by Leo Goldstein, June19, 2017 in WUWT
When something pretending to be a science cannot adequately define a quantity for its central subject, this something is inarguably a pseudo-science. This is certainly the case in the self-professed “climate science.” It proposes the hypothesis of a dangerously warming climate, but does it define a meaningful climatic temperature that can be robustly calculated from the observations at the current time? To the extent that it does define climatic temperature (meaningfully or not), does it pay much attention to this quantity? The answer to both these questions is a resounding NO.
by Kip Hansen, June 19, 2017 in WUWT
As both the word and the concept “average” are subject to a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding in the general public and both word and concept have seen an overwhelming amount of “loose usage” even in scientific circles, not excluding peer-reviewed journal articles and scientific press releases, I gave a refresher on Averages in Part 1 of this series. If your maths or science background is near the great American average, I suggest you take a quick look at the primer in Part 1 before reading here.
by British Antarctic Survey, June 19, 2017 in ClimateChangeDispatch
The levels of microplastic particles accumulating in the Antarctic are much worse than expected, a team of experts has warned.
The continent is considered to be a pristine wilderness compared to other regions and was thought to be relatively free from plastic pollution. However new findings by scientists from University of Hull and British Antarctic Survey (BAS) have revealed that recorded levels of microplastics are five times higher than you would expect to find from local sources such as research stations and ships