events; e. If the real-world ENSO is similarly modulated, then there is a more disturbing possibility.
In that case, historically-observed statistics could be a poor guide for modelers , and observed trends in ENSO statistics might simply reflect natural variations..
Yet few modeling centers currently attempt simulations of that length when evaluating CGCMs under development — due to competing demands for high resolution, process completeness, and quick turnaround to permit exploration of model sensitivities.
Model developers thus might not even realize that a simulation manifested long-term ENSO modulation, until long after freezing the model development.
Clearly this could hinder progress. An unlucky modeler — unaware of centennial ENSO modulation and misled by comparisons between short, unrepresentative model runs — might erroneously accept a degraded model or reject an improved model.
Wittenberg shows the same data in the frequency domain and has presented the data in a way that illustrates the different perspective you might have depending upon your period of observation or period of model run.
So the different colored lines indicate the spectral power for each period. The black dashed line is the observed spectral power over the year observational period.
This dashed line is repeated in figure 2c. The second graph, 2b shows the modeled results if we break up the years into x year periods. The third graph, 2c, shows the modeled results broken up into year periods.
Of course, this independent and identically distributed assumption is not valid, but as we will hopefully get onto many articles further in this series, most of these statistical assumptions — stationary, gaussian, AR1 — are problematic for real world non-linear systems.
Models are not reality. This is a simulation with the GFDL model. But it might be. The last century or century and a half of surface observations could be an outlier.
The last 30 years of satellite data could equally be an outlier. Non-linear systems can demonstrate variability over much longer time-scales than the the typical period between characteristic events.
We will return to this in future articles in more detail. What period of time is necessary to capture natural climate variability?
In any case, it is sobering to think that even absent any anthropogenic changes, the future of ENSO could look very different from what we have seen so far.
Are historical records sufficient to constrain ENSO simulations? Andrew T. Wittenberg, GRL — free paper. The models were designed to simulate atmospheric and oceanic climate and variability from the diurnal time scale through multicentury climate change, given our computational constraints.
In particular, an important goal was to use the same model for both experimental seasonal to interannual forecasting and the study of multicentury global climate change, and this goal has been achieved.
Two versions of the coupled model are described, called CM2. The versions differ primarily in the dynamical core used in the atmospheric component, along with the cloud tuning and some details of the land and ocean components.
There are 50 vertical levels in the ocean, with 22 evenly spaced levels within the top m. The ocean component has poles over North America and Eurasia to avoid polar filtering.
Neither coupled model employs flux adjustments. The control simulations have stable, realistic climates when integrated over multiple centuries.
The CM2. Generally reduced temperature and salinity biases exist in CM2. These reductions are associated with 1 improved simulations of surface wind stress in CM2.
Both models have been used to conduct a suite of climate change simulations for the Intergovern- mental Panel on Climate Change IPCC assessment report and are able to simulate the main features of the observed warming of the twentieth century.
The climate sensitivities of the CM2. These sensitivities are defined by coupling the atmospheric components of CM2.
So multiple simulations are run and the frequency of occurrence of, say, a severe storm tells us the probability that the severe storm will occur.
The severe storm occurs. What can we make of the accuracy our prediction? We need a lot of forecasts to be compared with a lot of results.
The idea behind ensembles of climate forecasts is subtly different. But we still have a lot of uncertainty over model physics and parameterizations.
Item 2 is something that I believe climate scientists are very interested in. Perturbed-physics ensembles offer a systematic approach to quantify uncertainty in models of the climate system response to external forcing.
Figure 1 shows the evolution of global-mean surface temperatures in the ensemble relative to — , each coloured by the goodness-of-fit to observations of recent surface temperature changes, as detailed below.
The raw ensemble range 1. On the assumption that models that simulate past warming realistically are our best candidates for making estimates of the future..
It seems like an obvious thing to do, of course. We have no way of knowing. We might accept outliers of The whole point of running an ensemble of simulations is to find out what the spread is, given our current understanding of climate physics.
Let me give another example. One theory for initiation of El Nino is that its initiation is essentially a random process during certain favorable conditions.
Now we might have a model that reproduced El Nino starting in and 10 models that reproduced El Nino starting in other years.
We might actually be rejecting better models. We would need to look at the statistics of lots of El Ninos to decide.
Methods of testing these models with observations form an important part of model development and application.
Over the past decade one such test is our ability to simulate the global anomaly in surface air temperature for the 20th century.. Climate model simulations of the 20th century can be compared in terms of their ability to reproduce this temperature record.
This is now an established necessary test for global climate models. Of course this is not a sufficient test of these models and other metrics should be used to test models..
A review of the published literature on climate simulations of the 20th century indicates that a large number of fully coupled three dimensional climate models are able to simulate the global surface air temperature anomaly with a good degree of accuracy [Houghton et al.
For example all models simulate a global warming of 0. This is viewed as a reassuring confirmation that models to first order capture the behavior of the physical climate system..
One curious aspect of this result is that it is also well known [Houghton et al. The cited range in climate sensitivity from a wide collection of models is usually 1.
The question is: if climate models differ by a factor of 2 to 3 in their climate sensitivity, how can they all simulate the global temperature record with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Second, Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well? Knutti :. The agreement between the CMIP3 simulated and observed 20th century warming is indeed remarkable.
But do the current models simulate the right magnitude of warming for the right reasons? How much does the agreement really tell us?
Kiehl  recently showed a correlation of climate sensitivity and total radiative forcing across an older set of models, suggesting that models with high sensitivity strong feedbacks avoid simulating too much warming by using a small net forcing large negative aerosol forcing , and models with weak feedbacks can still simulate the observed warming with a larger forcing weak aerosol forcing.
Climate sensitivity, aerosol forcing and ocean diffusivity are all uncertain and relatively poorly constrained from the observed surface warming and ocean heat uptake [e.
While it is impossible to know what decisions are made in the development process of each model, it seems plausible that choices are made based on agreement with observations as to what parameterizations are used, what forcing datasets are selected, or whether an uncertain forcing e.
Second, the question is whether we should be worried about the correlation between total forcing and climate sensitivity.
Schwartz et al. Because of the good agreement between models and observations and compensating effects between climate sensitivity and radiative forcing as shown here and by Kiehl  Schwartz et al.
It is therefore neither surprising nor problematic that the simulated and observed trends in global temperature are in good agreement.
The idea that climate models should all reproduce global temperature anomalies over a year or year or year time period, presupposes that we know:.
Constraining models to match the past may be under-sampling the actual range of climate variability. Why are climate models reproducing the observed global surface warming so well?
Note 1 : We are using the ideas that have been learnt from simple chaotic systems, like the Lorenz model. The starting point is that weather is unpredictable.
Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics When I first started Doom Underground , I knew that since I was keeping the information very organised and doing things like generating indices automatically, one really cool thing I could do was generate some statistics on the levels reviewed.
Before anyone thinks about drawing any conclusions from this data about Doom WADs and editing in general, I should point out that: With only around WADs catalogued here, this isn't a large enough sample to draw any strong conclusions about the wider body of Doom WADs.
This is absolutely not a random sample - it's based on stuff I've reviewed, which is heavily skewed towards Boom levels, levels from authors I know, and classic levels.
So there's no way it is random enough to be considered representative of Doom WADs in general. I transferred the site to my services, and it has given me trouble ever since.
Check out the new website! Pages are coming soon with lots of updated materials. I have started a new github site where all the materials for courses will appear, to make it easier for you to find everything you need.
I have provided entire courses for you to take yourself, use for your classroom, etc. If you are an instructor and want to check out the answer keys, please drop me a line by using the email icon at the bottom of the screen.
The Year of the Thesis!