3. I would say an albedo of 1.0 would likely be “wildly wrong.” But can’t check independently.
-
Nothing wrong with 'better' or 'worse' thermal model as long as size is measured verifiably better. Myhrvold don't do that.
Nathan is claiming that the model is “good” because they came up with all these arbitrary rules for the calibration.
-
-
Also, since you mentioned 'arbitrary rules for the calibration', any specifics on that? Any specific rule that seemed wrong or /1
-
That's section 3.2. Perhaps I should have said "data processing" instead of "calibration."
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
But that it doesn't really work that well for the other 150,000 or so. Impossible to say for sure either way, right?
-
"Impossible to say" with certainty without measurement. Very much possible with measurements.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
And Myhrvold's solution is to make a model and just not calibrate or verify to see if it makes sense in reality.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
that the previous models was calibrated at all seems wrong? For reference, please see http://www.dictionary.com/browse/calibrate …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.