Short version, there's a model that predicts weather better, but it is kind of apocalyptic so no one wants to use it and acknowledge it.
this post was submitted on 03 Mar 2024
40 points (95.5% liked)
Ask Science
8621 readers
1 users here now
Ask a science question, get a science answer.
Community Rules
Rule 1: Be respectful and inclusive.
Treat others with respect, and maintain a positive atmosphere.
Rule 2: No harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or trolling.
Avoid any form of harassment, hate speech, bigotry, or offensive behavior.
Rule 3: Engage in constructive discussions.
Contribute to meaningful and constructive discussions that enhance scientific understanding.
Rule 4: No AI-generated answers.
Strictly prohibit the use of AI-generated answers. Providing answers generated by AI systems is not allowed and may result in a ban.
Rule 5: Follow guidelines and moderators' instructions.
Adhere to community guidelines and comply with instructions given by moderators.
Rule 6: Use appropriate language and tone.
Communicate using suitable language and maintain a professional and respectful tone.
Rule 7: Report violations.
Report any violations of the community rules to the moderators for appropriate action.
Rule 8: Foster a continuous learning environment.
Encourage a continuous learning environment where members can share knowledge and engage in scientific discussions.
Rule 9: Source required for answers.
Provide credible sources for answers. Failure to include a source may result in the removal of the answer to ensure information reliability.
By adhering to these rules, we create a welcoming and informative environment where science-related questions receive accurate and credible answers. Thank you for your cooperation in making the Ask Science community a valuable resource for scientific knowledge.
We retain the discretion to modify the rules as we deem necessary.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
There are other reasons besides it being apocalyptic that climate scientists might consider the model less useful than others. This video rebuttal to the video you posted explains some of those reasons quite well. The rebuttal is from Dr. Adam Levy who is a climate scientist. I mention this only because Dr. Sabine Hossenfelder, the maker of your video, actually has a degree in physics, not climate science. One should be very cautious when considering opinions of people who are speaking outside their field of expertise. While she may be an expert in her own field, she is not a climate scientist.
Late but... The USA failed to regulate 5G well enough. It would have forced telecoms to use steeper frequently filters that are more accurate like what is used in the rest of the responsible world. The 5G frequency band butts up against the hydrogen band used by weather satellites. (IIRC) The study that the FCC commissioned said something like a failure to isolate and protect the hydrogen line would set back US weather forecasting accuracy to around the level it was in 1970. As usual, the red jihadist party had absolutely no qualms about such a technological setback, took their political bribes, and failed to regulate to protect the hydrogen line. In their defense, radio is magic, and sky wizard didn't have any objections via thoughts and prayers.
Interesting, thank you!