This is a very strange email:
The explanation?
The problem that I have with this explanation is that Wigley says: "If we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean." The reason why it is problematic is that it is so goal orientated. Scientists only talk this way if they are trying to figure out how to get a particular result.
The e-mails written by Wigley that have caused the most Internet buzz include a note to Phil Jones, director of the British Climatic Research Unit. That note discusses how to reduce a "warming blip" in sea-surface and land temperature data during the 1940s. Wigley suggests, "If we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip." . . .
The explanation?
Wigley said Tuesday night that the e-mail reference to reducing the blip was really just "short hand" for using a type of correction outlined in another peer-reviewed paper published in Nature in 2008. . . .
The problem that I have with this explanation is that Wigley says: "If we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean." The reason why it is problematic is that it is so goal orientated. Scientists only talk this way if they are trying to figure out how to get a particular result.
Related Posts
New Washington Times piecesAnother couple pieces of mine in the Washington Times:More errors in temperature data: The global warming cult sees its- 16 Climate Scientists say don't worry about Global Warming
- Climate models predicting Global Warming have a BIG problem: much more heat being lost by earth into space than models assumedSo much for long term predictions:NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is a
- Diminishing returns to increasing car MPG?The Eco adds apparently $1,600 to the price of the Malibu (with a sales tax of 7 percent that comes up to $1,712). Supp
- How to make the US much poorer: Military “green fuel” costs nearly seven times more than conventional fuelUS military spends a lot on fuel.Last year, the U.S. military spent approximately $15 billion on fuel for its operation
- The BBC on the computer programming used by the University of East Anglia's Climate Research UnitJohn Graham-Cumming strikes as a straight shooter. He both criticizes and defends parts of their programming. Here ar
Tom Wigley's email, more problems at the National Center for Atmospheric Research
4/
5
Oleh
abudzar
