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.
JCS (10:01:28) :
Steve Gavin at RealClimate has refused more than 6 times to post the following message, are you willing to present this very important point for me?
JCS says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
25 November 2009 at 12:58 PM
Gavin,
I have repeatedly tried to post comments on your website asking you to respond to the following statement:
If the first rule of science is to question everything, and another fundamental rule is that no hypothesis can be proven true, regardless of imposing the precautionary principle, why is the first rule and another fundamental rule being discarded, and
XXXXXXX
Real climate says all comments are shut off for 2 days. The adverse comments outnumber the puff comments 10:1. It looks like the outrage is being posted over there.
CEI has sued Schmidt, Gavin for working on the blog instead of doing NASA work. There are years of FOIA requests in the que at NASA GISS that wait being released.
Just to be graphic, Gavin schmidt is pimpin’ global warming when he is not doing work he is paid to do.
Human Resource managers have a problem when people are on the job and doing work for themselves. Earlier a mod named “eric” was doing all the comments and then they shut down. Yesterday Gavin posted a request for someone to volunteer to help.
The blog post should distinguish between the various bits of code.
The stuff in folders like osborn-tree6\mann and harris-tree\recon1.pro and osborn-tree6\mann are most likely programs used to generate things for peer-reviewed articles.
This is quite different and distinct from the code used to produce the HADCRUT3 temperature series. I am not postive, but it does appear that the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file is about the “CRU Code” as most of us would interpret it — the code used to produce the HADCRUT temperature record.
I am a bit worried, though. Nothing is showing in the MSM. The folks at RC seem to be moving on as if nothing happened. It’s almost as if they have all agreed to never speak of it again. The only ones discussing this are us and the likes of Glenn Beck, Limbaugh. This reminds me of “1984”, a surreal situation where everybody knows the truth but everybody pretends that they don’t and keep on shouting that the world is going to burn. I cannot believe that such an opportunity to kill the AGW theory is just going away as if it never happened.
What is going on?, is the world mad, or are we?
Re. the “sum-of-squared variable is becoming very, very negative”.
I’d imagine that was due to an overflow.
For the non-programmer folks; there are various data types that can be used to represent numbers (signed integer, unsigned integer, float, double etc.) but they aren’t capable of representing arbitrarily large numbers. If you exceed the limit, you generally end up with a negative number of the same magnitude.
i.e. MAX_NUMBER + 1 -> -(MAX_NUMBER + 1)
The fix is simply to use a type that allows larger numbers.
Obvious explanation (09:22:20) :
“But gavin says we’re taking this out of context…..”
I’m amused by the use of the king of spin to explain away the “inconvenient truths”. It’s sort of like asking the fox if he knows what the commotion in the henhouse was caused by. “Nothing here to see, move on”
Just watched ‘The Cloud Mystery’ on Youtube about Svenmark’s work on Cosmic Rays and their creation of the aerosols on which clouds form. Interesting that his experiment was conducted in Copenhagen? – You don’t think December’s meeting is a distraction ploy while a certain group smash his lab up??
>>” Bernie (10:01:40) :
In fairness that is too general a statement. It is important to be precise and specific, otherwise folks at RealClimate who actually really know their stuff will simply rip you to shreds. Certain critical pieces of station data have been requested. Certain pieces of code have been requested. More generally, authors of cliamte science research papers have been asked to post their raw data and their code in a way that will allow a complete replication of their results by interested third parties. It is the Institutional and individual refusal to do these simple things that has caused the questioning of the motives of climate scientists in general.”
Has UEA/CRU released any of their modeling code to the public? The impression gathered from reading the “liberated” e-mails and programming code is that they were doing everything possible to block open peer review of their work, and were instead trying to keep as much of their data (which maybe should be termed “data” given what we’re learning about its quality) and “secret sauce” code concealed from other scientists, let alone non-professional lay scholars and the public.
It’s a little shocking — why on earth isn’t every single piece of modeling code originating in university and public labs released to the public and subjected to open review by computer scientists, code writers, mathematicians and other climatologists? To increasingly learn that it’s not is a surprise even to me. How widespread is this kind of concealment?
HSBC, Citibank and the CIA can keep their internal climate code secret. But there’s no justification for universities and academics to conceal theirs’. It’s a subversion of the scientific process. And it demands that the question of motive be answered.
The Pennsylvania State University has a prepared statement you may request by calling the Office of Public Information at 814-865-7517. I have it if you can’t get through.
After reading all of this, I would readily bet that Harry is the whistleblower. His words are those of someone becoming really angry, and less and less confident in the scientific integrity of the team he was working for. I cannot put myself in his shoes, but it is not difficult to imagine that, some day, possibly discovering the FOIA stuff, he decided that it was too much.
OT: Someone please educate Dr. Jeff Masters over at Weather Underground. If you can. I am beginning to wonder if he is someone who is in bed with these same groups of people because he gleefully talks about warming while hiding cooling. Just look at this blog.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1389
“Mike (09:38:32) :
One should just run this code on some totally random data series and plot the output.”
Given the sustained bias of the “synthetic” corrections, I wonder if it would actually be possible to output anything BUT warming. Would it be possible to put in made up declining data and see what happens? I suspect it would come out as a hockey stick anyway.
I sincerely hope we will find out, and interview the person who wrote Harry. His insight into what was going on was invaluable.
Now I am convinced it was an inside job. Seeing the exasperation in the comments paints for me a very convincing picture of who the leaker was. Some code monkey, who was probably also doing double duty as an IT tech. He (or she) finally got fed up with the constant demands of the heads to do things that fly in the face of both ethical scientific procedure, and worse still, best practice computer programming.
I guess they worked him one sunday too many, or gave him black marks on his review because he couldn’t get the computer to say what they wanted. The programmer went off the deep end and decided to start compiling a file of some of the more incriminating skeletons in the CRU’s closet.
Can anyone tell me why Copenhagen is still going ahead?? !
I have worked as a professional programmer for more than 20 years, and I think that the language in these comments is strange, to say the least. I mean – I have often been swearing over poorly documented spaghetti code – (almost) as bad as this one – but I have NEVER put the swearing into writing. In my opinion, this stinks. It seems that the author of these comments WANTED the world to see them. He is certainly writing to another audience than his fellow programmers. So there are two possibilities: 1) Either, the programmer (Harry?) is the whistleblower, or 2) This is a trap.
Hultquist, Bosseler:
I’m not a programmer so I’ll probably say this wrong. I came across a commenter the other day (wish I could remember where) who seemed to have an explanation for the sum-of-squared variable going negative. He said it was a common error for inexperienced programmers to make: recursiively incrementing a variable until the sign bit gets changed. Kind of an overflow problem. He took it as an indicator of the quality of the coding….
Henry chance:
I notice that Joel Shore has also stopped posting as of 11/19.
I’ve warned Joel before that every post has a time/date stamp.
>>” Paul (10:12:48) :
I keep seeing this line in the code;
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
but what does it actually mean?
Observed Temperatures?
Homogenized Temperatures?
Fudge Factor Temperatures?
Not really sure what to make of this statement as yet…”
I’ve presumed it means the following: ‘Given the underlying dataset, our model predicts that the years from 1960 onwards should have been warmer…. warmer, that is, than they actually were. If we therefore publish the “unpolished” results from this model, people will be able to compare the predicted temps to the actual temps…. and it’ll become clear that our model makes poor predictions. Then they’d conclude that its predictions about the future obviously cannot be relied upon….’ And we wouldn’t want anybody doubting the model, would we?!
That’s a personal supposition; informed enlightenment requested.
Great reporting. With any luck CERN will finally nail it all with their CLOUD experiments.
“Do any other sciences permit one to hide calculations in a program and then not publish said program with the paper?”
Yes and no. Journals have differring standards, sometimes they’re enforced sometimes they’re not, sometimes they would go to the length you describe, sometimes not. This particular crew at Hadley has taken heat because the policy implications of their work imply a heavy right to know on the part of the public and especially people who wanted to and were capable of reviewing the methods. At which point the journals policies on the matter were examined and they were prevailed upon to actually enforce them, which they often didn’t, which lead to numerous and multiplying efforts to either get the information through enforcement of their policies or subsequently FOIA requests, which has eventually lead to… this.
But if we’re talking about a study in biology on the contents of the feces of some frog in the far corners of the jungle, it’s likely the journal it’s submitted to wouldn’t enforce their policy, and it’s likely no one would care. People cared here, and these guys having been lifetime academics and thus never actually having to earn a living via the quality of their work, thought they could simply blow off their detractors.
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.
This revelation of subterfuge and skulduggery has certainly made a bunch of conservatives re-think this position, and I’m sure libertarians and a handful of liberals as well. Beat this drum loud enough, often enough, and the support base for global warming hysteria will once again return to little more than tree-hugging alarmists. But the time to act is NOW, before any more talk of ‘cap and trade’ or Copenhagen concessions make their way through Congress.
A bit OT, but maybe not too far. A question for the legal beagles out there: When a close circle of researchers conspire to block another researcher’s publication, would that not be tortious interference under the law?
It is, however, going to make interesting reading in the history books, on a number of different levels, perhaps even on a par with Piltdown Man(n).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
The worst possible scenario now is that the Sun will continue down it’s degratory path, CERN Cloud will pan out to support Svensmark, the global climate will enter areas we don’t really know signal real trouble. And all because some overzealous hypothesis funding gravy-trained the world’s climate databases into a spaghehtti-coded event-horizon.
This is a perfect example of Murphy’s Law striking mankind due to pure greed.
New internet meme: “Harry_Read_ME”
Examples:
HRM: You may have the chart upside down.
It was a HARRY_READ_ME job.
After an industrial accident: Their control code was still waiting for Harry to read it.
If only Harry were here to read this.
Etc.
BREAKING
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response