Climategate: hide the decline – codified

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.

http://codyssey.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/software_bug.jpg

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.txt17. Inserted debug statements into anomdtb.f90, discovered that

    a 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.txt22. Right, time to stop pussyfooting around the niceties of Tim's labyrinthine software

    suites - 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.txtgetting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been

    introduced, 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.txtI am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as

    Australia 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.txt28. With huge reluctance, I have dived into 'anomdtb' - and already I have

    that familiar Twilight Zone sensation.

  • FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not

    being 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.txtWell, dtr2cld is not the world's most complicated program. Wheras cloudreg is, and I

    immediately 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.txtBack to the gridding. I am seriously worried that our flagship gridded data product is produced by

    Delaunay 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.txtHere, 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 :-)

  • FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txtWell, it's been a real day of revelations, never mind the week. This morning I

    discovered 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.txtAs 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.txtOH FUCK THIS. It's Sunday evening, I've worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done I'm

    hitting 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.proprintf,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.proprintf,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 that

    a 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 software

    suites - 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 been

    introduced, 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 as

    Australia 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 have

    that familiar Twilight Zone sensation.

  • FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt

    Wrote 'makedtr.for' to tackle the thorny problem of the tmin and tmax databases not

    being 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 I

    immediately 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 by

    Delaunay 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! 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 :-)

  • FOIA\documents\HARRY_READ_ME.txt

    Well, it's been a real day of revelations, never mind the week. This morning I

    discovered 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'm

    hitting 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.


The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
5 2 votes
Article Rating
445 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
makomk
November 26, 2009 4:52 am

physics geek: if you’re a professional programmer, I’m surprised you hadn’t heard about the awful quality of scientific code before. That’s also part of the reason they didn’t hand their software over to the people looking to challenge AGW; if someone really wanted to retest the calculations, the correct method is to take the raw results and write their own software.
(Also, all the comments about “hiding the decline” tell us… nothing we don’t already know. They’re all related to the tree data, which is known to produce a decline in temperature after 1960 that doesn’t match any other figures. Mark Wagner: this is why that comment doesn’t show fraud. Chances are any papers making use of the figures mention the issue.)
lichanos: you’re interested in GIS, they’re physicists mathematicians. For some common forms of mathematical modelling, Delauney triangulation makes sense. It constructs a relatively well-behaved triangulation over a given set of points.

fred
November 26, 2009 5:26 am

re: Crosspatch 20:35:04
Wow, just, WOW!
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1447
If this is correct it shows outright fraud. They can start arguing over the length of the jail term now.

makomk
November 26, 2009 8:41 am

Raredog: of course, any results claiming no overall warming, like the ones you mention, need close scrutiny. Is the selection of which measurement sites to ignore influenced by their temperature figures, for example by subjecting sites that show warming to more scrutiny than sites that don’t? How does the removal of urbanised sites and ones with changed land use affect coverage of different countries?

John M
November 26, 2009 8:54 am

makomk (04:52:35) :

Chances are any papers making use of the figures mention the issue.

Perhaps in vague terms. What we do no is that subject of splicing or grafting instrumental data onto proxy data was specifically denied (if you’ll pardon the expression) by one Michael Mann.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=438

…if someone really wanted to retest the calculations, the correct method is to take the raw results and write their own software.

Perhaps you can point us to the “raw data”, including which specific stations were used for their “calculations”. Mind you, don’t play the game equivalent to saying “it’s in the New York Times someplace”. The specific stations used.
Are we also free to come up with our own “fudge factors” and “cheat” parameters?

Marc
November 26, 2009 9:05 am

[snip]

quondam
November 26, 2009 10:46 am

Since no one has yet apparently got around to it, here’s an animated GIF for the two plots offered by the CRU:
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate
http://mysite.verizon.net/testing.731/Trick.gif
Which do you suppose was used in WMO Statement on the Status of the Global Climate in 1999?
I took the liberty of erasing the temperature graft from the other plot.

Glenn
November 26, 2009 10:50 am

makomk (04:52:35) :
“physics geek: if you’re a professional programmer, I’m surprised you hadn’t heard about the awful quality of scientific code before. That’s also part of the reason they didn’t hand their software over to the people looking to challenge AGW; if someone really wanted to retest the calculations, the correct method is to take the raw results and write their own software.”
And when that someone “retested” using supplied data and their own coding and failed to get the same results, the squabble could very well be about the coding, not about the data or the stated methodology and logic. Code is only a translation of the stated methodology. It’s really perverse to consider that code should not be made available. That includes the excuse of “awful quality”.
The only time code should be protected is when it’s about the code itself. Last I heard, climatology isn’t about the code. Or maybe it is.

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 11:38 am

getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data. so many new stations have been
Is this also true of the US? Would that explain this photo :
http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=12972&g2_serialNumber=2

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 11:42 am

recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY’
printf,1,’REMOVED

Should be broadcast on C-Span as part of a Senate hearing.

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 11:43 am

‘density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,’observed temperatures.’
[snip]

makomk
November 26, 2009 11:45 am

MattN: actually, decline.pro seems fairly boring. It’s not fudging anything so much as it’s trying to measure the discrepancy between tree growth measurements and the actual temperature. Y’know, to help try and figure out why the discrepancy exists.

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 11:47 am

Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
A few people have commented that the code is worse than the emails. My God were they right!

Rob
November 26, 2009 11:48 am

If the non-coders were to realize how bad this really is, someone need to photoshop an image showing what a bridge (for example) would look like, when constructed using craftsmanship standards corresponding to those revealed by the HARRY_READ_ME.txt. I can imagine the outcome, but I don’t know how to use Photoshop.

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 11:54 am

*** MUST ALTER FUNCT_DECLINE.PRO TO MATCH THE COORDINATES OF THE
; START OF THE DECLINE *** ALTER THIS EVERY TIME YOU CHANGE ANYTHING ***

God bless the people that released ClimateGate to the public!! What is revealed here is atrocious! These are heinous violations of science! Heinous!

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 12:03 pm

Obvious explanation (09:22:20) :
But gavin says we’re taking this out of context…..
No, no, no, we’re getting it in context. We’re just not getting it in his context.

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 12:06 pm

Tim S. (09:23:11) :
“; we know the file starts at yr 1070, but we want nothing till 1400, so we”
Hide the MWP?

No wonder whatever data is put into their program it produces a hockey stick!

makomk
November 26, 2009 12:14 pm

Charles Higley: oh dear, you do realise the flaw in that? There are many different combinations of 5 rural stations that could be used. Since the only people that would be looking at small numbers of rural stations like this are anti-AGW, any result that doesn’t produce cooling would be irrelevant and not get reported. Therefore a classic form of bias is introduced.

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 12:15 pm

This is making me bury my face in my hands and my hands are shaking. I can’t believe what I am seeing in this code.
I can’t believe people pulled this kind of a thing. Maybe HARRY couldn’t believe it too. Maybe (they) he is the wistleblower.

Gene Nemetz
November 26, 2009 12:21 pm

Sen. Inhofe better take this whole ugly thing and drag it before everyone to see!!

Rob
November 26, 2009 12:23 pm

Gene Nemetz (11:38:37) :
Is the fence around the weather station an attempt to, preemptively, block a FOI request?

November 26, 2009 12:55 pm

Gene Nemetz (12:03:12) :
Obvious explanation (09:22:20) :
But gavin says we’re taking this out of context…..
———-
No, no, no, we’re getting it in context. We’re just not getting it in his context.

============
Bingo!

Glenn
November 26, 2009 2:03 pm

makomk (11:45:26) :
MattN: actually, decline.pro seems fairly boring. It’s not fudging anything so much as it’s trying to measure the discrepancy between tree growth measurements and the actual temperature. Y’know, to help try and figure out why the discrepancy exists.”
Well, maybe the temperature 500 miles away taken by Bubba in 1903.
The “discrepancy” if you are referring to the divergence problem or challenge, has not been resolved to date, and there is little alleged identification and documentation of past divergence. There are regional differences as well as species specifics, not to mention others known, and unknown that may affect tree growth. It’s unclear what causes “divergence” now, it’s unknown whether it can be detected in historical records of even recent age that we have some idea of temp, and it’s unknown whether any temperature reconstruction based on tree ring width/density is accurate to any degree worthy of error inside of today’s climate. And that even assuming reconstructions are based on accurate and complete local temperature/pressure/etc data used to calibrate tree ring growth in order to reconstruct actual pre-historical temperatures. It’s hogwash.

Eric
November 26, 2009 6:26 pm

You guys are referencing COMMENTS in the source code, not the source code itself. As a software developer myself, it is plain to see the comments don’t indicate a fraud, they indicate frustration at the large data set and the fact there’s no data integrity indexes. This is not a smoking gun. It’s a bunch of software guys complaining about the database.

Eric
November 26, 2009 6:27 pm

And by the way, the statistical methods they are using require data sets from two different methodologies to be processed separately. That’s exactly what they’re doing when they ‘scrub’ the data past 1960. They are reconciling data gotten from atmospheric temperature readings with data gotten from tree ring readings. They are then splicing the two graphs together. It’s not a fraud, guys. It’s ridiculous to assume that.

Glenn
November 26, 2009 6:54 pm

Eric (18:26:06) :
“You guys are referencing COMMENTS in the source code, not the source code itself. As a software developer myself, it is plain to see the comments don’t indicate a fraud, they indicate frustration at the large data set and the fact there’s no data integrity indexes. This is not a smoking gun. It’s a bunch of software guys complaining about the database.”
I’ve seen no comments in the source code that indicates frustration with the database, plainly or otherwise. Certainly not in the code excerpts posted in this thread. I can only surmise that you are confusing the Harry text with code, which it is not, and which is not even the subject of this thread, bringing into question your claim of being a software developer, nor the same “Eric” that has posted previously in this thread.

1 12 13 14 15 16 18