5 ms·
Ah yes, I remember learning in physics class how increasing points of observation of a temperature causes it to increase. /s
by predictabl3 3y ago
Ah yes, I remember learning in physics class how increasing points of observation of a temperature causes it to increase. /s
- undersuit 3y ago‘If we stop testing right now, we’d have very few cases, if any’ Ignorance is bliss they say.
- mike_hearn 3y agoWeather stations aren't all observing the same temperature, so that response doesn't make sense.
- egberts1 3y agoWait until the average/mean hot days climb as one keeps adding more temperature reading stations together around airports and not forest.
- defrost 3y agoThat particular ~ 2008 climate denialist talking point was funded by Koch et al in 2010 to prove climate change was bullshit once and for all. The December 2012 results just confirmed climate science and debunked the "skewed by urban heat islands" excuse for ever more. You're literally dragging up dead arguments that are older than your HN account. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth
- egberts1 3y agoBackers have no control over their research. Thanks to Lawrence Livermore Natiinal Laboratory for their largest donation. https://web.archive.org/web/20111128032051/http://berkeleyearth.org/donors.php https://web.archive.org/web/20111128032051/http://berkeleyea...
- defrost 3y agoThe relevant part here is that Koch et al backed that research fully expecting it to support the notion that: > Wait until the average/mean hot days climb as one keeps adding more temperature reading stations together around airports and not forest. and instead the research refuted that expectation by finding that climate data scientists weren't that stupid as to allow such obvious bias. Yet, here you are, eleven years later, dragging that old dog and pony show out for a walk about the park.
- egberts1 3y agoA great way of introducing bias. Here we are.
- defrost 3y agoThat seems disingenuous at best. Your ancestoral comment wasn't framed as "here's an example of potential bias that smart people would know how to work through". It clearly suggested that official global mean tempretures would rise as a result of uncorrected urban heat bias. Did you actually believe that something that obvious had not been accounted for? If you didn't think that, then why suggest that it wasn't?
- mike_hearn 3y agoI was replying to predictabl3 not you. I agree that recording temperatures at airports doesn't make sense for climatological purposes. The US has a weather station network that doesn't do this though, iirc.