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”)
For unsurpassable satire of climate scientists gone wrong, read “The Secret Life of Climate Scientists” at http://iowahawk.typepad.com/.
Are you being serious? You don’t actually believe what you wrote, do you?
According to IUCN (since 1500):
How do you get from 869 total, to millions a month is beyond me. It seems like you are using Mann’s code to make an uptick in extiction rates! Making a hockey stick out of species loss….nice try.
“Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months.”
I can, I can! It was the north-by-northwestern greenlandian south bay nematode, and I know when it went extinct because I heard the last one SCREAMING IN MY DREAMS!!!
It had a real little high voice, and it sounded something like “ohhh nooooo!!!!!”
and if you don’t like my methodology, well then you just aren’t very well versed in post-normal science, are you? You see I know that because if you were you would know that the Dreams of our Fathers are the pathways to the New Truth.
Aimee knows what I’m talkin’ about, don’tcha Aimee?
****************
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 🙁
**************
But thanks to nuclear power, there are tens of millions of new species created each month. Right.
Ole Sandberg, thanks for posting that funny IowaHawk link. Perfect!
Charles the Moderator :
Please next time delete nonsense EVEN if it has entertainment value .
The net result of this troll is that it has very effectively KILLED a serious and interesting study by S.McIntyre .
And I am sure that it was the intent – make people remember only a stupid troll post and ignore everything about UEA and its wrongdoing .
It’s called deviation of attention and look how efficient it is !
These warmers keep pointing to their false facts. If you go to the source for these statements they don’t match.
This decade 2000-2009 is the hottest decade ever. False.
The ice sheets are retreating and melting at an alarming rate. False.
Sea Levels are rising, fast. False.
Polar Bear population is in steep decline. False.
Global temperatures are increasing in at alarming rate (hockey stick). False.
My point is if you go to the sources referenced on the home page of this web page you will find that all of these are patently wrong.
These warmers are ignoring hard facts and that brings me to my point. They are in this AGW scheme for something else and that’s Global Social Change. They have hitched their wagon to this and have everything to loose as do all of us if we succumb to their looter plans. Someone said in socialism we all lose together.
Anthony that’s why we need a short list to these data and we thank you for your efforts. May I suggest a link to a summary with copies of these emails that prove the fraud and conspiracy of the warmers. They must be exposed and the money being spent needs to be redirected to something more worthwhile like cancer or something.
Thoughts;
Is there (there should be) a corrolary to Godwin’s Law stating that calling someone a denier is the equivalent of calling them a Nazi. Debate ended, time to move on.
We could then have some agreement that it’s time to end this ridiculous debate.
Possibly we could move foreward if someone could reconstitute the ‘lost’ archive data and use it to re-establish the science.
It would really be helpful to know what our climate has done over the last couple hundred years, and more helpful to know what it’s done recently. Even if there remains some debate on that issue.
Maybe then we could begin to establish what drives our climate, and (better still) what it’s about to do. The notion that agenda driven science has put blinders on our society and therefore could make us more vulnerable to what may be an impending LIA or MWP (modern warm period) is unacceptable.
No more Proprietary Data, no more unsharable code or algorithms. How the blankety blank did Science (notice the capital letter there) get so distorted as this? Reproducible results from shared methodology, not just assurances from ‘peers’, who may or may not be close friends with a vested interest.
Do you know what happens when politicians or organized religion gets too deeply involved in science? NO ONE EXPECTS THE SPANISH INQUISITION!!
And Aimee; you would do well to spend a few years reading and learning some serious math. 10 million per month? You sound like Al Gore and his ‘millions of degrees at the core’ b.s.
(I notice you’ve not yet replied to anyone who has mocked your original post.)
To: wws
LMAO!! Dude, that was good. Gonna use it at my next b-day party show! In classic Eastwood: “well, don’tcha PUNK?!”
To bad it’s this mentality, based on nothing but uninformed emotionalism (read ignorance), that MUST make up the majority of the AGW view held by John Q. Public.
CLIMATEGATE ROCKS!
John Trigge said:
“I think you’ll find that 1/2 of the World is always being bombarded by solar radiation – it’s called daylight.”
A greater problem is the bombardment of the sun by terrestrial radiation and that happens 24/7, rendering the sun unfit for habitation.
Steve McIntyre has also noted that NOAA has also deleted the post 1960 Briffa divergence data from the Briffa study which was used in the ipcc 2001 report [TAR] and hockey stick graphs – ipcc 2001 fig. 1 and fig. 2-21 – where the Briffa data divergence was hidden by a “trick” or two .
And NOAA used the same code for the deleted existing data as it does for years with absolutely no existent data.
Oh TomVonk don’t be such a square.
CTM gave us all a bit of light relief.
Aimee,
For the record, kittens don’t explode when burned alive. Carry on…..
TomVonk,
I agree totally. I particularly avoided making a post until now for that reason.
It’s disappointing that of the over 100 comments on this thread, perhaps two thirds relate to the Aimee troll. I agree with TomVonk, this could have been an interesting thread.
While I’d agree that such an obvious troll should be deleted, there will be less extreme posts from genuine AGW promoters. If we get drawn into argument on every thread, we’ll diminish the useful function of this website.
I suggest that off-topic posts of this type be moved to a daily thread dedicated to direct AGW/NAGW argument and that responses helpfully intended to educate the “opposition” be done there.
Ok back to the TOPIC.
What I cannot wrap my head around is that LINE through the middle.
Someone told me a few days ago it was today’s temps, then I read it was 1961-90, and see it here, finally. So very month an anomaly is reported it’s a divergence from that area. It implies some kind of mean or average at first glance.
So ok, I finally see that as evidence that 61-90 was warmer than what they could discern from history, as if temperatures were measured more accurately in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s as the cities spread.
Who chose that particular time period and why?
This is so crazy, we’re talking about TENTHS of a single degree C, ontological angels is all I see dancing on the head of this pin!
On the troll front – I’m a daily visitor to a site [ http://www.politicalbetting.com] that is infested with trolls trying to derail the agenda, these are often very amusing for their silliness.
As political bettors need to sniff the wind rather than stake cash that fits their own opinions, I have a soft spot for trolls as they tend to come out in force when their own [real] position comes under threat.
re Espen
on EUs decision to ban normal light bulbs
Yes that was a meaningless token decision, whatever one’s take on environmental politics.
There is research even by EU governments themselves to show that supposed savings end up marginal, and light bulbs don’t give out CO2 anyway – power stations do, and can (and will) of course be dealt with directly.
Even if electrical products had to be targeted, taxation is better, retaining choice, while (unlike with bans) giving government income on the reduced sales, income that can in turn give environmental spending if needs be.
2 billion annual EU light bulb sales (=like USA) shows, or showed, the potential income possibilities just on light bulbs, though, as said, taxation is in principle wrong too, merely better for all sides than bans.
About the unpublicised industrial politics that led to the EU ban:
http://www.ceolas.net/#li1ax
——————————
Emission Policy Alternatives
http://ceolas.net/#cce1x
Introduction: The need – or not – to deal with emissions
The Overall Picture
Emission sources, land and ocean cycles, agriculture and deforestation
1. Direct Industrial Emission Regulation
Mandated reduction of CO2, monitored like other emission substances
2. Carbon Taxation
Fuel Tax — Emission Tax
3. Emission Trading (Cap and Trade)
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Cost — In Conclusion
4. Contracted CO2 Reduction
Private companies compete for contracts to lower CO2 emissions.
This is so depressing – reply from my UK MP [Conservative]
“Thank you for contacting me about the integrity of climate scientists at the climate research institute at the University of East Anglia.
I appreciate your concerns over this and that you feel it undermines the wealth of climate science already published. However, my view is that public policy on climate change has been built over many years with input from a wide variety of expert sources and I would not consider it wise to change policy in a reactive or impulsive way.
Aside from whether you fully commit to the science surrounding climate policy, I believe that it is worth noting that efforts to make UK homes and businesses more energy efficient and reduce or national dependence on remotely and expensively sourced fossil fuels is an eminently sensible thing to do in any event.
Despite the recent commotion over the data published by this particular research unit, I will continue to accept that we cannot consider it sensible to pollute our atmosphere with carbon and not expect it to have a destabilising effect on our climate system. For that reason, I will carry on supporting measures to decarbonise our economy, particularly when doing so can be achieved in a way that delivers so many other benefits to Britain in the form of greater energy security, more efficient homes, cleaner cities and the creation of thousands of new ‘green collar’ jobs,”
This man is our Shadow Energy Minister :- (
Willem de Rode (23:40:50) :
“Yes but CO2 is never emitted alone. Always there are a lot of other co-emissions that are much more dangerous for environment and health.”
You need to read some of Bjorn Lomborg. It is precisely because there are other environmental concerns which are more important than CO2 that we need to get off this fixation with a harmless gas and focus on controlling those emissions which do real harm. We can do much more good pounding down the “tall poles in the tent” than we can by wiggling the tent flaps.
The fact that many such important details are hidden in the codes points to the fact that the person that leaked those documents out was not just someone from outside grabbing what ever was out there. It would certainly show that the person putting all this together had inside knowledge of the emails and codes and what they contained.
I suggest you ban any more comments on Aimee. By her one post she seems to have successfully hijacked this post, which reveals what “hiding the decline” is all about.
Willful fraud and not some innocuous statement taken out of context as RC and other warmers have claimed.
“It still amazes me why you deniers are willfully accepting that millions of species going extinct every month”
Species are being extinct at any minute and others are starting. That happens for many reasons.
Always have been that way.
Re, Aimee Gardens (23:20:28) :,
Aimee, thank you! I got a good chuckle out of that post of yours… 🙂
“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.”
yeah, cause none of that stuff EVER happened while humans weren’t around.
oh wait, yeah it did.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur