3 ms·
Ok, let’s even stipulate that it’s a failure of data rather than methodology. The computerized climate models have very sensitive dependence on this kind of poo
by monochromatic 8y ago
Ok, let’s even stipulate that it’s a failure of data rather than methodology. The computerized climate models have very sensitive dependence on this kind of poorly measured data. Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined?
- jasonlotito 8y ago> Why should I trust them if that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined? You are begging the question here. Simply put, "that data is subject to wild swings as measurements get refined", isn't reflected in the article. It's something you are making up. Again, the data was within the estimation previously made. They've refined that data. A wild swing would in fact go from showing one thing to showing another thing entirely. That's how a swing works. What really happened is the predication was correct. We are now getting to see more precisely how correct. Regardless, I honestly don't believe you are being honest here, since you are asking the same question and not putting any effort into this. You are trolling. If you aren't, put forth some effort. You think you are being "smart," but the truth is, you aren't.