From Kate at Small Dead Animals: No U-turns allowed
Dear Tom,
I find it hard to believe that the British Antarctic Survey would permit the deletion of relevant files for two recent publications or that there aren’t any backups for the deleted data on institutional servers. Would you mind inquiring for me? In the mean time, would you please send me the PP format files that you refer to here for the monthly sea ice data for the 20th century models discussed in your GRL article and the 21st century models referred to in your JGR article.
Regards, Steve McIntyre
Then in July… “Unprecedented” Data Purge At CRU
On Monday, July 27, 2009, as reported in a prior thread, CRU deleted three files pertaining to station data from their public directory ftp.cru.uea.ac.uk/. The next day, on July 28, Phil Jones deleted data from his public file – see screenshot with timestemp in post here, leaving online a variety of files from the 1990s as shown in the following screenshot taken on July 28, 2009.
The Telegraph, today – Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row ….. Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data – dubbed Climategate – have agreed to publish their figures in full….
Now, here comes the other shoe! Hide the Decline!
SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.
It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.
The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.
The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.”
[…]
In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”
The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.
It seems CRU spell temp without the ‘e’ as tmp.
There may be a more-or-less innocent explanation. I once worked in a lab where a lot of potentially valuable data was thrown away. The explanation was that a new Head had arrived, and the rash decision was his. That’s the risk you take when you appoint a bloody fool.
For a lighter moment about “Climategate” take a look at
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s5i64103
Michael (00:50:41) :
My question is how do you “homogenise” temperature data?
He may have meant “pasteurize” — purifying it by adding heat…
jbrodhead (01:23:30) :
Did UEA incinerate the paper data?
…In an old oil drum in the parkinglot??
No, on the roof near the weather station beside air conditioner.
Caroline Lucas [leader of Green Party here in the UK] was just asked about Climategate on TV [the BBC no less but at 0930 on a Sunday morning] – she was definitely a bit err err and said that whilst it was ’embarrassing for them [CRU], and that it hadn’t been getting warmer recently, everything was fine really…’
And the kicking that the leader of the Conservative Party is getting in the comments to his latest blog post warmed the cockles of my heart. James Delingpole is having great fun with it too.
I didn’t think we had enough time between the leak and Copenhagen to grab the steering wheel, now I’m not so pessimistic. Our politicians learnt a very painful lesson in public outrage only a few months ago.
The expenses issue broke trust completely and we are also hearing revelations about the [non] preparations for the Iraq war – the man in the street is probably more likely to believe AGW is a scam then ever before.
Fingers crossed.
Has anyone seen a copy of the Sunday Times magazine today in the UK?
A big graph on page 13 has got me puzzled. It is headlined ‘A century of rising global temperatures’ and charts ‘global mean temperature’ from 1900-2009.
What it shows is that 2009 is the warmest year on record and that there has been a sharp rise in temperature from 2000 onwards (from 14.2˚C in 2000 to above 14.4˚C in 2009).
Intermediate years:
1900 13.85
1910 13.4
1920 13.65
1930 13.8
1940 14
1950 13.65
1960 13.8
1970 13.9
1980 14.1
1990 14.2
2000 14.2
2009 14.45
Can’t find a web version I’m afraid.
The source is “John C Hammond MCIPR – The Met Office”.
It would appear that Auntie Beeb is being dragged into this mess in spite of her trying to ignore it:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1231763/BBC-weatherman-ignored-leaked-climate-row-emails.html
The world was going to take my money in order to save the planet from ruin. The next eco scare is going to be plastic. They are Looters basically. Thanks Anthony and please don’t let up.
Can anyone identify “Harry”?
I’m beginning to warm towards this fellow. When Phil loses his memory (it was 10 years ago after all) Harry has all the answers. And his little asides, slay me e.g.(“With
a bit of luck this would go as smoothly as the Temperature run, ho, ho, ho.”). Harry can really do irony. He obviously knows all that he is doing is rubbish, but keeps on trying to twist and exhort the code to get the desired result. He really is heroic, but I bet he didn’t get to go to Rio, Bali, Kyoto and all the other exotic locales selected for IPCC meetings (didn’t they ever hear of video conferencing?), so I think we need to thank Harry, because the code is becoming the real temperature signature, it shows the deception on a grand scale.
So here’s an offer, If Harry will step forward, identify yourself Sir! I will be the first to donate a tenner via WUWT, to buy you a ticket to visit Rio, Bali and even Copenhagen, because doubtless, your job is nearly over, probably clearing your desk as I write. You need a good holiday after putting up with the intolerable burden you have shouldered for distorting science. Also, pity I’ve now retired, because I’d have offered you a job on the spot. Perhaps someone else might make you an offer.
Come on Harry own up, you’re a celebrity now.
Andrew, HaHaHa… I believe that one!
I have current local temp in my system tray, via WeatherBug. The source is located at a small airfield. In the Winter, we see occational temp spikes, i.e. Winter ’08/’09, watched fairly consistant spikes from ~10*F (correct) to ~80*F (incorrect fersure!)
I need to go look, but believe the sensor is co-located with the furnace exhaust vent… because spikes happened day and night.
I don’t buy it.
The should confiscate all their computers right away and check.
There are some pretty amazing programs to retrieve deleted files from computers.
The FBI, the CIA and MI5 have them.
These programs are part of the forensic investigation equipment.
Do you remeber, if you want to be sure data, even deleted data does not get in the wrong hands, destroy the hard disk.
can you imagine if this were the private sector, and a vendor being evaluated for some new technology came back to the customer telling them “just buy it, it works great”, we know because we trialed it.. and upon questioning the vendor told the customer that they no longer had any of the raw data from the trial, just the data they had “manipulated” and made to have more value – but of course those techniques were proprietary… – but now worries, trust us, we’re experts – you don’t need to see the raw data for yourself.. What a laughing stock it would be.
They probably deleted it july 27th.
But we are lucky. It seem that someone do have a backup.
From http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6634 july 2009
“OK, folks, guess what. I’m now in possession of a CRU version giving data for every station in their station list . “
Dr A Burns (01:32:11) : I’d posted this previously but I’m not sure if I had a response. Does anyone know why the past 8 months of hadcrut3, hadsst2 and crutem3 data have been deleted ? http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt
Regarding hadcrut3gl.txt: when searching via google for cached copies of hadcrut3gl.txt, the first hit also points to a cached copy dated from Nov. 17, 2009 of a file named hadcrut3vgl.txt.
Note the sublime “v”, obviously naming the variance adjusted version of HadCRUT3, while hadcrut3gl.txt isn’t found at all. The 2009 values in the cached copy of hadcrut3vgl.txt are:
2009 0.384 0.364 0.371 0.415 0.406 0.509 0.508 0.548 0.457 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.440
2009 82 82 81 79 80 80 81 82 81 0 0 0
while the corresponding values in http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3vgl.txt are now:
2009 0.362 0.343 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.352
2009 81 81 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Seems as if they are busy adjusting surface temperatures downwards.
Climate change denier Nick Griffin to represent EU at Copenhagen
See:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/29/nick-griffin-bnp-copenhagen-summit
BBC covered the leakage vaguely this morning on topical news programme with political presenter Andrew Marr (already on message BTW as he’s done a recent enviro tv prog on the Beeb!) whilst interviewing Green leader MEP marxist socialist intellectual elitist Caroline Lucas, (no really, she is just that very animal)! 0f course she deftly swept it under the carpet (aided equally deflty by Mr Marr), & went on to drone on & on about how important Copenhagen is (well it is the capital of Demnark). They never seem to get a genuine sceptic scientist on to deal with this stuff, only someone on message, hmmm, I wonder, no surely the BBC cannot be culpable & corrupt, it’s funded by a pole-tax on the public after all. Everyone there is unbiased & impartial & fair. And the band played “Believe it if you like” as my dear old mother used to say!
I apologise for our venal scientists, everyone. This is a humiliating embarrassment for any decent Brit around the world. Where are the great scientists we used to have all gone?
Did you know that you can write a letter to UEA? Go to their webpage and tell what you think “Contact us”. I did. Don’t Insult them after all they are probably a good University (in other areas apart from “Climate Science) Haha.
BTW Wikipedia has removed Hockey Stick from both “Global warming” and “Climate Change” Looks like Stoat Connoley may not be in !00% control no more LOL The Climate Change page has also become very tiny……hahahah excuse me
Dr. Pielke, Sr. reminds his readers:
“The responses in the CCSP report clearly show the casual dismissal of the substantive issues with respect to all three of the global average surface temperature trends that are being used by policymakers to quantify global warming. The three data analyses are not indepenent assessments, and, based on our research…have a signficant warm bias.”
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/further-comment-on-the-surface-temperature-data-used-in-the-cru-giss-and-ncdc-analyses/
BTW Qudos (Hooray) to Cryosphere today (for not fiddling data too much, and showing fascinating graph and satellite images) AMSU (Roy Spencer) which shows warming hahaha (ironic isn’t it… but natural warming due to the fact that is only since 1979), RSS, BOM mean temps, rainfall data etc.. (Australia), DMI (they say when there is a problem ie recent rom October data.., viva Scandinavian honesty). Noorsex ice extent idem, boo to GISStemp and Hadley I say for fiddling global temps and tree ring data, Hooray for Finland Tree ring data showing no fiddling…
In order to actually believe their claim, you either have to believe that CRU either “controlled and homogenized” the raw data *by hand* from one piece of paper onto another before entering the data into their own systems or did the “controlled and homogenized” data entry on the fly while entering the data. “OK, 12 June 1957 high says 24C, I think I’ll type 22C.” And I guess that means they must actually have printed out aby data they had from magnetic tape first and dealt with it in one of those two methods as well.
But, since this actually is as stupid as it sounds, we all know they entered the raw data before performing the “controlled and homogenized” processing to get their “value added” product.
I propose we call this losing and manipulation of data phenomenon “Flat-earthing”. The appellation “flat-eathers” beginning to surface to refer to warmists who won’t review the data and the situation, is gaining ground, and so labelling the technique of fudging the data record likewise seems consistent.
Oh, and by the way… I guess that mean they deleted the data.
For those of you not in the States, I apologize for the reference, but is CRU/UEA an overseas office of ACORN?
@Dave (01:08:02) – Exactly right – the Harry files are even more damaging than the emails.
The climate models start with the flawed HADCRUT temperature profiles and data sets. Harry confirms Garbage In – Garbage Out.
The Harry_Read_Me file documents that Harry was not able to duplicate the CRU TS2.1 result using CRU’s own programs and data files! Then he documents his frustration trying to get the data files to work for Version 3. No wonder Jones didn’t want anyone else to see them.
Harry says –
* “am I the first person to attempt to get the CRU databases in working order?!!
* “But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases.”
* “So, we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!”
… more details on his frustration with trying to work with the temperature data files, starting with Australia …
“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.”
“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.”
“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?!!”
“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 :-)”
——————
for more on Harry_Read_Me .. see the references from the earlier Dave (01:08:02) post, or here
“Global Warming” SCAM – Hack/Leak FLASH
http://www.tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-www?post=118625&page=13