<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Niche Modeling &#187; Reviews</title>
	<atom:link href="http://landshape.org/enm/category/reviews/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://landshape.org/enm</link>
	<description>The Power of Numeracy</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 02 May 2012 21:47:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Drought predictions for this century</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/drought-predictions-for-this-century/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/drought-predictions-for-this-century/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:27:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4683</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In The National Science Foundation Funds Multi-Decadal Climate Predictions Without An Ability To Verify Their Skill Roger Pielke Sr. links GCM skill at predicting drought with natural variation: 2. “Future efforts to predict drought will depend on models’ ability to predict tropical SSTs.” In other words, there is NO way to assess the skill of these models are predicting drought as they have not yet shown any skill in SST predictions on time scales longer than a season, nor natural climate Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/drought-predictions-for-this-century/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Show us your tests &#8211; Australian climate projections</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/show-us-your-tests-australian-climate-projections/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/show-us-your-tests-australian-climate-projections/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Oct 2010 07:31:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4660</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My critique of models used in a major Australian drought study appeared in Energy and Environment last month (read Critique-of-DECR-EE here). It deals with validation of models (the subject of a recent post by Judith Curry), and regional model disagreement with rainfall observations (see post by Willis here). The main purpose is summed up in the last sentence of the abstract: The main conclusion and purpose of the paper is to provide a case study showing the need for more rigorous and explicit Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/show-us-your-tests-australian-climate-projections/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>5</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Projected future runoff of the Breede River under climate change</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/rojected-future-runoff-of-the-breede-river-under-climate-change/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/rojected-future-runoff-of-the-breede-river-under-climate-change/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 Sep 2010 20:52:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4607</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[More evidence of worthless model predictions from CO2 Science: All of the future flow-rates calculated by Steynor et al. exhibited double-digit negative percentage changes that averaged -25% for one global climate model and -50% for another global climate model; and in like manner the mean past trend of four of Lloyd's five stations was also negative (-13%). But the other station had a positive trend (+14.6%). In addition, by "examination of river flows over the past 43 years in the Breede River Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/rojected-future-runoff-of-the-breede-river-under-climate-change/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Bad are the Models &#8211; UHI</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/how-bad-are-the-models-uhi/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/how-bad-are-the-models-uhi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Aug 2010 20:26:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/?p=4551</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Urban areas differ from rural areas in a number of well known ways, but the IPCC summaries maintain that these effects have been effectively removed when they talk about the recent (post 1960) increases in global surface temperature. Continuing the series on how bad climate models really are, another paper is in the pipeline on the long-standing influence of urban heat effects (UHI) in the surface temperature data. Ross McKitrick reports that between 1/2 and 1/3 of the recent increase in temperature Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/how-bad-are-the-models-uhi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>How Bad are Climate Models? Temperature</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/how-bad-are-climate-models/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/how-bad-are-climate-models/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 07 Aug 2010 13:01:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/?p=4535</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Due to building the website for The Climate Sceptics I haven't been able to post despite some important events. My site and other files were deleted in some kind of attack, so I have had to rebuild it as well. I now have the WordPress 3.0 multiuser system which enable easy creation and management of multiple blogs, so its an ill wind eh? The important event I refer to is the release of "Panel and Multivariate Methods for Tests of Trend Equivalence in Climate Data Series" by Ross McKitrick, Stephen Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/how-bad-are-climate-models/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>9</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Monthly Roundup</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/monthly-roundup/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/monthly-roundup/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jul 2010 08:35:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4475</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Age reports that Climategate was a game changer. Judith Curry said Dr Jones had shown himself to be ''genuinely repentant, and has been completely open and honest about what has been done and why â€¦ speaking with humility about the uncertainty in the data sets''. So far its a case of the academic defense: "Oops, I lied." Sir Muir Russell, the chairman of the Judicial Appointments Board for Scotland, notes that senior climate scientists say their world has been dramatically changed by Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/monthly-roundup/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Sceptics Tour Update</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/sceptics-tour-update/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/sceptics-tour-update/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 21:51:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4422</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Having just returned from my leg of the tour, I have been offline for awhile, but expect to catch up this week. Here is my powerpoint presentation "Tweeter and the Monkey M(e)an -- Negating Climate Change Policy" (4.3MB). The title comes from a song by the Traveling Wilburys. The message is that without proper validation, climate models are no more credible than Tweets, and from my (and others') validation testing, the model forecasts are not fit-for-forecasting, showing no more accuracy than Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/sceptics-tour-update/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>12</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>On the Use of the Virial Theorem by Miskolczi</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/on-the-use-of-the-virial-theorem-by-miskolczi/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/on-the-use-of-the-virial-theorem-by-miskolczi/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 12:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Adolf J Giger</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Virial Paper 6_12_2010 submitted by Adolf J. Giger. Allow me to make some more comments on the Virial Theorem (VT) as used by Ferenc Miskolczi (FM) for the atmosphere. As I said on this blog back in February, a very fundamental derivation of the VT was made by H. Goldstein in Section 3-4 of "Classical Mechanics", 1980, Ref.[1] : PE= 2*KE (potential energy=2 x kinetic energy). Then, he also derives the Ideal Gas Law (IGL), P*V = N*k*T as a consequence of the VT, and shows that PE=3*P*V and KE=(3/2)*N*k*T. Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/on-the-use-of-the-virial-theorem-by-miskolczi/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>21</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>No evidence of global warming extinctions</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/no-evidence-of-extinctions/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/no-evidence-of-extinctions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 04:46:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4381</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My rebuttal of Thomasâ€™ computer models of massive species extinctions has been mentioned in a statement by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch before the United States Senate, on June 10, 2010. 1. Stockwell (2000) observes that the Thomas models, due to lack of any observed extinction data, are not â€˜tried and true,â€™ and their doctrine of â€˜massive extinctionâ€™ is actually a case of â€˜massive extinction bias.â€™ [Stockwell, D.R.B. 2004. Biased Toward Extinction, Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/no-evidence-of-extinctions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New Miskolczi Manuscript</title>
		<link>http://landshape.org/enm/new-miskolczi-manuscript/</link>
		<comments>http://landshape.org/enm/new-miskolczi-manuscript/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:55:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>david stockwell</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[All]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reviews]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Statistics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Theory]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://landshape.org/enm/?p=4373</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Ferenc sent out reprints of his upcoming manuscript, and graciously acknowledges the contribution of a number of us for support, help and encouragement. I particularly like the perturbation and statistical power analysis, checking that a change in the greenhouse effect due to CO2 would likely have been detected if it had been present in the last 61 years. The Stable Stationary Value of the Earth's Global Average Atmospheric Planc-weighted Greenhouse-Gas Optical Thickness by Ferenc Miskolczi, Energy Read more [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://landshape.org/enm/new-miskolczi-manuscript/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>14</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

