Understanding Why They Wanted To Get Rid Of The Blip

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.

ScreenHunter_2440 Sep. 01 09.26

21 Jul 1932 – A Warmer World.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Understanding Why They Wanted To Get Rid Of The Blip

  1. 1957chev says:

    Mother Nature has always been in charge….LOL!

  2. Don B says:

    “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. Don says:

    Tony, the link to the newspaper article isn’t working.

  4. Centinel2012 says:

    Reblogged this on Centinel2012 and commented:
    We just need to keep reminding everyone!

  5. omanuel says:

    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

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s