i play helldivers 2 on an HDR monitor and i nearly always balk at playing daytime missions because the in game light source "sun" literally hurts my eyes to look at.
However, barring that (i mean, midday sun is nearly impossible for me, in real life, too, right?), like websites, the backgrounds look brighter on my 1080p TV i have connected to the computer, even though it is set up for the correct colors, so windows understands that letting webdevs attack my retinas is unacceptable, at least.
i have never thought about the fact that prior to win8(?) that windows explorer had different shades for everything. I have thought about the default windows 95/98 themes, as i have painted my bedrooms for 25 years the exact shade of one specific part of the "computer properties" window in win98, "extreme gloss". at night, it's pitch black and during the day, the high-gloss makes it very lively and bright. I can't imagine having some other color for a room i sleep in (the ceiling is white, i'm not a barbarian).
i let my devices attempt to enforce this. Windows goes one further by automatically dimming my displays at a set time (it defaults to like 19:00 or 20:00). I wish my phone did this too, but i haven't found a way to have it do dim and undim automatically.
anyhow if you read between the lines in many of the comments (above this one at this time), i get the idea that most people would answer "it depends" and the people who like light mode either have properly set up their display (130 nits was mentioned), people who have astigmatisms (mentioned), or people who don't know there's anything else.
you're right this is much to complicated and important for anyone to understand. just take our word for it that we have to make things more expensive, raise taxes, and restrict freedoms to fix it.
If you are serious about this, you know full well the data is out there. So stop asking for it and just go get it, go write some code and process it, then come back here and report your results.
picked four stations at random[0] and it's just precip numbers, no temps, no humidity, no insolation, etc.
are you sure you linked what you think you linked?
[0] /by-station and then unclutched my scroll wheel and spun it for arbitrary amount of time, re-engaged clutch and clicked what was under the cursor. repeated 3 more times. i did a fifth, where the one i was looking at was identical to the fourth one, but had a 1 in the least significant portion of the station ID instead of a 4, in case it was like, "4" is precip, "1" is temps, and i happened to click "4" 4 times in a row.
HAHA you're completely right! or, and this is just some advice: don't tell strangers to look up data, link the data, and it not be what you said it was.
If i promise you punch and pie, you'd be pretty upset if it wasn't.
and scientists edit the historical temperatures because of, and i hope you can see my eyeroll here "anomalous readings" - but they're overwhelmingly erroneous in only one direction. that's strange.
i'm literally in the middle of trying to parse a couple of papers that examine the methodology of at least the NOAA homogenization model.
did you know there's only eight sensors, globally, that we have data for >95% of the last 100 years, that are labelled as "fully rural"? so this means that 99.9% of the stations must therefore be, at least, more likely to be adjusted, doesn't it? The entire premise that UHI is irrelevant because they "normalized" the 99.9% and it showed it was irrelevant is... i don't know, it's something, though.
I agree it's suspicious. Rather than dismiss it altogether, I'm trying to understand the e2e process. i.e. divide 1880-present into Epochs and understand what %-age of coverage, resolution & how precise were the instruments
nevermind satellites, just diff the temp records from say, 1950-2000 and the ones reporting that data today and there's a lot of jank. urbanization around the thermometers also makes it appear as though global temperatures are rising, but all the data really says is that cities are heat islands.
first order: verify satellite data. Secondly, move all sensors to locations where they are unaffected by heat islanding and other man-made influences.
yes, if a city gets hotter in temperature because it grows, that obviously is a concern, but it doesn't affect people in the countryside, or on the other side of the planet, etc. (1/1000th as much if anything, i'll hedge).
the second thing will never happen. I am sure someone will reply why it's literally impossible and stupid to put thermometers someplace where the weather is natural. Because if we did move all of the sensors, suddenly there wouldn't appear to be any 1.5C change or anything, and there's thousands of egos at stake, here.
Google "urban heat island effect site:realclimate.org"
Scientists have been aware of the effect and correcting for it since before you heard about it. In general, if you can think of something in five minutes, scientists (whose lifetime job is to consider these problems) have considered that.
top post is from 13 years ago. there are more recent meta studies and research done. ( i know of at least 3, that were 'rebutted' by realclimate.org but not satisfactorily.) it's fine to handwave on a forum "oh of course they've contemplated this you simpleton!" I've kept up with the literature; i've read the IPCC reports, for years. there is contention about this, about the heat record (like, prehistoric).
GISS and GHCN use, among other things, models to homogenize temperatures across UHI and "rural" areas, and these are two i found with a cursory search. there are others. they only agree that it is, for sure, getting warmer. they arrive at different values.
Different.
Values.
The satellite date we've been using since 1978? well, every 10-15 years they get replaced, and the satellites report different TSI values. (i can link a picture of the satellite TSI data as a single graph if you'd like!)
Different.
Values.
> "Instead, most groups (including NASA GISS), were relying on automated computer programs that tried to guess when station changes might have introduced a bias. These programs used statistical algorithms that compared each station record to those of neighboring stations and applying “homogenization adjustments” to the data.
I'm not sure i know the exact locations, but NASA and NOAA do, and people who have seen the data and locations (and therefore know what is rural or not) say things like this about realclimate.org's handwave of UHI:
> "Because urban areas still only represent 3-4% of the global land surface, this should not substantially influence global temperatures.
> However, most of the weather stations used for calculating the land component of global temperatures are located in urban or semi-urban areas. This is especially so for the stations with the longest temperature records. One reason why is because it is harder to staff and maintain a weather station in an isolated, rural location for a century or longer."
further from a paper critiquing the GHCN model's homogenization algorithm:
> "When they were compiling the Global Historical Climatology Network dataset, the National Climatic Data Center included some basic station metadata, i.e., data describing the station and its environment. For each station, they provided the station name, country, latitude, longitude and elevation. They also provided a number of classifications to describe the environment of the station - whether it was an airport station or not; if it was on an island, near the coast or near a lake; and what the average ecosystem of the stations’ surroundings was, e.g., desert, ice, forest, etc"
oh and an interesting note, if you are wondering "well, how many fully rural stations do we have data for at least 95% of the 'last 100 years?"
mentally unstable people can hold down jobs sometimes, too. Like, those under treatment, but a stressor can cause "relapse" and now you got a predicament at work.
Chemical and/or clinical depression can be debilitating, and i consider it mental instability.
you're on a country road with 1 lane in each direction, no reflectors, no fog line, and there's a lifted truck driving toward you with the brights on. There's a gentle curve in the road, to the left (you're driving on the right side of the road)
what do you do?
this happens every ~10 minutes on average when i drive between civil twilight and midnight. It stops being a problem after about 3AM. Maybe all the cool kids are asleep.
i'm over 40; this is anecdotal, but I've talked to a lot of people all over the country; however i'm not asserting this is 100% factual:
in the US most days include a meat in at least 1 meal. Now, i'm framing this as "fish, eggs, fowl". Cereal with milk, bagel with cream cheese, not meat, but meat adjacent. Waffles have eggs. we love "deli meats" in the US, every store has a deli counter where you can get meat sliced right before your own eyes; or you can go to the 4-8 door cold case where the pre-sliced meats are. And dinner, well i can think of a couple of vegetarian dishes that are "staples" like red beans and rice (can be vegan/vegetarian), or pasta with marinara (vegetarian).
When presented with something like the Mediterranean diet, most americans would balk at the bird and rabbit food they were now expected to eat.
I can expand, but yes, meat is like, a huge deal in the US. Especially beef. part of it is our chicken and pork is kinda bland and merely "just food" but our beef ranges from "ok if i'm real hungry" to "really very good, actually". Fish is hit and miss, depends where you live in the US as to how popular it is. also most of the cow is used for food in the US, very little is wasted, to my understanding. brain, eyes, tongue, glands, lungs, etc are all sold, bones sold as fertilizer, hide is obviously leather, and so on.
for the record i wish animals were treated better, in fact, i have been searching for a local beef farmer for a decade and all the ones i run in to sell their beef to texas!
gp is likely referring to a specific diet called The Mediterranean Diet, "inspired by the eating habits and traditional foods of Greece, Italy, and the Mediterranean coasts of France and Spain, as observed in the late 1950s to early 1960s."
I think most Americans would consider those foods very "exotic."
I was an adult before I ever ate chickpeas (in any form), really any beans outside of Taco Bell refried beans, eggplant (in any form), tzatziki, any sort of flatbread, lentils, avocado, zucchini, cauliflower. Etc.
However, barring that (i mean, midday sun is nearly impossible for me, in real life, too, right?), like websites, the backgrounds look brighter on my 1080p TV i have connected to the computer, even though it is set up for the correct colors, so windows understands that letting webdevs attack my retinas is unacceptable, at least.
reply