WUWT blogging ally Ecotretas writes in to say that he has made a compendium of programming code segments that show comments by the programmer that suggest places where data may be corrected, modified, adjusted, or busted. Some the HARRY_READ_ME comments are quite revealing. For those that don’t understand computer programming, don’t fret, the comments by the programmer tell the story quite well even if the code itself makes no sense to you.

To say that the CRU code might be “buggy” would be…well I’ll just let CRU’s programmer tell you in his own words.
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.proFOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
- FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
- FOIA\documents\harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro
;; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;
- FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon1.pro
FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon2.proFOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_jones.pro
;; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
;
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered thata sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key
output from the debug statements:
(..)
forrtl: error (75): floating point exception
IOT trap (core dumped)
..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the
sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine softwaresuites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have beenintroduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented.
Every time acloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with
references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with
one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have
it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state asAustralia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
28. With huge reluctance, I have dived into 'anomdtb' - and already I havethat familiar Twilight Zone sensation.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Wrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases notbeing kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt
to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Well, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and Iimmediately found a mistake!
Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, forcompletely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead
of 600!!!
That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correctingTHAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the
bloody station files!!
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced byDelaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station
counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented
sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps?
Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding
procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yetthe WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Well, it's been a real day of revelations, never mind the week. This morning Idiscovered that proper angular weighted interpolation was coded into the IDL
routine, but that its use was discouraged because it was slow! Aaarrrgghh.
There is even an option to tri-grid at 0.1 degree resolution and then 'rebin'
to 720x360 - also deprecated! And now, just before midnight (so it counts!),
having gone back to the tmin/tmax work, I've found that most if not all of the
Australian bulletin stations have been unceremoniously dumped into the files
without the briefest check for existing stations.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
As we can see, even I'm cocking it up! Though recoverably. DTR, TMN and TMX need to be written as (i7.7)./code> - FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'mhitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.pro
printf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet_col.pro
;; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
;
kl=where((yrmxd ge 1402) and (yrmxd le 1960),n)
sst=prednh(kl)
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro
; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are “manually” removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940];
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_decline.pro
;; Plots density ‘decline’ as a time series of the difference between
; temperature and density averaged over the region north of 50N,
; and an associated pattern in the difference field.
; The difference data set is computed using only boxes and years with
; both temperature and density in them – i.e., the grid changes in time.
; The pattern is computed by correlating and regressing the *filtered*
; time series against the unfiltered (or filtered) difference data set.
;
;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro
;; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_correctmxd.pro
; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_correctmxd.pro
; No need to verify the correct and uncorrected versions, since these; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
; was corrected onwards from.
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree5\densplus188119602netcdf.pro
; we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines
(...)
; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps15.pro
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps24.pro
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions; of growing season temperatures. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
- FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
- FOIA\documents\harris-tree\calibrate_nhrecon.pro
;; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;
- FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon1.pro
FOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon2.proFOIA\documents\harris-tree\recon_jones.pro
;; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
;
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered thata sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative! Key
output from the debug statements:
(..)
forrtl: error (75): floating point exception
IOT trap (core dumped)
..so the data value is unbfeasibly large, but why does the
sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine softwaresuites - let's have a go at producing CRU TS 3.0! since failing to do that will be the
definitive failure of the entire project..
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have beenintroduced, so many false references.. so many changes that aren't documented. Every time a
cloud forms I'm presented with a bewildering selection of similar-sounding sites, some with
references, some with WMO codes, and some with both. And if I look up the station metadata with
one of the local references, chances are the WMO code will be wrong (another station will have
it) and the lat/lon will be wrong too.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state asAustralia was. There are hundreds if not thousands of pairs of dummy stations, one with no WMO
and one with, usually overlapping and with the same station name and very similar coordinates. I
know it could be old and new stations, but why such large overlaps if that's the case? Aarrggghhh!
There truly is no end in sight.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
28. With huge reluctance, I have dived into 'anomdtb' - and already I havethat familiar Twilight Zone sensation.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Wrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases notbeing kept in step. Sounds familiar, if worrying. am I the first person to attempt
to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Well, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and Iimmediately found a mistake! Scanning forward to 1951 was done with a loop that, for
completely unfathomable reasons, didn't include months! So we read 50 grids instead
of 600!!! That may have had something to do with it. I also noticed, as I was correcting
THAT, that I reopened the DTR and CLD data files when I should have been opening the
bloody station files!!
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Back to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced byDelaunay triangulation - apparently linear as well. As far as I can see, this renders the station
counts totally meaningless. It also means that we cannot say exactly how the gridded data is arrived
at from a statistical perspective - since we're using an off-the-shelf product that isn't documented
sufficiently to say that. Why this wasn't coded up in Fortran I don't know - time pressures perhaps?
Was too much effort expended on homogenisation, that there wasn't enough time to write a gridding
procedure? Of course, it's too late for me to fix it too. Meh.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING - so the correlations aren't so hot! Yetthe WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah - there is no 'supposed', I can make it up. So I have :-)
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
Well, it's been a real day of revelations, never mind the week. This morning Idiscovered that proper angular weighted interpolation was coded into the IDL
routine, but that its use was discouraged because it was slow! Aaarrrgghh.
There is even an option to tri-grid at 0.1 degree resolution and then 'rebin'
to 720x360 - also deprecated! And now, just before midnight (so it counts!),
having gone back to the tmin/tmax work, I've found that most if not all of the
Australian bulletin stations have been unceremoniously dumped into the files
without the briefest check for existing stations.
- FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
As we can see, even I'm cocking it up! Though recoverably. DTR, TMN and TMX need to be written as (i7.7)./code> - FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt
OH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'mhitting yet another problem that's based on the hopeless state of our databases. There is no uniform
data integrity, it's just a catalogue of issues that continues to grow as they're found.
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxdgrid2ascii.pro
printf,1,’Osborn et al. (2004) gridded reconstruction of warm-season’printf,1,’(April-September) temperature anomalies (from the 1961-1990 mean).’
printf,1,’Reconstruction is based on tree-ring density records.’
printf,1
printf,1,’NOTE: recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED to facilitate calibration. THEREFORE, post-1960 values’
printf,1,’will be much closer to observed temperatures then they should be,’
printf,1,’which will incorrectly imply the reconstruction is more skilful’
printf,1,’than it actually is. See Osborn et al. (2004).’
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\data4sweden.pro
printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\combined_wavelet_col.pro
;; Remove missing data from start & end (end in 1960 due to decline)
;
kl=where((yrmxd ge 1402) and (yrmxd le 1960),n)
sst=prednh(kl)
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\mxd_pcr_localtemp.pro
; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don’t do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won’t be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are “manually” removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro
;mknormal,yyy,timey,refperiod=[1881,1940];
; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,-0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$
2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75 ; fudge factor
(...)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\pl_decline.pro
;; Plots density ‘decline’ as a time series of the difference between
; temperature and density averaged over the region north of 50N,
; and an associated pattern in the difference field.
; The difference data set is computed using only boxes and years with
; both temperature and density in them – i.e., the grid changes in time.
; The pattern is computed by correlating and regressing the *filtered*
; time series against the unfiltered (or filtered) difference data set.
;
;*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\maps12.pro
;; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\mann\oldprog\calibrate_correctmxd.pro
; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\summer_modes\calibrate_correctmxd.pro
; No need to verify the correct and uncorrected versions, since these; should be identical prior to 1920 or 1930 or whenever the decline
; was corrected onwards from.
- FOIA\documents\osborn-tree5\densplus188119602netcdf.pro
; we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400, so we; can skill lines (1400-440)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1980, which is
; (1980-1400)/10 + 1 lines
(...)
; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we
; can skill lines (1400-1070)/10 + 1 header line
; we now want all lines (10 yr per line) from 1400 to 1991, which is
; (1990-1400)/10 + 1 lines (since 1991 is on line beginning 1990)
Sponsored IT training links:
Join 70-291 training program to pass 642-446 test plus get free practice files for next 70-643 exam.
Here’s a link to the BBC story on the CRU “hack”:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm
This was originally posted at the start of last weekend. It went from
being a “Science and Environment” entry to “Technology” to both
and now it’s buried again under the “Technology” header.
So far, the text hasn’t changed from when they first posted it.
Stop by there via the link to beef up the internal “hit” counters to
keep even this pitiful bit of BBC coverage active.
See this take on the HARRY_READ_ME file:
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/11/25/scientsts-arent-science-and-science-isnt-a-method/
I found the problem with “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION”
that I couldn’t find in my downloaded file
FOIA\documents\osborn-tree6\briffa_sep98_d.pro
In my file it’s in \documents\harris-tree\briffa_sep98_e
This file starts out with the comment:
; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********
Petition the Law Makers to Stop this Scam
Take it out of EPA’s Hand
They say we’ll loose a little Freedom, what’s the fuss
Freedom is Cheep there’s plenty of it
It was only bought with the others blood
The Stick is broken Open your eyes
The MWP was grafted Upside Down
Real Temperatures can’t be found
Stop believing, The IPCC lies
Set may CO2 FREE, STOP insanity
I Will Not go down that California Road to Prosperity
The Question remains, the Question is bound
What side will You be on, LAW MAKER
As the Team goes Down
Will You fight for my Liberties
Or sell your Soul for a piece of gold?
So, make your case CO2, that “Evil Gas”, Rules the Climate if you can
Or declare CO2 a non pollutant
Petition the Law Makers to Stop this Scam
By FIRE ANT
So, Harry read_me, have you sold Your soul for a piece of gold?
Phil Jones is the director of the CRU. His own email correspondence (even before this leak) said that the CRU had lost original raw data files (even though the CRU founding was, in part, to document and create a record of historical temperatures). Comments in the source code indicate they lost their entire database of cloud data prior to 1995. Comments in the HARRY_README file say show that they had no source code management system in place – taking 3 years to get the code working again after the original author disappeared (died perhaps?). The source code itself used to collect and process temperature data (I am a s/w engineer and have been staying up ’til midnight each night to do preliminary source code reviews) is awful and does not meet any semblance of modern software quality standards that inspire confidence in accuracy or maintainability.
The internal organizational culture, per the emails, is a dysfunctional mix of paranoia and tribalism. (I have an MBA too and have had a lot of training on organizational behavior issues and dysfunctional management)
He must be held accountable for his own and his staff’s loss of data and poor quality tools. (Would you fly in an airplane if the plane’s aeronautical design model was written like this code?)
On the basis of his utter failure as a manager, he must be fired.
Even George Monbiot is now calling for his removal within days.
“”” Adam Sullivan (11:58:14) :
Seems to me that “calibration” of tree ring data is a bit of a joke.
For the modern periods where we have the highest quality records available we see the “recalibration” where the numbers get “fudged” (the scientific term used in the code is “fudge factor”) in order to make a “calibration” work that makes the pre 1900 data reflect cooler temperatures than if the data had been calibrated to post 1900 data. “””
A tree of any significant (climatically) size, is a relatively voluminous three dimensional object.
If you core drill such a tree to obtain a sequence of samples of tree rings, it is the sampling equivalent of sticking a drill into some arbitrarily chosen rock face at some altitude somewhere in the rocky mountains; well maybe the Alps if you are European, and studying the rock samples from the surface to the extent of the drill, and then claiming to know the age, or temperature, or some other historical information relating not only to the rocky mopuntains (or alps; but to also a very lareg are surrounding those mountains.
Anyone who has seen a sizeable tree crossection in a museum or a park display, can clearly see, that even in a single section, the tree rings are far from uniform thickness, and one would expect every other property of the material to change around the tree, depending on whether it was on the sun side, or shade side of the trunk. Throw in the additional change in section with height , of the section, and you can see that a core sample is an extremely poor sample of a large three dimensional object.
About the one thing we can say about that core sample, is that we are fairly confident of the age of each ring layer. Then certain compositional changes in each layer could be indicative of other parameters, such as C14 dating each ring sample, to get a picture of C14 production rates, since the real age of the sample is known.
But as a thermometer; try putting a wooden tongue depressor in your mouth, and then asking the doctor to look at it to see if you are running a fever.
A totally crazy idea to believe that tree rings through thick and thin can, tell the temperature under which they were laid down; uncorrupted by any other variable, such as available water, sunlight, soil nutrients and so on.
But for a real crazy idea; pray tell me how a sum of squared values (of a real physical variable presumably) can ever go negative; let alone continue to do so.
Has anybody ever actually read on a real instrument with the suffix “meter”, or “ometer” any imaginary number of even a complex number. What physical processes yield observable values that can be actually measured, that are imaginary or complex .
Engineers at least tend to take the position that if they can get an answer (mathematically), it must be the real answer; so they don’t worry much about existence theorems. No engineer could care whether an absolutely convergent infinite series converges; but mathematicians feel they have to prove that is true.
So nyet ! on your increasingly negative sum of squares parameter; it’s a gremlin in your spaghetti code.
If this is what Dr Phil had to do to get a graph that looks like the American temp trends we’ve really got to wonder which cherries have gone into their pies.
That’s another way of saying if CRUtemp has such a tenuous grasp on reality and it’s the same as the other 2 leading temp indicies then presumably they must be wrong too?
BOTO (09:17:11) :
Hi Anthony,
last dinner at Copenhagen!
I love it!
http://i47.tinypic.com/mrxszt.png
Great picture, but I have a question. Which one is Judas?
I must object I really must. This artwork does NOT include Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of my country Australia ( the one with the dodgy data – see above).
Now Kevvy is a Friend of the Chairman at Copenhagen and -as he is wont to do – a great strutter on the international stage especially when the big fellas (like Obama) are there too. He believes unquestioningly in the IPCC and is about to wreck the country that 2 generations of my family have fought for with a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme law.
This cretin really deserves to be in the picture – so please fix!
PS He would do a beautiful JUDAS.
All these nasty interpretations of the CRU programmers’ notes are really just a simple problem of linguistic translation. You folks simply do not understand “AGW speak”. Let me enlighten:
“Artificially adjusted” means “teasing a signal out of random noise – I’ll know when I’ve found it by the smile on Dr. Jones face”.
“Real” means “something the general public can measure with their own thermometers”.
“Very, very negative” means “very, very positive” (it’s sarcasm, you dolts!)
“Dummy stations” means “smart stations – the ones on which to place the greatest statistical weight – they weren’t slipped into the base for no reason,” (sarcasm again).
“False references” is a slang term meaning “all data that ever came out of Australia”.
“Oh fuck this” means “This body of work is so pure and elegant that I have developed an unnatural attraction for it.”
Roger Knights (13:02:50) :
M.A.DeLuca (10:42:18) :
“Hysteria, I’m not so sure. O’Reilly has, I believe, said that Global Warming is real and something needs to be done about it. So did McCain during his bid for the Presidency. That indicates a fraction of the conservative base had been convinced this was a real issue that needed to be addressed.”
I saw a comment somewhere (here?) a couple of days ago that McCain has, in the past two months, backed off from his support of CAWG.
Your premise is wrong on two points:
1) Conservatives do not have a list of talking point they must believe in.
2) The term conservative means different things to different people.
Senator McCain is a Republican, not a conservative. I don’t know many people who would call McCain a conservative, except for a handful of issues.
O’Reilly has said it’s obvious pollution must be doing something to the planet — which shows he believes greenhouse gases are pollutants.
1) I don’t understand the technical issues referred to in the above notes and I suspect none of the people saying ‘this is proof of fraud’ understand them either.
2) I can’t believe anyone is surprised by coders swearing and getting frustrated with the code they are working on. It doesn’t mean anything in itself, except that everyone hates their job sometimes.
Conclusion: I am not able to draw a conclusion from this data.
Anyone who thinks they can draw a conclusion from it is just seeing what they want to see.
“Robinson (11:58:42) :
Ironically, the University of East Anglia has a Computer Science department:
……………………………………………………………
The fact is that they have the expertise on campus to engineer a decent piece of software.”
I tried to get a computing mathematician/statistician M. Sc. Student for a Summer or for a project while I was part of UCL. No way. The departments were not keen on letting the little birds out of the nests and doing actual problems. It was too difficult to mark their assessment if they actually helped scientists at the coal-face.
There is a Statistics unit at UCL, and in most other large Universities, who will aid you in your stats. The main problem is the ‘road to Cork’ problem; too many scientists take their data to the stats people at the end of a study, rather than before they start. Slight changes in experimental design make all the difference to what statistics one can apply. I had a good experience with them, it is disconcerting when they tell you they are not interested in your data, but in what you want your data to be able to explain in a testable manner.
We should have to go back to the basics I’m afraid, and teach the Ph. D students both ethics and statistics, right at the beginning as it is apparent that the mentoring system has failed massively.
Can you imagine what it must be like for the Ph. D’s and Post-Doc’s at UEA now? They have screwed up their whole lives by association.
Just for the sake of fairness, please bear in mind that ‘hide the decline’ is referring to the ‘divergence problem’
– the divergence problem is the fact that the tree-ring data doesn’t track temperature after about 1960.
– the tree-ring growth has actually declines since then in many, but not all, NH tree-ring data sets.
– so the hockey-teams hide this by stopping the plots in 1960 or 1980, and also seem to mix in a bit of real-temp, in order to give their proxy plots a nice up-tick at the end, as if to say ‘the plot would have continued to go up had we not stopped here…’
– although the decline has been known about for 10 years or more (mentioned in the 1998 Nature article), the reasons for this decline are not known….
– so I do think it is under-hand to ‘hide’ this decline, even if it is ‘hidden in plain view’ so to speak….
– once could speculate that if the proxydata doesn’t track temps reliably in the current time, then they may not track-temp in historical times as well…..
Also, the programmer Harry is dealing with getting the HADCRU temp v3.0 going…not hockey-sticks…
Yeah, I know, I’m an a$$#0!e, but I’ll tell you what’s going to happen.
The poor schmuck who wrote these comments is going to be blamed for the whole fiasco…UNLESS he can PROVE that he passed these complaints along to Jones. Otherwise Jones will be SHOCKED, SHOCKED, I tell you, to find out that these things were going on and he was not told.
Whoever you are you’d better start looking for cover, because they are coming after you.
Write it in stone.
“One of the most damaging emails was sent by the head of the climatic research unit, Phil Jones. He wrote “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”
Censorship and manipulation.
Hey folks, we have another climategate. This one is down in New Zealand.
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=550&Itemid=1
“There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years. But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on?” Researchers find records adjusted to represent ‘warming’ when raw data show temperatures have been stable.
The pdf file is unbelievable. It should also be worldwide news.
I wish we had “publicly available” information here in the USA. 🙁
Found on Icecap:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/global_warming_nz_pdf.pdf
A comparison between longterm raw and adjusted temperatures
from New Zealands NIWA.
Climategate Episode II – Upping The Down Under ?
The corollary to my 14:13:55 is that you will know they have his cojones in a vise when he starts waffling about how it wasn’t really that bad and people are “taking it out of context”.
Can’t blame him.
Probably been said elsewhere but:
“Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet
the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is
supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-),”
This is dynamite
Bring on the inquisition
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are “manually” removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees
LoL.
:-))
I am a professional mathematician. My only experience with Fortran was a GE program built to compute the path of a sounding rocket (GEMASS).
I make no claim to be a programmer, aside for my elementary excursions into computing pi to 2000 digits, using an early version of Pascal, and some early experiments with the Mandelbrot set.
The code which has been published is laughably bad. No wonder the authors refused all requests for the publication of the code.
The problem is not in the emails. The problem is in the code.
There is no evidence that the code was ever reviewed, either by a competent programmer or by a peer review agency. This is not science; this is a political crusade masquerading as science.
When one writes code, it is for the purpose of uniform treatment of a collection of data, as one does with inventory code, accounts receivable code, or any code which processes and interprets raw data.
That is, of course, all that a computer can do: a staggering number of computations in order to make sense of otherwise unintelligible data.
Just think of the aerodynamic computations which are now routine: one builds a teraflop machine and tests all of the variations in air flow around an aircraft fuselage, obviating the necessity for model building and wind tunnel testing. The reason: making fiddling changes in the fuselage amounts to a trivial tweak of the code, rather than the skills of a model maker. Aircraft are now designed and built by CAD/CAM, because it is cheaper!
When one fudges the code in order to alter the raw data, this is called fraud. This is as bad as the Nobel Prize given out a century ago for curing cancer.
The programmers were not able to compute the distances between temperature sensing sites? Absurd. This is a trivial exercise in spherical trigonometry.
The inability to use the appropriate language to handle text versus numbers?
This is a very expensive joke, at our expense.
If you cannot include in your documentation the use of unique temporary file cache names, the explicit format of your data files, the precise algorithm used to process the data, and the exact parameters which are used to smooth your data, you have garbage.
Smoothing data is a routine exercise; it is used all the time in handling my favorite kind of data, which is the collection of recorded magnitudes of astronomical objects (the search for variable stars, invisible orbiting planets of other stars, and so on). All such data must be smoothed, because measurement is inherently subject to uncertainty of measurement (thank you, Gauss). The standard normal curve of error always applies.
The measurement of temperature has only been possible for three centuries or less. When Thomas Jefferson first began his recordings, that was a new thing in the United States. Minimax thermometers are even newer, and thermoelectric temperature sensors newer still.
All attempts to infer temperatures before the days from the first calibration of temperature on a digital scale are just that: inferences. And unless one is prepared to defend and separate the effects of rainfall, cloud cover, human activity, animal activity, volcanic activity, to say nothing of other variables which are involved with plant and animal growth, we are left with huge gaps in what we know, as differentiated with what we infer.
There is literally no excuse for this ridiculous trash. All of the participants must be immediately prohibited from any further employment in any scientific endeavor or publication in any scientific journal.
Johnathan Dumas:
“These proxys do a decent job at matching actual temperatures for the earlier part of the short period (couple of centuries) for which we have thermometer data.”
There’s some issues with this. Dendroclimatology has not progressed to the point where they can walk up to a tree, examine the external factors (treeline, soil, elevation, bark) and determine whether it will have a respectable chance of being a decent proxy prior to the coring. Nor is it typical to attempt a true calibration after the fact. (By sequestering some data, etc.)
So they tend to take far more samples than they end up including in the final analysis – because lots of the trees “Don’t appear to have any temperature signal.”
When you combine that with the divergence of the self-same trees that were previously considered decent proxies as time progresses, you are running across a completely fatal flaw. It is a very strong sign that you’re observing some correlation – but don’t have true causation.
They’re coring 100 trees (that all meet the “best criteria” for siting etc.) and picking the 10 with the best correspondance with local temperature. Then sweeping the reevaluation of the exact same trees under the rug when they fail to continue correlating. (See: Ababneh.) as well as obstructing other who would like to recore the identical trees.
They’re making the fallacy of assuming they have a valid proxy because it happens to line up sometimes.
I found the line of code in the program that calculates Temperature
Tw = 58 + 6 * Log(CO2/ 280) / Log(2)
REPLY: It appears they are assuming a basline CO2 value of 280 PPM.
Pieter F (09:16:40) :
“It just gets better and better (worse for them, that is). The question remains: is this enough to overcome the momentum acquired by the AGW ”
Not at all, it was never about the science, so why should it?
“Michael Manns articles have been published in well respected peer reviewed scientific journals”
English translation . . me and my buds do the peer-review-each-other thing and since each back is well scratched, we can have our papers published and keep out the papers of non members of our mutual admiration and back scratching club.
Or something like that . . . and we do the same thing when we write the IPCC reports