11/29/2009

Tom Wigley's email, more problems at the National Center for Atmospheric Research

This is a very strange email:

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.

Labels: , ,

1 Comments:

Blogger Sherm said...

I remember first hearing about the possibility of carbon induced global warming some 35 years ago. It was all conjecture and simply based upon the belief that carbon was not being entrapped in things like seashells as quickly as it was being released from things like oil. It seemed very plausible then, enough so that I still remember the article. However, looking back the article was sounding the alarm then based upon nothing. The alarm presupposed a finding. To maintain credibility data to back the result had to be found. If you have "the answer" and only look for supporting data you will find just that.

11/30/2009 10:13 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home