by Steve McIntyre
Even in their Nov 24, 2009 statement, the University of East Anglia failed to come clean about the amount of decline that was hidden. The graphic in their statement continued to “hide the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction by deleting adverse results in the last part of the 20th century. This is what Gavin Schmidt characterizes as a “good thing to do”.
First here is the Nov 2009 diagram offered up by UEA:
Figure 1. Resized UEA version of Nov 2009, supposedly “showing the decline”. Original here ,
Here’s what UEA appears to have done in the above diagram.
While they’ve used the actual Briffa reconstruction after 1960 in making their smooth, even now, they deleted values after 1960 so that the full measure of the decline of the Briffa reconstruction is hidden. Deleted values are shown in magenta. Source code is below.
Figure 2. Emulation of UEA Nov 2009, using all the Briffa reconstruction.
R SOURCE CODE:
##COMPARE ARCHIVED BRIFFA VERSION TO CLIMATEGATE VERSION
#1. LOAD BRIFFA (CLIMATEGATE VERSION) # archive is truncated in 1960: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt”
loc=”http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=146&filename=939154709.txt” working=readLines(loc,n=1994-1401+104) working=working[105:length(working)] x=substr(working,1,14) writeLines(x,”temp.dat”) gate=read.table(“temp.dat”) gate=ts(gate[,2],start=gate[1,1])
#2. J98 has reference 1961-1990 #note that there is another version at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones1998/jonesdata.txt”
loc=”ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2001/jones2001_fig2.txt” test=read.table(loc,skip=17,header=TRUE,fill=TRUE,colClasses=”numeric”,nrow=1001) test[test== -9.999]=NA count= apply(!is.na(test),1,sum) test=ts(test,start=1000,end=2000) J2001=test[,"Jones"]
#3. MBH : reference 1902-1980 url<-"ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann1999/recons/nhem-recon.dat" MBH99<-read.table(url) ;#this goes to 1980 MBH99<-ts(MBH99[,2],start=MBH99[1,1])
#4. CRU instrumental: 1961-1990 reference
# use old version to 1997 in Briffa archive extended
url<-"ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt"
#readLines(url)[1:50]
Briffa<-read.table(url,skip=24,fill=TRUE)
Briffa[Briffa< -900]=NA
dimnames(Briffa)[[2]]<-c("year","Jones98","MBH99","Briffa01","Briffa00","Overpeck97","Crowley00","CRU99")
Briffa= ts(Briffa,start=1000)
CRU=window(Briffa[,"CRU"],start=1850)
tsp(CRU) # 1850 1999 #but starts 1871 and ends 1997
delta<-mean(CRU[(1902:1980)-1850])-mean(CRU[(1960:1990)-1850]);
delta # -0.118922
#used to get MBH values with 1961-1990 reference: compare to 0.12 mentioned in Climategate letters
#get updated version of CRU to update 1998 and 1999 values
loc="http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/diagnostics/hemispheric/northern/annual"
D=read.table(loc) #dim(D) #158 12 #start 1850
names(D)=c("year","anom","u_sample","l_sample","u_coverage","l_coverage","u_bias","l_bias","u_sample_cover","l_sample_cover",
"u_total","l_total")
cru=ts(D[,2],start=1850)
tsp(cru) # 1850 2009
# update 1998-1999 values with 1998 values CRU[(1998:1999)-1849]= rep(cru[(1998)-1849],2)
#Fig 2.21 Caption
#The horizontal zero line denotes the 1961 to 1990 reference
#period mean temperature. All series were smoothed with a 40-year Hamming-weights lowpass filter, with boundary constraints
# imposed by padding the series with its mean values during the first and last 25 years.
#this is a low-pass filter
source("http://www.climateaudit.org/scripts/utilities.txt") #get filter.combine.pad function
hamming.filter<-function(N) {
i<-0:(N-1)
w<-cos(2*pi*i/(N-1))
hamming.filter<-0.54 – 0.46 *w
hamming.filter<-hamming.filter/sum(hamming.filter)
hamming.filter
}
f=function(x) filter.combine.pad(x,a=hamming.filter(40),M=25)[,2]
## WMO Figure at CRU #http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate #WMO: http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg #2009: http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138393!imageManager/4052145227.jpg
X=ts.union(MBH=MBH99+delta,J2001,briffa=briffa[,"gate"],CRU=cru ) #collate Y=data.frame(X); year=c(time(X)) sapply(Y, function(x) range(year [!is.na(x)]) ) # MBH J2001 briffa CRU # [1,] 1000 1000 1402 1850 # [2,] 1980 1991 1994 2009
smoothb= ts(apply(Y,2,f),start=1000)
xlim0=c(1000,2000) #xlim0=c(1900,2000)
ylim0=c(-.6,.35)
par(mar=c(2.5,4,2,1))
col.ipcc=c("blue","red","green4","black")
par(bg="beige") plot( c(time(smoothb)),smoothb[,1],col=col.ipcc,lwd=2,bg="beige",xlim=xlim0,xaxs="i",ylim=ylim0,yaxs="i",type="n",axes=FALSE,xlab="",ylab="deg C (1961-1990)") usr 1960 points( c(time(smoothb))[temp],smoothb[temp,"briffa"],pch=19,cex=.7,col=”magenta”)
It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation. Do you enjoy watching your planet explode like a kitten burned alive in a microwave on high for 10 minutes? I think something is wrong with you people 🙁
Reply: I’m allowing this unsnipped for entertainment value. Challenge to you Aimee. Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months. ~ charles the moderator.
Still hiding the decline.
How about hiding the assumption that post-1960 tree rings aren’t correlated to temperature but pre-1960 are? Did the trees join the counter-culture and start taking drugs?
They aren’t un-hiding anything. They are just digging a deeper hole.
This will make you smile
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100018373/climategate-the-phil-jones-university-could-break-into-childrens-television-big-time/
Aimee has a point. Why are we wasting our time here when there’s exploding kitten fun to be had.
Yep Aimee we like science and things that work. That’s what’s wrong with us, that plus we dont have nice haircuts.
None of us pretend to god like powers. Just people trying to get stuff right so naff off.
AS for deniers, my father was a guest of the Nazis, would you like to run that by me in broad daylight.
Dear Aimee
As an hysterical alarmists you don’t have to exaggerate everything. I’m sure 5 minutes would be more than enough.
Regards
Michael
Using that word is an insult to the victims of the holocaust Aimee. How can you continue to believe what these scientists say when they are clearly either delusional or outright liars? Summer Arctic Sea ice has increased for 2 consecutive years. Global Warming hasn’t happened for 10 years. Why do you still believe that CO2 causes global warming?
Aimee, I just came across this comment on the WSJ, and felt it relevant to what you have said. It was authored by one Bill Gnade.
“Yes, yes. Our skepticism is but a ruse to distract folks of the truth you’ve descried: we are heartless brutes. We are naught but crass egotists who care for no one but ourselves. We might as well proclaim ourselves solipsists, as nothing but our own relentless self-interest exists to us, for us. Seriously, we are myopic misanthropes. We hate life; the living. We pray for a melted earth. We hope with a lover’s zeal for the heat death of the planet. We dream of little else but toxicity, of leaving the earth worse off than we found it. We don’t seek to leave our mark on life. We seek to leave our stain.”
Enjoy.
Hi Aimee You should check out AGW warming sites data on ice Global ice: It in fact completely normal see here:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg Here is your Artic ice extent see how in fact (the red line its getting greater not smalller!
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Antarctica has been ABOVE (MORE ICE) anomaly for about 2 years now check it yourself
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.south.jpg
You see this is only ONE why I dont buy it. Go check all the temp[erature data ect. I agree completely with species exctinction with you but its due to land clearing and too many people so no problem or disagreement there. The only argument is that human produced C02 does NOT cause global warming thats all. Good luck but You are being woodwinked
The trees seem to be better correlated to geomagnetic activity than temperature.
Proposed CRU CC Fix:
SCRU U!
[Note: S = scandalous! CC = climate change]
DRE (23:24:22) :
Hence Mann’s new paper where he discovers the MWP, which can only make me wonder about the timing of its release and the meaning of its release. Honestly, at this point, one can only wonder what else is hiding under the carpet.
Keeping with PhilW’s children theme…
One of these rings ain’t like the others, one of these rings just doesn’t belong
Aimee, step back from the koolaid.
Isn’t this anything more than a theoretical discussion ? Let there be (and there was) some warming in the Middle Ages. And yes, some tried to deny that and present graphs without this warm period. On purpose. To make us scared. But does that change anything about the fact that we are living in a relative warm period. Since 10 years there is no additional warming observed any more, but there are also almost no moments that the global temperature did drop below the used reference temperature.
Does the presence or absence of the Medieval warm period on a graph change something on the fact that humans puts biljons of tons of CO2 in the atmosfere ? And maybe you can argue that CO2 is almost armless in this low concentrations. Yes but CO2 is never emitted alone. Always there are a lot of other co-emissions that are much more dangerous for environment and health.
So does the recognition or denial of the Medieval Warm period remove our moral duty to take the best possible care of our planet ? Is the presence or absense of some tree ringdate a sign to waste our natural resourses and to blow anything we like into the atmosfere ? I don’t think so. Maybe CO2 reduction will not keep us cooler, but certainly it will make us beter humans.
aimee, you dork-ish authoress, you-
Case here hinges on the first fact-numbers added to increase temperatures, not actual observed.
Case closed-they lied.
Now, go take care of your cat…..
Aimee.
Chill out. Have an ice cold carbonated beer. It works for me.
In fact, it’s working right now.
Cheers!
Climategate Covered by Brit Hume and Bret Baier 11-30-09
Willem de Rode (23:40:50) :
So does the recognition or denial of the Medieval Warm period remove our moral duty to take the best possible care of our planet? Is the presence or absense of some tree ring date a sign to waste our natural resour[c]es and to blow anything we like into the atmos[ph]ere? I don’t think so.
OK. The problem is that now the current warm period cannot be directly linked to CO2 because a past warm period is in need of explaining without the effects of CO2. This is a problem for the idea that our burning of fossil fuels is the cause of the current warm period. Just because the two are correlated does not mean that one causes the other. We do not “blow anything we like into the atmosphere”. There are very strict emissions laws in the U.S. on what can and cannot be emitted without proper cleanup, and lest we forget HFCs are banned. We also have a moral duty to ensure that we take care of humanity, a concept that sadly seems lost in American society today. I could elaborate but this website is not the place for that argument. Suffice it to say that many people would suffer if they were not allowed to use CO2 producing fuels for heat or electricity. Hospitals use an enormous amount of electricity to care for patients, for example.
Maybe CO2 reduction will not keep us cooler, but certainly it will make us bet[t]er humans. Maybe CO2 reduction will not keep us cooler, but certainly it will make us be[t]ter humans.
I find the last sentence of this especially perplexing. If CO2 reduction may not keep us cooler, how would it make us better humans?
As a non-techie person, have I got this right? They deleted ( cut off short ) Briffas own 2,000 data on the first graph to hide the fact that his data shows temps declining to a level not seen since 1820s ?
Someone on another blog described this as ” hidden in plain sight”, even on the fiddled version.
Just to the left the graph also shows the steep rise in temps C1700 while the Global Cooling Deniers still maintain that recent rises are entirely unprecedented.
Reply: They cut off evidence that tree rings might not track temperature, thus calling into doubt the entire reconstruction based on tree rings. They are not hiding “global cooling” per se. ~ ctm
@Aimee Gardens,
Perhaps you could back, with evidence, some of your statements. Science estimates thath there are 10 million species alive on Earth at the moment with somewhere around 1.4 million currently known, although some say there may be up to 100 million. That said, by your reckoning we have somewhere between one month to 10 months left, perhaps less than a month if we are not the last species on the short end of the stick.
Also the Polar caps are, as you quite correctly say, being bombarded by solar radiation every moment. All that radiation from 370-700 nM has a nasty side effect of causing a very serious electro-chemical reaction called photosynthesis. This process has caused a multitude of unwanted organisms to flourish on our one and only mother.
Nothing is ever wrong with asking questions even if that means you are denying things like the Earth being flat. In fact there are many people who deny the increase in Polar Bear populations contrary to all evidence.
What is truly dangerous? Rank anti-intellectualism that embraces pseudo- science, hysterical emotionalism, and neo-pagan ideologies of sacrifice to appease the Earth because we are dangerously out of balance and facing tremendous disaster. This is nothing new, sadly, it was a main plank of a particularly virulent political ideology in Germany from the 1920’s to the mid 1940’s but rather than being called Conservation it is now Environmentalism.
Also @ur momisugly Aimee, it is entirely possible that the domestication of certain animals has saved them from extinction, including kittens.
Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) : It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation. Do you enjoy watching your planet explode like a kitten burned alive in a microwave on high for 10 minutes? I think something is wrong with you people 🙁
Your post belongs in the humour section, not here. That graph and code up there shows our planet exploding like a kitten. We find it very entertaining.
Why does it still amaze you? We are very accepting people, get used to us.
As a compromise we will accept you taking an umbrella to the icecaps to save them from solar radiation, and I will turn my microwave down to medium.
The Climategate alleged scientists just can’t seem to resist putting their hand in the cookie jar when they don’t think anyone is paying attention. How can they possibly think they’ll continue to get away with fraudulent science when they are being watched by so many eyes? Still after the emails too! Wow, that takes brazen huge ones.
They remind me of that story of the monkey that reaches into a jar with a narrow opening to pick up the apple inside but can’t get it’s hand out of the jar because it won’t let go of the apple! They really want that decline hidden just like a monkey wants that apple.
Talk about dedicated to one’s hypothesis and methodology till the end.
Here is the YouTube video with Steve mentioned by name:
I thought Aimee G. was spoofing or whatever. Does anyone know if this is meant to be serious? And why? If it was meant to be serious – someone needs help!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
While being skeptical all along this “climategate” stuff just keeps getting more ridicules. The sad thing is that while before I was inclined to think the academic folks providing research reports to support the AGW crowd were mostly misdirected and not good at being scientists, now I think they are frauds and incompetent as well. I am resentful that I cannot now read a peer-reviewed report on the subject of climate without checking for reviews of it by others such as Steve and the folks commenting on CA, WUWT, The Air Vent, The Blackboard, Pielke(s), ICECAP, and so on. Jones, Mann and “the team” have done a disservice to all of Science.