Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- UK Net Zero
- Erasing 1921
- “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Warming Toledo
- One Year Left To Save The Planet
- Cold Hurricanes
- Plant Food
- President Trump Gets Every Question Right
- The Inflation Reduction Act
- Saving The Ecosystem
- Two Weeks Past The End Of The World
- Desperate State Of The Cryosphere
- “most secure in American history”
- “Trump moves to hobble major US climate change study”
- April 11, 1965 Tornado Outbreak
- The CO2 Endangerment Finding
- Climate Correlation
- What Me Worry?
- Heatwaves Of 1980
- More Proof Of Global Warming
- Shutting Down The Climate
- ChatGPT Research Proposal
- Warming Twice As Fast
- Understanding Climate Science
- Recycling The Same News Every Century
Recent Comments
- conrad ziefle on UK Net Zero
- czechlist on UK Net Zero
- Francis Barnett on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- Francis Barnett on “the world’s most eminent climate scientists”
- arn on UK Net Zero
- Steven Fraser on Plant Food
- gordon vigurs on UK Net Zero
- arn on UK Net Zero
- Robertvd on UK Net Zero
- arn on UK Net Zero
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.