Wednesday, December 28, 2011

ClimateGate email: Warmist Tom Wigley proposes fudging temperature data by .15 degrees C

2009 ClimateGate email

Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, 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. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip".  [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer]

3 comments:

Fred said...

Well of course . . . in Climate Scientology any Inconvenient Data must be terminated.

With prejudice.

spangled drongo said...

But Tom, are you sure you're looking at this in the right context?

Paul Clark said...

Manipulating figures to make nature conform to their agenda rather than the other way around. So blatent and shameless and very unscientific!