As a friend points out, referencing a detail in the previous post, you can just copy-and-paste an “ø” in.
So, if you’re Bob or Tom or Phoebe and you wanna, you know, go all Viking or something, it’s pretty easy. Bøb. Tøm. Phøebe.
Dunnø. Maybe løøks a little gangsta.
Alsø, if yøu’re nøt all gløbal-warminged øut, there’s this frøm the very cøøl Jim Manzi.
Almost all humans resist management and audit, and climate modelers are no exception. Because they have been so poorly managed, we have no well-structured program to evaluate accuracy, and instead must rely only on back-testing (or what among climate modelers is termed “hindcasting”). Now, this would be hard to do, for several reasons: The models (we believe) keep improving, so the accuracy of a 1988 model doesn’t necessarily tell us the accuracy of a 2008 model; there is huge signal-to-noise, so it requires several decades (we believe) to have a useful measure of accuracy, while we are being asked to make policy questions now; and so on.
Love that word hindcasting. What do you picture?
Also, just me, or do you have some doubts about all those measurements, ocean temp and stuff, from 1880.