Wonder if the historic flooding in Dubai might be a consequence. Also, Judith Curry is a brilliant and courageous climate scientist with a long record of accuracy. I ‘I’ll go with her take as the more scientific.
Is this the same John Kennedy who creates the HADSST series? The one I had a comment stream conversation with way back on Bishop Hill?
The same one who averages raw temperature data using absurd assumptions about source uncertainty and tries to pass it off as valid for real world applications?
He may have a point about extrapolation here. But the hypocrisy is astounding.
I wasn't providing a professional reference for the guy, just pointing out his analysis of the shortcomings of the study, which are probably fairly objective. Gavin Schmidt, who shared his X thread, is no doubt delighted that it embarrasses Judy and leaves the door open to blame 'climate change' for the Dubai floods. But of course this is all beside the point: Judith and Matt SHOULD have exercised due diligence before advocating for this study.
Complex not local systems, think bigger. The butterfly wings etc. Nudging high or low pressure systems across reservoirs. An analogy would be a flat plate of iron filings, through the introduction of charged particles across a mild current, you can make them dance. Flemings left/right hand rule. As low pressure systems develop, there is potential from low to high altitude (lightning (current) ), seeding can determine direction and introducing particulates will increase participation. Pressure moves from high to low, hot to cold. A nudge here, a nudge there and Robert is your mother's brother... There's a convention against it for a reason, because the Mother Nature's system is more complex than the hubristic human models spitting out the flight paths...
Wonder if the historic flooding in Dubai might be a consequence. Also, Judith Curry is a brilliant and courageous climate scientist with a long record of accuracy. I ‘I’ll go with her take as the more scientific.
Is this the same John Kennedy who creates the HADSST series? The one I had a comment stream conversation with way back on Bishop Hill?
The same one who averages raw temperature data using absurd assumptions about source uncertainty and tries to pass it off as valid for real world applications?
He may have a point about extrapolation here. But the hypocrisy is astounding.
I wasn't providing a professional reference for the guy, just pointing out his analysis of the shortcomings of the study, which are probably fairly objective. Gavin Schmidt, who shared his X thread, is no doubt delighted that it embarrasses Judy and leaves the door open to blame 'climate change' for the Dubai floods. But of course this is all beside the point: Judith and Matt SHOULD have exercised due diligence before advocating for this study.
Complex not local systems, think bigger. The butterfly wings etc. Nudging high or low pressure systems across reservoirs. An analogy would be a flat plate of iron filings, through the introduction of charged particles across a mild current, you can make them dance. Flemings left/right hand rule. As low pressure systems develop, there is potential from low to high altitude (lightning (current) ), seeding can determine direction and introducing particulates will increase participation. Pressure moves from high to low, hot to cold. A nudge here, a nudge there and Robert is your mother's brother... There's a convention against it for a reason, because the Mother Nature's system is more complex than the hubristic human models spitting out the flight paths...