When the model and the measurement disagree, publish both
Across 40 sites the measured figure sat above the modelled one about two thirds of the time. The interesting cases are the other third.
Method notes, field notes and the occasional argument with a coefficient table. Written by the people who take the readings.
Across 40 sites the measured figure sat above the modelled one about two thirds of the time. The interesting cases are the other third.
A number without a band is a claim about precision that nobody checked. Here is how ours are derived and what widens them.
If your reported emissions track invoices, sourcing better looks identical to sourcing the same. The incentive is backwards.
What actually happens between signing and the first defensible figure, including the parts that involve helicopters.
A record that can be quietly corrected is not a record. Corrections belong on the chain, next to what they correct.
Regional coefficients were built from a handful of studies and then reused for two decades. Measurement is starting to show where.
A demo library — the articles are titles, not files.
No. We measure, and we publish what we measure. Selling the thing you also verify is the conflict this industry already has.
It gets published. That has happened, and it is the reason a measured figure is worth more than a modelled one.
Yes, in full, with the provenance chain. Re-derivation by a third party is the point of recording it that way.
Below roughly 500 hectares a tower rarely pays for itself, and inversion alone carries a wide band. We will say so rather than sell you one.
Tell us what you are trying to prove and we will send the closest thing we have.
Let's talkReplica study · not affiliated with alethia.earth
← alexzakharov.dev replica study