5 ms·
Fairly well understood partial differential equations which are physically validated or isotopic atmospheric chemistry are a little bit different than string th
by selimthegrim 3y ago
Fairly well understood partial differential equations which are physically validated or isotopic atmospheric chemistry are a little bit different than string theory
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoYou're not sounding very humble right now
- littlestymaar 3y agoBecause you think you do, I guess?
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoI'm not the one screaming for 100 trillion dollars lol. A 2009 survey of US temperature stations found that 89% were improperly sited according to NOAA’s own Air Temperature Siting Standards (100 feet from any extensive concrete or paved surface, etc). A 2022 survey found that 96% were sited improperly.
- selimthegrim 3y agoDo you think that nighttime temperature rising independent of Milanković cycles can be put down to faulty stations?
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoOf course; if the devices doing the measuring are covered in hot manure once daily or are faulty for an infinite number of other reasons, the data can easily be low quality and/or biased. This is basic science. The idea that bias only happens in the day is nonsense. Also, I have yet to hear that scientists are writing off the low-quality daytime data either. As for their fudge factors to supposedly correct the data, I seriously doubt that NOAA are doing regular and representative computational fluid dynamics and raycasting simulations for each of the substandard stations to account for the various obstructions and radiative/reflective surfaces they chose to ignore when placing their sensor. They just have a crappy heuristic based on boolean algebra and round numbers. They pass off their "corrected" low-quality data as being corroborated by other measurements but what they're really doing is using this low-quality data to corroborate other sources of data. Other sources which only started collecting data a handful of years ago (and thus could not alone support any claim about the industrial revolution causing such and such amount of warming). It's a self-licking ice cream cone. Also, going back to the humility thing, they never seem to acknowledge that other sciences like chemistry are easily 500 years ahead of climate science. Imagine if I said that the advanced state of computer science was on par with physics (LOL). Remember the xkcd comic? Computer scientists will readily volunteer that their field is an eel pit
- selimthegrim 3y agoYou don’t think chemists contributed to climate science? Like Susan Solomon? Or via stuff like [1] [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-independent_fractionation https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-independent_fractionati...
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago[flagged]
- selimthegrim 3y agoI get where you're coming from but chemists happily don the climate science moniker in general without the sense that it is shameful.
- littlestymaar 3y agoDon't feed the troll, there's a “flag” button just for that.
- iraqmtpizza 3y agoDon't you think it's trolling to ask irrelevant questions repeatedly instead of engaging with what someone has said