Therefore
we get polar areas that are covered by extrapolation by GISS and not covered at all by HadCRUT.
Not exact matches
Although in the end, it may be that recommendations for
polar bear refugia may overshadow the distributions of other resources, I think that moving ahead with strong recommendations, without at least considering the distributions of other competing resources (and, by the way the concerns of local people who may live in the
areas), is a bit like
getting the cart ahead of the horse.
So either
get some decent ground stations — and place them to remove the urban / rural heating problem (which means controlling vegetation for miles around) and / or
get some
polar orbiting satellites so we have 100 % satellite coverage OR satellites + detailed accurate measurements of part of the global to act as a reference calibration
area to improve accuracy of satellites.
Yes, one small group in Hudson Bay
area had some trouble but how that
got conflated into all
polar bears world wide about to go extinct I have never been able to figure out.
If less energy comes in, the governor will try to maintain the energy flux into the system (Willis's retarding the appearance of clouds) but once all stops have been pulled out (the sky is clear morning to night), then the engine slows down — slower air and water currents, less addition of heat to the
polar areas, dissipation of what heat has accumulated by radiation into space and return cold water not
getting the heating it formerly did.
And we also don't
get say 15 C increase in temperature in Tropics when it is a 30 C world, nor does the poles become much colder when we in colder world of 10 C, rather it's expansion
area of
polar region climate and contraction of tropical regions.