Playing hide and seek behind the trees

Still Hiding the Decline

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”)
Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
157 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
guidoLaMoto
December 2, 2009 7:07 am

Things we shoulda learned in hi school:
[CO2] + [H2O] + sunlight —> [cellulose]
The rate & quantity at which cellulose is made depends on availability of the reactants.
The rx rate is directly, but minimally, dependant on temperature. For 1st order rx kinetics, rate doubles for each rise of 10degC. In the published graphs, there is a 3-fold increase in cellulose from min to max levels while temps supposedly only change 0.5degC.
Temps are indirectly involved via their influence on humidiity/precipitation & cloud cover. Tree ring analyses are, at best, a lousy proxy for ambient temps.
No need to lie about it.

December 2, 2009 11:16 am

Aimee a troll? I do not care, it is hypocrisy to throw stones at Aimee when we are so upset at the ‘holding responses in the queue” that goes on at the website that refuses to call Steve by his name.
Lets fast forward this Climategate debacle to its obvious resolution. Most of the deleted emails are probably stored at the ISP. I know in the U.S. they are required to be, the question is has that time expired? Because taxpayer dollars were fraudulently acquired and squandered on a non problem there will be a paper trail. As the investigation unfolds somebody will spill the beans to avoid prison time. Then, it will be CYA time on steroids. The spineless politicians will do whatever it takes to keep their jobs. The real question is, how high up the food chain does the conspiracy go? Remember, Dear Leader Obama claims that he got his start in politics with the help of the Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters. Whether you like the president or not there is no denying that he is a smart man and an astute politician who needs to win just one more election. Since, for politicians the end justifies the means who will be sacrificed so that the president can continue to “do the work of the people”?
Most Americans, even in these hard times, enjoy a standard of living that most of the world envies. The average American DOES pay attention whenever a politician attempts to reach into his wallet. As the true magnitude of this scandal unfolds everybody involved will be so busy driving the bus over everyone else that it is going to look like a destruction derby. What is sad is that when future real environmental concerns arise nobody will believe the environmentalists. Any sane human being cares about the planet. The good news is the far left will not be able to execute their master plan for world domination through control of the worlds energy. BTW, I despise the far left as much as I do the far right. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Thank you Steve for having the courage to do that which is right.

Harold Blue Tooth (Viking not phone)
December 2, 2009 3:45 pm

Niclas Sand Engberg (06:36:46) :
“Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months.”
~ charles the moderator.

I wish I could say useful idiots went extict. But I can’t. I saw one named Bill O’Reilly on tv last night.

December 2, 2009 4:24 pm

Harold Blue Tooth (Viking not phone) (15:45:11) :
Niclas Sand Engberg (06:36:46) :
“Name ONE species that went extent in the last 3 months.”
~ charles the moderator.
I wish I could say useful idiots went extict. But I can’t. I saw one named Bill O’Reilly on tv last night.
Is that the best you can do, a half witted ad hominem attack on Bill O’Reilly? I guess if I could not make an intelligent argument I would be tempted to stoop as low. Fortunately, I have some class. BTW, “tv” is an acronym for television and should be capitalized. Also, you misspelled extinct. Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary? It couldn’t hurt and it might help to build character, yours! Also, by watching The O’Reilly Factor you may build your vocabulary as Mr. O’Reilly often shares interesting additions to fortify just about anyones diction.

arch stanton
December 2, 2009 5:20 pm

S Courtney (03:50:57) :
Why don’t you read the paper rather than fantasize from the abstract?
From the paper itself:
“…Averaged around the Northern Hemisphere, early tree growth (ALL) can be seen to follow closely the decadal trends in recorded summer temperatures, tracking the rise to the relatively high levels of the 1930s and 1940s and the subsequent fall in the 1950s. However, although temperatures rose again after the mid-1960s and reached unprecedentedly high recorded levels by the late 1980s, hemispheric tree growth fell consistently after 1940, and in the late 1970s and 1980s reached levels as low as those attained in the cool 1880s. Over the hemisphere, the divergence between tree growth and mean summer temperatures began perhaps as early as the 1930s; became clearly recognisable, particularly in the north, after 1960; and has continued to increase up until the end of the common record at around 1990. The reason for this increasingly apparent and widespread phenomenon is not known but any one, or a combination, of several factors might be involved…”
They go on to discuss potential factors.
If Briffa wanted to “hide the decline” he would not have published about the decline in Nature (with Jones). If Jones had really wanted to “hide the decline” in the WMO chart he just could have left the trees out all together.
But Briffa did, and Jones didn’t. Some tricky decline hiding, eh?

Richard S Courtney
December 3, 2009 7:20 am

Arch Stanton:
Bluster all you want.
The extended quote you provide says;
“The reason for this increasingly apparent and widespread phenomenon is not known but any one, or a combination, of several factors might be involved…”
So, my comment was correct. As I said;
“PROBLEM
How can “this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes” be “taken into account in dendroclimatic reconstructions” when its cause “is not known”?
SOLUTION
Ignore “this increasing insensitivity of wood density to temperature changes” then hide the decline.
And that was the adopted solution: see Steve’s excellent analysis (above) and Lucy’s superb presentation (mentioned above and at
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Climategate/hide-decline.htm ).”
And, as I also said;
“Stating that a problem exists in one place while attempting to conceal it everywhere else is commonly known as “covering your ass”.”
So, to paraphrase you, why don’t you comment on what I wrote instead of trying to excuse the inexcuseable?
Richard

Espen
December 6, 2009 11:42 pm

Eddy Aruda (11:16:21) :
Most of the deleted emails are probably stored at the ISP.
Universities usually have their own mail servers.

1 5 6 7