/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14796961
>So to be clear, you're saying temperature wasn't recorded when rainfall wasn't recorded. That's your argument right? Well that's wrong. Do you know what clanging is? That's what you're doing.
Well explain why there are so many rainfall irregularities at precisely that period?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clanging
>In psychology and psychiatry, clanging or clang association refers to a mode of speech characterized by association of words based upon sound rather than concepts.
And you're spinning me in a toxic cycle of abuse, if we want to play the irrelevant psychiatric bullshit game.


I'm just pointing out a prima facie observation. It's not a scientific journal, but I do see this shit regularly and they are my own observations with real examples from real weather data sites. I've seen this for years all over this and by looking at the big picture you might be able to address an issue that is not being talked about enough in the context of climate change - technological errors.
And instead of addressing it, you're calling me a psycho now.

>There is clearly no issue with the temperature data. If there was you would have shown it instead of rainfall measurements.
I'm saying it is temperature data, you just didn't know how it can be temperature data nowadays.
Rainfall, atmospheric pressure, tides, etc, etc, are all used to construct your temperature data used in climate research papers. If you have a flaw in one space and regularly, that means the temperature data will be misconstrued over time.
Also, I am now looking for cases where temperature has had error too. Because I've seen that too.

Also I like how Joe Biden has install a new independent organisation separate from NOAA on climate extremes in recent months. I didn't think it was anything, but looking at this thread, clearly it is if people are that agitated by the idea of their hardware and software failing them with climate data.
I haven't even gotten into the hacking side of things.