Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- 100% Wind By 2030
- It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Climate Grifting Shutting Down
- Fundamental Pillars Of Democracy
- An Inconvenient Truth
- Antarctic Meltdown Update
- “Trump eyes major cuts to NOAA research”
- Data Made Simple II – Sneak Preview
- Attacks On Democracy
- Scientists Warn
- Upping The Ante
- Our New Leadership
- Grok Defines Fake News
- Arctic Meltdown Update
- The Savior Of Humanity
- President Trump Explains The Stock Market
- Net Zero In Europe
- The Canadian Hockey Stick
- Dogs Cause Hurricanes, Tornadoes And Droughts
- 50 Years Of Climate Devastation
- Climate Cycles
- Hiding The Decline
- Careful Research At BBC News
- New Video : Man Made Climate Emergency
- Geoengineering To Save The Planet
Recent Comments
- arn on 100% Wind By 2030
- gordon vigurs on 100% Wind By 2030
- arn on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- arn on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- dm on 100% Wind By 2030
- conrad ziefle on 100% Wind By 2030
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- conrad ziefle on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
- Jehzsa on It Is A Nice Idea, But ….
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.