by Steve McIntyre
Even in their Nov 24, 2009 statement, the University of East Anglia failed to come clean about the amount of decline that was hidden. The graphic in their statement continued to “hide the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction by deleting adverse results in the last part of the 20th century. This is what Gavin Schmidt characterizes as a “good thing to do”.
First here is the Nov 2009 diagram offered up by UEA:
Figure 1. Resized UEA version of Nov 2009, supposedly “showing the decline”. Original here ,
Here’s what UEA appears to have done in the above diagram.
While they’ve used the actual Briffa reconstruction after 1960 in making their smooth, even now, they deleted values after 1960 so that the full measure of the decline of the Briffa reconstruction is hidden. Deleted values are shown in magenta. Source code is below.
Figure 2. Emulation of UEA Nov 2009, using all the Briffa reconstruction.
R SOURCE CODE:
##COMPARE ARCHIVED BRIFFA VERSION TO CLIMATEGATE VERSION
#1. LOAD BRIFFA (CLIMATEGATE VERSION) # archive is truncated in 1960: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt”
loc=”http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=146&filename=939154709.txt” working=readLines(loc,n=1994-1401+104) working=working[105:length(working)] x=substr(working,1,14) writeLines(x,”temp.dat”) gate=read.table(“temp.dat”) gate=ts(gate[,2],start=gate[1,1])
#2. J98 has reference 1961-1990 #note that there is another version at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones1998/jonesdata.txt”
loc=”ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/jones2001/jones2001_fig2.txt” test=read.table(loc,skip=17,header=TRUE,fill=TRUE,colClasses=”numeric”,nrow=1001) test[test== -9.999]=NA count= apply(!is.na(test),1,sum) test=ts(test,start=1000,end=2000) J2001=test[,"Jones"]
#3. MBH : reference 1902-1980 url<-"ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/contributions_by_author/mann1999/recons/nhem-recon.dat" MBH99<-read.table(url) ;#this goes to 1980 MBH99<-ts(MBH99[,2],start=MBH99[1,1])
#4. CRU instrumental: 1961-1990 reference
# use old version to 1997 in Briffa archive extended
url<-"ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/reconstructions/n_hem_temp/briffa2001jgr3.txt"
#readLines(url)[1:50]
Briffa<-read.table(url,skip=24,fill=TRUE)
Briffa[Briffa< -900]=NA
dimnames(Briffa)[[2]]<-c("year","Jones98","MBH99","Briffa01","Briffa00","Overpeck97","Crowley00","CRU99")
Briffa= ts(Briffa,start=1000)
CRU=window(Briffa[,"CRU"],start=1850)
tsp(CRU) # 1850 1999 #but starts 1871 and ends 1997
delta<-mean(CRU[(1902:1980)-1850])-mean(CRU[(1960:1990)-1850]);
delta # -0.118922
#used to get MBH values with 1961-1990 reference: compare to 0.12 mentioned in Climategate letters
#get updated version of CRU to update 1998 and 1999 values
loc="http://hadobs.metoffice.com/crutem3/diagnostics/hemispheric/northern/annual"
D=read.table(loc) #dim(D) #158 12 #start 1850
names(D)=c("year","anom","u_sample","l_sample","u_coverage","l_coverage","u_bias","l_bias","u_sample_cover","l_sample_cover",
"u_total","l_total")
cru=ts(D[,2],start=1850)
tsp(cru) # 1850 2009
# update 1998-1999 values with 1998 values CRU[(1998:1999)-1849]= rep(cru[(1998)-1849],2)
#Fig 2.21 Caption
#The horizontal zero line denotes the 1961 to 1990 reference
#period mean temperature. All series were smoothed with a 40-year Hamming-weights lowpass filter, with boundary constraints
# imposed by padding the series with its mean values during the first and last 25 years.
#this is a low-pass filter
source("http://www.climateaudit.org/scripts/utilities.txt") #get filter.combine.pad function
hamming.filter<-function(N) {
i<-0:(N-1)
w<-cos(2*pi*i/(N-1))
hamming.filter<-0.54 – 0.46 *w
hamming.filter<-hamming.filter/sum(hamming.filter)
hamming.filter
}
f=function(x) filter.combine.pad(x,a=hamming.filter(40),M=25)[,2]
## WMO Figure at CRU #http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/2009/nov/homepagenews/CRUupdate #WMO: http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138392!imageManager/1009061939.jpg #2009: http://www.uea.ac.uk/polopoly_fs/1.138393!imageManager/4052145227.jpg
X=ts.union(MBH=MBH99+delta,J2001,briffa=briffa[,"gate"],CRU=cru ) #collate Y=data.frame(X); year=c(time(X)) sapply(Y, function(x) range(year [!is.na(x)]) ) # MBH J2001 briffa CRU # [1,] 1000 1000 1402 1850 # [2,] 1980 1991 1994 2009
smoothb= ts(apply(Y,2,f),start=1000)
xlim0=c(1000,2000) #xlim0=c(1900,2000)
ylim0=c(-.6,.35)
par(mar=c(2.5,4,2,1))
col.ipcc=c("blue","red","green4","black")
par(bg="beige") plot( c(time(smoothb)),smoothb[,1],col=col.ipcc,lwd=2,bg="beige",xlim=xlim0,xaxs="i",ylim=ylim0,yaxs="i",type="n",axes=FALSE,xlab="",ylab="deg C (1961-1990)") usr 1960 points( c(time(smoothb))[temp],smoothb[temp,"briffa"],pch=19,cex=.7,col=”magenta”)
Aimee – click the link below for a live webcam image showing that poor kitten being microwaved in Barrow, Alaska: In case you didb’t know, the large flat white area beyond the lights is called the Arctic Ocean. Wunderground has the current temperature as -17C and windchill -24C: http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=Barrow,%20AK&wuSelect=WEATHER
But if -17C is too warm for the little kitten, how about a little further north to Alert where is it is currently -27C: http://www.wunderground.com/cgi-bin/findweather/getForecast?query=Nunavut&wuSelect=WEATHER
Okay, you mentioned solar radiation so lets be fair and try Antarctica, where midsummer is only 3 weeks away, and it is sure to be too warm for the little kitten. But wait, Dome A is a nippy -35C just now: http://www.aad.gov.au/weather/aws/dome-a/index.html
How about somewhere on the coast like Mawson: http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/webcams/mawson/default.asp – no temperature reading currently but the sea is still frozen – how can that be when the BBC, the Guardian and the NYT etc all say it has melted?
So lets try Davis – where is it positively tropical (+1.4C) but the sea still looks frozen to me: http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/webcams/davis/default.asp
That leaves Casey: http://www.aad.gov.au/asset/webcams/casey/default.asp
and yes, it is even warmer at +1.5C, and open sea! Fancy a swim? Or would that drown the little kitten?
A French person tipped me off to it. Said I needed to go look into it for myself.
I have to say that just before that, I got a shock when I read what their Doomsday Mitigation plans were.
How long do you think it will be before some noteables in the AGW camp jump back to the Coming Ice Age alarmism?
sorry – Barrow webcam link: http://www.gi.alaska.edu/snowice/sea-lake-ice/barrow_webcam.html
I think Aimee’s a troll. And a damn good one.
Kevin wrote:
What is truly dangerous? Rank anti-intellectualism that embraces pseudo- science, hysterical emotionalism, and neo-pagan ideologies of sacrifice to appease the Earth because we are dangerously out of balance and facing tremendous disaster. This is nothing new, sadly, it was a main plank of a particularly virulent political ideology in Germany from the 1920’s to the mid 1940’s but rather than being called Conservation it is now Environmentalism
Hey Kevin, I’d like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Just an observation, but after reading Aimees comments, but I do tend to find that the comments and arguements I’ve read from various sources, of those entrenched in the “warmist” camp, tend on the whole to verge on the hysterical and many a time extremely insulting to those who have opposing or even alternative views. Whereas the discussions from those in the ” skeptics ” camp, on the whole, are considered, deal with the data, and encourage further thought, discussion and perhaps pave the way to some positive conclusions.
I won’t make any cheap comments about people like Aimee, but I know which side of the fence I’m comfortable in sitting !
Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :”…polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation.”
Anthropogenic sunlight?
Can someone please just think of the polar bears?
The US population or the ones putting penguins on the barbie on the Ross Ice Shelf?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/09/the-precarious-state-of-the-u-s-polar-bear-population/
Mike Nicholson (02:41:03)
………entrenched in the “ warmist” camp, tend on the whole to verge on the hysterical and……….warmist”
It was hysteria that frightened us all in to the warmist camp.
A whole generation of “warmists” are popping their heads over the parapet,
to see ask what’s really going on, unfortunately, the the only language we have learned in the camp is full of hysteria, this is reflected in our questions. Please be Patient.
While following the Briffa comments in this post, I came across an interesting graph on northern hemisphere temperature in this article regarding the startup of CERN’s Cloud experiment testing Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/16/cern_cloud_experiment/
It looks like they stop using tree-ring proxies sometime in the early 1900’s, but have what looks like quite a hockey stick trend towards the end of their instrumental record ending in 2000 as well as one line simply labeled “hockey stick”. That line doesn’t have a Little Ice Age. If that is Mann’s, I think it’s too funny they’d just refer to it as “hockey stick”. That may reflect their assessment of its value.
Perhaps others can enlighten me on this.
Scientificus Hubristicus (Mucho Moola)
Although there are reports that gametes have been collected and stored by Environmentalists.
Our Aimée – French for “beloved”, and indeed so should she be – seems to have been adopted as the blog mascot, so in that spirit…
I am trying to repeat the experiment with a Polar Bear as this would seem to be more appropriate given the bombardment at the Poles which unsettles her so.
Can it be done without scorching the fur – I have a coat in mind given the plummeting global temperatures nowadays?
Can’t get the damned door closed however. Any tips anyone?
Aimee appears to be echoing a view often heard from Greens – massive species losses are occurring due to tropical deforestation. For a reality check see Whitmore & Sayer (eds), 1992, Tropical Deforestation And Species Extinction, chapter 6 by Brown and Brown. Much of this is available on Google Books. The chapter cited examines the Brazilian rainforests – and concludes that the Greens are engaging in outrageous hype once again. While areas of high species diversity can be found in the Amazon rainforest, these high-diversity areas are confined to particular regions. They are not characteristic of the rainforest as a whole. The authors therefore challenge the Green claims of enormous species losses.
“Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :
It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation. Do you enjoy watching your planet explode like a kitten burned alive in a microwave on high for 10 minutes? I think something is wrong with you people 🙁
Reply: I’m allowing this unsnipped for entertainment value. Challenge to you Aimee. Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months. ~ charles the moderator.”
This is just too funny, but sadly an indication of the sheer ignorance of the masses. Charles, how many posts like this do you see?
MILLIONS…of species going extinct PER MONTH! LOL
If you check the WWF website you will discover that there are approximately 10,000 documented species currently on the endangered species list. And you will also note that none of them have gone extinct in the last YEAR, let alone the last month.
As a climate “denier” and a conservative environmentalist, I am all for taking what steps are practical and necessary to look after the diversity of our ecosystems, but there is little to no evidence that species extinction has increased in the last half century in response to the supposed severe global warming.
You may also wish to check your facts regarding polar bears. Their population is INCREASING. By a factor of two in the last 25 years.
How on earth can the science be settled? Consensus, what consensus. Of all the graphs I look at I cannot discern a signal for anything due to the noise of data being shredded and climatology phds being rippes upm
Wow, I’m amazed by how many people fell for Amiee’s satire. Can’t you see that she is just making the same ludicrous ill-informed statements made by so many average Joes, but taking it to the next level? e.g. confusing global warming with the alleged CFC caused hole in the ozone layer. Classic.
on topic-> Looking through that code reminds me of how much I have forgotten about programming since I gave up software development. My degree is mocking me.
To go with the ‘hockey stick’, quote of the day from Michael Mann:
“…old adjustments are lost in files that disappeared into oblivion,” Mann said.
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/12/01/climate_theory_emails_missing.aspx
PhilW – very good comment.
I’m sorry that Aimee has taken up so much of the posters’ space – because I think Steve’s material is important. No good blowing off too much (ctm – lesson taken in, thanks) and missing out on the science as a result – because ClimateGate all hinges on getting the awfulness of the science across to enough people, including other scientists and enough MSM. In fact, I like Steve’s snipping policy in this respect, keeping to the subject, and constantly refining and homing in.
I found a “hat trick” of tricks hidden in those tiny details, that become clear when you overlay the original WMO graph and the new UEA release. I’ve enlarged the details, done blink comparisons, and written explanations for newcomers click
This is an expansion of what I posted before, but done more carefully and with some new, important details (IMO). I took time out to do this because this evidence seems so central to the whole of ClimateGate, and it’s important that people can understand it easily. It takes what Steve has written here a little further.
I hope this helps everyone. But please correct me if I’ve got anything wrong.
Re Aimee–to paraphrase R. Reagan:
‘ It isn’t that alarmists are ignorant — it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.’
Of course, she is correct in noting that the polar ice caps ARE being bombarded by solar radiation–but she should take comfort because:
– The “leading” [alarmist] “climate scientists” have noted that solar effects are NOT the cause of global warming (which means she needs to get her fact harmonized with the official ‘climate change alarmist’ party line)
– And the poles have been taking the brunt of solar bombardment for millenia (and non-stop at that!) due to the Earth’s magnetic field. A neat indicator of how much of this that has been going on is the Aurora Borealis–which is behaving pretty typically & not appearing at particularly low latitudes.
What is the significance of the MWP? Please check out the graph of the accepted climatological record as of 1990 (Lamb’s temperature graph, featured in the first IPCC report in 1990) versus the IPCC TAR 2001 graph, a product of the duplicitous groups associated with CRU. You can find both graphs here:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/page2.html
I think ethical scientists should demand that the IPCC reinstate the 1990 graph until LEGITIMATE science studies prove otherwise.
bill (02:10:24) :
Capn Jack Walker (23:28:14) :
FergalR (23:31:23) :
Using that word is an insult to the victims of the holocaust Aimee.
You live in a strange world. Most would accept these definitions as acceptable use:
No one alive today can remember when “nigger” was a simple mispronunciation of the Spanish work “negro”. “Denier” also now has a more insidious meaning than it once did. Strange world, indeed.
“and the polar caps being bombarded by solar radiation . . .”
Well said. Let me add to what is a profound point. Have all you “deniers” any idea just how long this radiation has been going on? What’s worse, if it’s not one of the poles, it’s the other one and it lasts for a good six months every year And stuff.
Sorry for the rant but I’ve just had a not dis-similar argument with a former scientific colleague which was at almost as low a level. Pitiful.
The stupid fools who peddle this kind of irrational tosh seem not to grasp that solving a non-existent problem on a global scale is not only highly destructive environmentally but diverts significant resources badly needed elsewhere. It is thus likely to be the direct cause of considerable human suffering.
That is as good a practical reason for getting the science right as I can imagine however much it offends some (mostly white middle class) folks’ quasi-religious ideas.
Deny that if you can to, say, a parent whose child has chronic malaria but not electricity. I’m sure they’ll appreciate it.
At the end of the day, AGW theory and the greed and ignorance that surrounds its final “solution” could prove as destructive to humanity as Fascism was (which BTW also had roots in bogus science).
I agree that the post’s a laugh – but it isn’t funny. Different things.
Mike says above “I won’t make any cheap comments about people like Aimee”. That’s perfectly proper but OTOH I’d argue that the possible human cost of this scandal does need thinking about and those making it must think of the possible consequences of their actions should they prove to be wrong.
The post by Aimee is a tragic representation of our education system and the extent to which alarmist propaganda has been able to infiltrate and pervert the minds of our young.
The swamping of young minds with rubbish soley to cause a kind of mental failure and breakdown within the minds of our young for wholly political ends has to rank as a crime against humanity.
Dear Aimee,
Please be aware of the fact that you have been subjected to a form of cult brainwashing and in the present system this is not only tolerated but encouraged and there is little you can do but observe in silence, to rebel could hurt your grades so open your mind and find out the truth, you can either make the voyage of discovery or follow the ignorance of the herd.
Best of luck in your future endeavors, the truth is a big country but worth the effort I promise.
Well, I for one am inalterably opposed to exploding kittens. I believe this is something that all right-thinking humans can agree on. With millions of species going extinct every month, I don’t think we need that too!
The Story of Mann:
as reported by The Daily Collegian, Penn State students:
Mann:
>>> “… the basic data on the surface temperatures comes from a common data source that is still available.”
Mann does not say where the “basic data”/”common data source” is stashed.
Mann is sitting on the “basic data”/”common date source”?
…-
“The missing data concerns surface temperatures from around the globe collected by a group within the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, Mann said. A lot of this work was done “decades ago” and wasn’t stored on a computer, he said.
“What they’re referring to is that some of the old adjustments are lost in files that disappeared into oblivion,” Mann said.
But, he said, the basic data on the surface temperatures comes from a common data source that is still available.”
“Climate theory e-mails missing”(sic)
http://www.collegian.psu.edu/archive/2009/12/01/climate_theory_emails_missing.aspx
…-
“December 1, 2009
Y2Kyoto: Who’s The Conspiracy Theorist Now?
The Chief Railroad Engineer for the Intergovernmental Committee On Atmospheric Sucking names a suspect;”
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/012785.html#comments