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”)
Time to start awarding “Rathers”. Initially I thought they should be limited to journalists that don’t cover Climategate, or who cover it and say that never mind AGW is still valid. But then I saw statements from Carol Browner and Lisa Johnson and I thought they needed an award as well. And now with Aimee I think that she should get an award as well. So “Rahters” will be given to Jouralists and others will get “Rahterettes”. Carol, Lisa and Aimee all get Ratherettes.
I’m having a certificate made to send to the awardees. Feel free to do the same and send them to appropriate honorees. I’m working on an award for Jones, Mann, et al.
@Mike Nicholson
There have been since the 60s, a number of cultural currents, like the rise of Feminism, the coming of Buddhism to the West, new interest in Pagan and New Age, and so on, which as a whole, have tended to value feelings and intuition above thinking. For example, go to most any Western Buddhist groups, and you’ll see people have an innate sense that to be enlightened is to have a “natural and spontaneous wisdom”. So one’s own intuitions, one’s own feelings, especially if they appear to be compassionate, are valued more highly and made more important than “technicalities”, like thinking rationally, which after all, produced the Western technological “progress” and “ruined” the environment.
However, this Western Buddhism is merely a Western New Age interpretation of Buddhism. In the East, Buddhist monks consider philosophy and reasoning a serious matter. Zen isn’t about being in touch with your feelings, or being aloof from ordinary concerns, it is about being directly grounded in reality.
But because Buddhism and other alternatives like it arrived in the West at a time when Westerners were going Post Modern, alternative, and New Age, what we ended up with was a whole cultural movement that interpreted those things through those lenses. Often when people think they’re doing Buddhism, they’re actually doing New Age. When they think they’re acting in an enlightened way, they’re just acting out their poorly thought out impulses. And likewise with environmentalism, it is often more New Age than anything directly practical. People believe that to be compassionate is to act by your natural intuitions, and they despise or make fun of “the intellect”.
This is kinda the funny thing about all these Gaia types claiming “the science” is on their side—they don’t actually care about science. If science says there is no evidence that genetic modification is unsafe, they ignore it or call it evil. If science says AGW is real, they’re all over it, and act as if the science is what convinced them. If the science changes and says AGW isn’t happening, they’ll just ignore it and carry on pursuing their intuitions and feelings about harmony with Gaia anyway.
The thing is, you can have a deep feeling of connection with the natural world, and many people do, but that doesn’t mean that you have rational well thought out solutions for how to make things better in a practical way. Many sceptics, as far as I can see, simply fall into this camp—they do care, but they are interested in practical solutions, which means getting a good understanding of the problem.
AGW activists with a New Age slant completely miss this point.
chillybean said:
“As long as you don’t mind being party to the death of millions in the third world due to food shortages that will be caused by the AGW fraud. I can’t see how that is being a better human?”
Oh, you mean like the millions that have died due to malaria since the greenies banned the only effective mosquito control chemical available?
If there was one place on Earth that global warming would be obvious to see it is Malaysia given the CRU data that was leaked.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11651
What we see in the CRU data is summer seasons that have not varied by more the 1°C for a century, which would not be possible if we were experiencing runaway greenhouse warming.
Aren’t the AGW alarmists more accurately described as “deniers” and “skeptics”?
I think so.
Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :
There there.. I for one can assure you that i’ll be feeding my kitten as per normal tonight. However you’ve given me an idea. Lovelock likes the idea of Gaia worship. I think you could write a new book in similar rhetorical style to Lovelock, but call it Planet Kitten revenge. The only difference is that Lovelock is a misanthrope who believes people are a virus who create their own doom, and the angry earth takes its revenge, whereas you, to your credit think that people are not so bad, but that the earth will pop.
Amiee, I told you a million time to stop exaggerating!
out of sheer curiosity I googled “Lovelock the misanthrope” and this came up near th etop of the list.
Its about how misanthropy is informing public policy
http://www.frankfuredi.com/articles/misanthropy-20060418.shtml
Thanks for that analogy Aimee,I didn’t need that image in my head,and you profess to care about animals?10 minutes on high?How do you know?Don’t answer,I don’t want to know.
I am going to start calling the alarmists collaborators. How long do you think I will last on The Guardian?
PhilW (00:32:11) :
Give Aimee a break..
For more than ten years I have listened to, and lived my life believing that AGW was true. I also pushed my convictions on my children.
The obvious shock in the posts by those of you who suspected this scandal is is glaringly obvious. For me, and millions of others like me coming to terms with this scandal, has been, and still is an extremely painful process.
——————————————–
PhilW, Welcome to a whole new reality, where allegations of how reality works should be provable and not taken on faith alone. I accept that it is can be a very painful and disorientating process to realise that something that you may have believed in whole-heartedly is not what you believed it to be, that people you trusted acted in a less than trustworthy manner.
You and your fellow awakeners are most welcome here.
Personally I feel that people from both sides of the debate should stop, reflect and acknowledge that there is, and has been, and will continue to be a debate. That there is NO scientific consensus specifically on the rate or extent of climate change, let-alone the amount of causation that can be fully laid at the door of man. (rather than Mann)
What I find truly outrageous is the amount of time, effort and money that is poured into this CO2 debacle, and real and catastrophic localised, yet large scale, environmental disasters are happening in various regions of the world, ignored by the political classes entirely.
Perhaps this could be a chance to get the world to stop the CO2 fraud and actually do something about the deforestation reality!
Aimee’s post does make it clear why someone would feel justified in hiding declines, subverting the peer review process, and keeping papers out of IPCC by any means necessary.
Can reeducation camps for deniers be far behind on her agenda?
Re: Kim W
I just shot my cereal out my nose,, I am making those exploding kittens my screen saver..
Phil
“For me, and millions of others like me coming to terms with this scandal, has been, and still is an extremely painful process.
We are waking up, but coming out of a 10 year sleep is a slow process, and the shock of the “Climategate” sirens and it’s social implications is frightening. It’s tempting to snuggle back under the bed covers, and pretend non of this is happening.”
I appreciate that expression of feeling and others like them. A Vacuum, abhorred by nature.
The economics of the thing scared me far more than any climate change. I knew they could never prove the CO2 influence, and I knew that once established, the tax and control would be perpetual and ever growing, no matter what the climate actually did, which no single person can ever judge. So the science has to be honest. The MSM engaged in obvious propaganda, which many of us could detect. Don’t tell me we had a hot winter locally when I’ve battled the local ice for 25 years.
It’s very important that we conserve our resources, recycle, stop dumping poisons in the oceans and atmosphere, stop overfishing, look for new energy sources, etc. Americans’ overuse of resources was shown some years ago to be caused more by DIVORCE and mobility, as too few people were living in too many houses. Elderly living alone is unnatural in human history. At one time we had four generations and eight people in our recycled home.
All this focus on AGW has taken our eyes off the real problems that we CAN do something about.
I’m still hoping this depression will cull out many of the absurd excesses. Multi generational households might even help develop common sense in the young. Young people aren’t getting “bullsh*t” proofed by their grandparents anymore.
“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.”
That is why polar bears are not on the endangered species list. They are on the threatened species list. The criteria for the threatened species list are not as stringent as for the endangered species list, as their massively increasing numbers would preclude them.
Only in climate alarmist world could the fact that the polar bear population has doubled land them on the threatened species list.
Aimee, I didn’t consider that you may still be at school or not long out of it so I’d just like to apologise for my earlier post, which may have been a bit derogatory. But please don’t call sceptics deniers – it is offensive. And try to look up real world data and question what you read in the newspapers and see on TV. Sure the world has warmed a wee bit from the 1980s to 2000, but most of it can be accounted for by UHI and the rest by long term natural variation / ocean and/or solar cycles. The only ‘evidence’ for CO2 being responsible for the warming is the results from computer models, which even before the CRU emails were leaked, were highly questionable in terms of their ability to reflect the complexities of the interactions between the Earth’ s atmosphere, oceans and dry land. And that’s not even mentioning the assumption that increased water vapour will be a positive feedback. Best wishes.
Re Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :
Aimee, it is worse then we thought.
You said “millions of species going extinct every month.”
Since there is a TOTAL of about two million species, all life on earth will be gone in less than two months. Start panicking. Or maybe you exaggerate almost as much as Jones and Mann and Hansen and Briffa, and Stieg and the rest of the Warmies
Wake up girl, you been had
In another thread I posted this:
I’m sure “Aimee” was facetiously pretending to be a warmist. No actual warmist is so absurd as to say that millions of species are going extinct monthly. She was “trolling” in the true, or restricted, sense of trying to get a rise out of us with an irritating post.
Aimee might well be a troll, but in my Montana university town, where a local faculty member shares a Nobel with Al, I meet an Aimee nearly every day.
@roger Knights
Do you mean sarc-ing without a tag or mobying a warmer?
What are the two nearly overlapping black lines on the original graph? IMO visually they are what produces the impression of out-of-control temperature increase.
Is there any universally agreed known good data publicly available? if so, Is anyone aware of a graphic that directly compares the dot-earth blog graph of yesterday with that data?
We deniers are denying you our money. Now go back to eating your card board in the dark. I have a steak to cook with extra sauce. Pass the #salt.
Gavin Schmidt doing the perp walk … priceless …
RE: Buddhism – go into any Buddist temple with the “ethnics” who practice real “born again / fundamentalist Buddhism” and listen to the sermon (probably in a different language, so translation may be required). The shocker – you won’t burn in Hell … no need to wait for the afterlife … you’ll be punished in the HERE and NOW!
BTW – The fundamental Buddhist precepts are either identical to or overlap with multiple of the Ten Commandments. Undoubtedly, back in the 5th Century BC or earlier, rabbis made it far enough East to influence holy men in India.