← Back to context Comment by N2yhWNXQN3k9 6 months ago https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper-atmospheric_lightning 5 comments N2yhWNXQN3k9 Reply wfme 6 months ago > In ensuing decades, high altitude electrical discharges were reported by aircraft pilots and discounted by meteorologists until the first direct visual evidence was documented in 1989.From your link. N2yhWNXQN3k9 6 months ago [flagged] wfme 6 months ago It was in response to your original, unedited comment: "Pretty well understood" or something to that effect.My point is that discounting historical accounts with a link to current information is neither particularly useful nor interesting.IMO it is much more interesting to understand how our understanding has changed over time. 2 replies →
wfme 6 months ago > In ensuing decades, high altitude electrical discharges were reported by aircraft pilots and discounted by meteorologists until the first direct visual evidence was documented in 1989.From your link. N2yhWNXQN3k9 6 months ago [flagged] wfme 6 months ago It was in response to your original, unedited comment: "Pretty well understood" or something to that effect.My point is that discounting historical accounts with a link to current information is neither particularly useful nor interesting.IMO it is much more interesting to understand how our understanding has changed over time. 2 replies →
N2yhWNXQN3k9 6 months ago [flagged] wfme 6 months ago It was in response to your original, unedited comment: "Pretty well understood" or something to that effect.My point is that discounting historical accounts with a link to current information is neither particularly useful nor interesting.IMO it is much more interesting to understand how our understanding has changed over time. 2 replies →
wfme 6 months ago It was in response to your original, unedited comment: "Pretty well understood" or something to that effect.My point is that discounting historical accounts with a link to current information is neither particularly useful nor interesting.IMO it is much more interesting to understand how our understanding has changed over time. 2 replies →
> In ensuing decades, high altitude electrical discharges were reported by aircraft pilots and discounted by meteorologists until the first direct visual evidence was documented in 1989.
From your link.
[flagged]
It was in response to your original, unedited comment: "Pretty well understood" or something to that effect.
My point is that discounting historical accounts with a link to current information is neither particularly useful nor interesting.
IMO it is much more interesting to understand how our understanding has changed over time.
2 replies →