Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Technology Advances
- “The Hour Of Decision”
- “fair & equitable”
- Michael Mann Continues His War
- Time Travelling Satellites
- Time Traveling Satellites
- Adult Content On X
- The Climate Of 1923
- Arctic Report Card
- Green Colorado
- Hottest Summer Ever
- “Sea ice could be gone by 2012, scientists warn”
- Record CO2 Growth
- Walz’s For Trump
- 6,000 Year Old Tree In The Austrian Alps
- Gemini Can See The Future
- Clinton To Defeat Trump By Double Digits
- Climate Intelligence Means “Making Things Up”
- Comedy From The BBC
- The Climate Afterlife
- Rewriting The Northern Hemisphere
- Useful Graphs From ChatGPT
- Fort Lauderdale Drowning
- Sinking Of The Titanic
Recent Comments
- czechlist on “The Hour Of Decision”
- Trevor on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- Trevor on Rapidly Accelerating Sea Level Rise
- arn on Technology Advances
- Billyjack on “The Hour Of Decision”
- arn on “fair & equitable”
- arn on Michael Mann Continues His War
- Bob G on “fair & equitable”
- Bob G on Michael Mann Continues His War
- arn on Michael Mann Continues His War
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.