Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 1970 – The Beginning Of Time
- Hiding The Heat Of 1934
- ‘malice toward the planet’
- Final Score For The Inflation Reduction Act
- Fraudster Fighting Climate Misinformation
- Ice Free Glacier National Park
- Climate Comedy Cancelled
- Warmest March On Record
- New Climate Metric
- Bad-Faith Trial Misconduct
- Food And Energy Experts
- “Are We Imagining It?”
- The Suffragettes
- Michael Mann Upset
- A Serious Problem
- Miami Drowning
- No Longer The Greatest Existential Threat
- Almost Unanimous Consensus Of Scientists
- Maryland To Drown
- Rapid Virus Mutation
- Wisconsin To Save The Planet
- Magical Musk
- “Scientists Forecast”
- “thing of the past” update
- Defunding The Climate Scam
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on ‘malice toward the planet’
- Gamecock on 1970 – The Beginning Of Time
- gordon vigurs on ‘malice toward the planet’
- Stewartpid on 1970 – The Beginning Of Time
- czechlist on 1970 – The Beginning Of Time
- william on New Climate Metric
- Ulric Lyons on Hiding The Heat Of 1934
- arn on New Climate Metric
- william on New Climate Metric
- Alastair on Fraudster Fighting Climate Misinformation
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.