Am still getting through your paper. As a process engineering modeller I like the methodology you've followed , including caibration and out of sample testing. As an industrial chemist, i have never been a fan of dividing incoming solar by 4 to smooth out over 24hrs. It misrepresents energy, intensity, enthalpy and temperature with respect to the causitive changes in regional pressure and the hemispherical movement of mass, and these are what weather and climate is all about. But I understand by following IPCC structure and assumptions fairly closely, the model is less open to initial hand-wave short-sighted dismissal.
Am still getting through your paper. As a process engineering modeller I like the methodology you've followed , including caibration and out of sample testing. As an industrial chemist, i have never been a fan of dividing incoming solar by 4 to smooth out over 24hrs. It misrepresents energy, intensity, enthalpy and temperature with respect to the causitive changes in regional pressure and the hemispherical movement of mass, and these are what weather and climate is all about. But I understand by following IPCC structure and assumptions fairly closely, the model is less open to initial hand-wave short-sighted dismissal.