Climategate scientists said they wanted to get rid of the 1940’s blip, and they did. They don’t want people to know what the climate was like in the past, because it wrecks their story and exposes their graphs as complete nonsense.
Disrupting the Borg is expensive and time consuming!
Google Search
-
Recent Posts
- Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Gaslighting 1924
- “Why Do You Resist?”
- Climate Attribution Model
- Fact Checking NASA
- Fact Checking Grok
- Fact Checking The New York Times
- New Visitech Features
- Ice-Free Arctic By 2014
- Debt-Free US Treasury Forecast
- Analyzing Big City Crime (Part 2)
- Analyzing Big City Crime
- UK Migration Caused By Global Warming
- Climate Attribution In Greece
- “Brown: ’50 days to save world'”
- The Catastrophic Influence of Bovine Methane Emissions on Extraterrestrial Climate Patterns
- Posting On X
- Seventeen Years Of Fun
- The Importance Of Good Tools
- Temperature Shifts At Blue Hill, MA
- CO2²
- Time Of Observation Bias
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Climate Scamming For Profit
- Back To The Future
Recent Comments
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- arn on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Scott Allen on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- conrad ziefle on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- conrad ziefle on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Analyzing The Western Water Crisis
- Bob G on Gaslighting 1924
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2014/08/30/arctic-ice-cap-expands-41-percent-two-years-al-gore-thought-it-might-be-#comment-1568627484
The comments may entertain.
Mother Nature has always been in charge….LOL!
“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]
Tony, the link to the newspaper article isn’t working.
Reblogged this on the WeatherAction Blog.
Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
We just need to keep reminding everyone!
Thanks, Steven aka Tony, for your effort to sort “truth from propaganda.”
With the submission of a new manuscript on “solar energy” for publication at ~6:30 am (Central Time) this morning, there is now a self-identification process in operation to separate real from phony science:. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/10640850/Solar_Energy.pdf
1. If the 97% consensus community consists of real scientists, they will openly address all nine pages of precise experimental measurements that disagree with the Standard Solar Model of Hydrogen-filled stars.
2. If the 97% consensus community consists only of phony scientists, they will refuse to address any of nine pages of precise experimental data that disagree with the Standard Solar Model of Hydrogen-filled stars.
With kind regards,
– Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
Thread bomber.
Are you looking to be spam, Brian?