2 ms·
From the article: "The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations." Not before 1979, they didn't. Because there isn't global temperature
by sattemp1979 3y ago
From the article: "The results: 10 of the model projections closely matched observations."
Not before 1979, they didn't. Because there isn't global temperature data before that. Nothing even close. There isn't ocean temperature data before this millennium. Not even remotely persuaded, I'm afraid.
- defrost 3y agoThere's high quality global temp. data from naval ports about the commercial trading world going back to ~ 1880 - this data can be accurately infilled to within a known margin of error using sparse points agianst modern high resolution grid data. There's pretty decent global temp. data going back thousands of years via proxy measures with good error margins. I'm not attempting to persuade you, just stating STEM facts.
- sattemp1979 3y agoNaval ports. Again, a miniscule fraction of the earth's surface. Coverage so sparse that it wouldn't register on a percentage scale with four places after the decimal point. You can't "accurately infill" data that hasn't been measured. What prevailed over far more than 99% of the earth's land and sea surface was unknown to any degree of accuracy before 1979; what prevailed in the depths of the massive heat sink called the ocean was not even partially addressed before ca. 2005. I'm not judging what you know about "S". My profession is both "T" and "E". I do suspect that you don't know much about "M".
- defrost 3y agoActual Engineering or software engineering? Read some papers in the field - the sparse coverage is not an issue and yes, it is possoble to get global estimates within error bars from sparse coastal points. > I do suspect that you don't know much about "M". More proof your intuition and opinions here are sub par.