Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Diversity Is Our Strength
- “even within the lifetime of our children”
- 60 Years Of Progress in London
- The Anti-Greta
- “a persistent concern”
- Deadliest US Tornado Days
- The Other Side Of The Pond
- “HEMI V8 Roars Back”
- Big Pharma Sales Tool
- Your Tax Dollars At Work
- 622 billion tons of new ice
- Fossil Fuels To Turn The UK Tropical
- 100% Tariffs On Chinese EV’s
- Fossil Fuels Cause Fungus
- Prophets Of Doom
- The Green New Deal Lives On
- Mission Accomplished!
- 45 Years Ago Today
- Solution To Denver Homelessness
- Crime In Colorado
- Everything Looks Like A Nail
- The End Of NetZero
- UK Officially Sucks
- Crime In Washington DC
- Apparently People Like Warm Weather
Recent Comments
- dearieme on Diversity Is Our Strength
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Crashex on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- arn on Diversity Is Our Strength
- GeologyJim on Diversity Is Our Strength
- Bill Odom on “a persistent concern”
- arn on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- conrad ziefle on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- Francis Barnett on 60 Years Of Progress in London
- dearieme on “even within the lifetime of our children”
Perfect! The climate scientist will try to bury the paper though – just like they won’t like this story that confirms the MWP in Alaska, in spades. All these Inconvenient Truths to deal with.
http://now.msn.com/mendenhall-glacier-retreat-reveals-1000-year-old-forest
Love it. Numbers not sophistry.
Speaking of word play though; I note how once an observer or researcher cannot explain a temperature shift, Natural Variability is invoked.
Note that logically and analytically, Natural Variability simply means “We have no idea what is going on”. And as far as that goes, that is fine. There is a lot we don’t know. But just know that when “Natural Variability” is invoked, in any field – not just in Climate so-called Science, it simple means, quite literally, we do not know.
So.
Just think how much we hear that Man Made CO2 “causes” catastrophic warming; radiative physics and all. Settled science. CO2 as thermostat; and when not, it’s “natural variability”.
Now.
Observe CO2 goes up; temperatures go up, down, stay the same – and all not by much by historical measures.
“CO2 radiative physics” vs. “natural variability” reduces to CO2 radiative physics vs. we have no idea what is going on.
Preponderance of empirical data favors “we have no idea what is going on”.
And.
As an engineer, when I have no idea what is going on, I (personally) focus on data collection, data qualification, and an open mind.
Hmmmm? Consistent with Climate so-called Science? Hmmmmm.
Not
A fascinating tidbit in the paper from Julienne [my emphasis]:
Stroeve and Steffen (1998) investigated the use of the AVHRR satellite surface temperature retrieval to track the surface temperature changes over the Greenland ice sheet. They found a reasonable correlation between the ice sheet temperature changes derived from the AVHRR data and the temperature records at the Summit and the ETH/CU camp stations. A major problem in using the satellite data to monitor the ice sheet temperature emerged because of the difficulty in detecting clouds over ice and snow surfaces. The presence of undetected thin cirrus can cause
a significant error (of several °C) in surface temperature retrievals.