Its Conclusive: CRU Climate Data Manipulation At Its Worst!

At last some data graphing is completed from the Climategate archive, and its obscene! That combined with other revelations provides conclusive proof of wide ranging data manipulation. Yesterday I reported that virtually all temperature data is irrelevent at best, and with this new revelation perhaps Mann & friends might parrot my view, as last ditch damage control. Can anyone say Mann-Made Global Warming?





From Climate Audit:

For the very first time, the Climategate Letters “archived” the deleted portion of the Briffa MXD reconstruction of “Hide the Decline” fame – see here.

Gavin Schmidt claimed that the decline had been “hidden in plain sight” (see here. ). This isn’t true. The post-1960 data was deleted from the archived version of this reconstruction at NOAA here and not shown in the corresponding figure in Briffa et al 2001, though pre-calibration values were archived in a different NCDC file here. While the decline was shown in Briffa et al 1998 and Briffa 2000, it was not shown in the IPCC 2001 graph, one that Mann, Jones, Briffa, Folland and Karl were working in the two weeks prior to the “trick” email (or for that matter in the IPCC 2007 graph, an issue that I’ll return to.) For now, here is a graphic showing the deleted data in red. A retrieval script follows.

camirror.wordpress.com...
Visit site for links and more.

It's no wonder that MannCo. has been surprisingly quiet during all this. The damage control on this affair is beyond the capability of their overarching propaganda machine. They're hoping too much isnt found or reported on before Copenhagen.


But that would require admission to defeat and deceit.

IPCC: "Inappropriate" to hide the decline:

Show the Briffa et al reconstruction through to its end; don’t stop in 1960. Then comment and deal with the “divergence problem” if you need to. Don’t cover up the divergence by truncating this graphic. This was done in IPCC TAR; this was misleading (comment ID #: 309-18)

The "Trick":

camirror.wordpress.com...

More manipulation: climate ’scientists’ usage of phrases such as “hide the decline” & “artificially adjusted” in tandem with “corrected” & “reconstructed”, in their hacked / leaked emails & programming source code.

; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
ignoranceisfutile.wordpress.com...

Wheres the MWP?
en.wikipedia.org...


Here we see Mann discussing the intent to”contain” the MWP:

I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back…
www.eastangliaemails.com...

More from Mann:

thanks Phil,
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ‘06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,
www.eastangliaemails.com...

Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring data:

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
www.eastangliaemails.com...

This confirms long held suspicions that YAD061 was phony data, and it also confirms that Jones knew all about it:


"That is tree #YAD061. Seems like an outlier, that should be discarded from the analysis, right? That's not what Bifra did. Keeping it in, the average of the group was raised a little. Just a little, but enough." borepatch.blogspot.com...


Here Gary Funkhouser admits to manipulating tree data:

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian).
www.eastangliaemails.com...

Another email shows even more manipulation:



GLOBAL WARMING?

No recent warming in the tropics worth discussing (satellite data):


No long term warming in Denmark worth discussing (remote land stations):


In fact that graph shows actual cooling after 1940 and even more after 1960, much like the “hide the decline” computer code highlighted earlier that is claimed to be in reference to the proxy data. This stuff becomes more damning the more you look at it. The following IPCC 20th Century graph with future projection doesn’t show the post-1940 decline as seen above, as described by Wigley as a “blip” to be adjusted here:

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
then this would be significant for the global mean -- but
we'd still have to explain the land blip.

I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity
plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.
www.eastangliaemails.com...

So once again, it'd be best for them to support my in-depth assessment that temperature data is irrelevant at best:
*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ’science’ temp. data is irrelevant and/or PHONY.

What else is to be said, so let the 'denial' and spin begin...

[edit on 27-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

[edit on 27-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Nice Work, and I hope this isnt accepted as an 'mistake' or some things like that and the plan goes on as usuall, must be stopped.

I see one of the guys in those emails on tv here in Norway, Jansen, and he is now on tv talking about how we need to Act Now before it is to late to save the planet..

Just 3 days ago he was on the News calling the Hackers 'Criminals'..
And I cand help my self, this you tube is abut what you are presenting here..

This is a good one too, especially now that I added in the part about YAD061:


Can't wait to see the Alarmists skate their way around this thread...

[edit on 27-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Almost forgot:
Notes From Within Their Computer Code:

function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$
datathresh=datathresh
;
; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES
; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate
; FAILS WITH >1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE
; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE
; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS.
;

pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill
;
; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.
;

;
; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD
; reconstructions
; of growing season temperatures. Uses “corrected” MXD – but shouldn’t usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

From documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:

; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,
; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline
;

Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE AGE-BANDED (ALL BANDS) STUFF OF HARRY’S
;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline
;

recon_mann.pro:
; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass MEAN timeseries of MXD
; anomalies against full NH temperatures.
; THIS IS FOR THE Mann et al. reconstruction
; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N
; IN FACT, I NOW HAVE AN ANNUAL LAND-ONLY NORTH OF 20N VERSION OF MANN,
; SO I CAN CALIBRATE THIS TOO – WHICH MEANS I’m ONLY ALTERING THE SEASON

briff_sep98_e.pro:
;
; PLOTS ‘ALL’ REGION MXD timeseries from age banded and from hugershoff
; standardised datasets.
; Reads Harry’s regional timeseries and outputs the 1600-1992 portion
; with missing values set appropriately. Uses mxd, and just the
; “all band” timeseries
;****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

from README_GRIDDING.TXT..

“Use dist to specify the correlation decay distance for the climate
variable being interpolated – necessary information to determine where to add dummy or synthetic data.”

; calculate 1961-1990 synthetic normal from adjusted tmn
print,'Calculating synthetic frs normal'

for iy=nor1,nor2 do begin
tmpfl=strip(string(tmp_prefix,iy))
dtrfl=strip(string(dtr_prefix,iy))

mann/abdlowfreq2grid:

; HUGREG=Hugershoff regions, ABDREG=age-banded regions, HUGGRID=Hugershoff grid
; The calibrated (uncorrected) versions of all these data sets are used.
; However, the same adjustment is then applied to the corrected version of
; the grid Hugershoff data, so that both uncorrected and corrected versions
; are available with the appropriate low frequency variability.

There is some
; ambiguity during the modern period here, however, because the corrected
; version has already been artificially adjusted to reproduce the largest
; scales of observed temperature over recent decades - so a new adjustment
; would be unwelcome.

Therefore, the adjustment term is scaled back towards
; zero when being applied to the corrected data set, so that it is linearly
; interpolated from its 1950 value to zero at 1970 and kept at zero thereafter.

mann/mxd_combine_calpcr:

; Combines the directly calibrated MXD data set with the PCR-based
; reconstruction of gridded temperatures. There are various PCR models to
; use, according to period and spatial coverage of MXD data. We always
; use the later model (based on most MXD data), but we have to decide whether
; a grid box that was successfully reconstructed using an earlier subset of
; the MXD should be used throughout (or at all) if later subsets failed to
; successfully reconstruct it. **For now, I'm using them throughout.**
;
; Restore MXD gridded dataset
;
print,'Reading in MXD data'
restore,filename='calibmxd5_abdlow.idlsave'
; g,mxdyear,mxdnyr,fdcalibu,fdcalibc,mxdfd2,timey,fdseas
;
; Use the "corrected" calibrated version
;
fdcalibpcr=fdcalibc
timeyr=mxdyear

mann/mxd_eof_rotate:

;
; Computes EOFs of infilled calibrated MXD gridded dataset.
; Can use corrected or uncorrected MXD data (i.e., corrected for the decline).
; Do not usually rotate, since this loses the common volcanic and global
; warming signal, and results in regional-mean series instead.
; Generally use the correlation matrix EOFs.

mann/oldprog/calibrate_correctmxd:

; We have previously (calibrate_mxd.pro) calibrated the high-pass filtered
; MXD over 1911-1990, applied the calibration to unfiltered MXD data (which
; gives a zero mean over 1881-1960) after extending the calibration to boxes
; without temperature data (pl_calibmxd1.pro). We have identified and
; artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline in this calibrated
; data set. We now recalibrate this corrected calibrated dataset against
; the unfiltered 1911-1990 temperature data, and apply the same calibration
; to the corrected and uncorrected calibrated MXD data.

[edit on 27-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

s & f.

Very well-conceived presentation within context.

Contrary to almost every Hadley/AGW advocate, I have long contended that "reconstruction" was not only applied to paleo-data, but was encouraged and disguised to conform current, missing and "outlier" data to "fit" the "trends."

I've never understood the role in objective scientific analysis to "fit" data to conform to pre-designated "conclusions."

Your analysis goes far to making the bankruptcy of such thought and promotion more apparent and understandable to the ATS members and the general public.

Given that "context" has been a frequent repose for the scoundrels, you've eliminated that cozy comfort of refuge in their obfuscation.

deny ignorance

jw

reply to post by jdub297


Dig. The Alarmists wont touch this thread. They're hoping that nobody will respond to it and it will whither away. I've linked melatonin to it in multiple threads and he skates right past it. And now that Hadley DID delete all their pre-1980 data thsi thing is really getting going:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


EXCELLENT POST!!

Where are the GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS NOW!!

What a complete HOAX...these fraudsters should be PUT in JAIL.

reply to post by Gateway

Where are the GLOBAL WARMING ALARMISTS NOW!!

They'll be along shortly.

Those who honestly belief the myth of AGW are still trying to get their thoughts together on how to deny all this without becoming a 'denier'. Those with a political/financial stake are waiting their time until Copenhagen can cement their regulations in place, after which time any arguments will be moot.

I imagine a few, though, are just in shock that their world came crashing down around their ears and are coming to accept that maybe, just maybe, AGW was wrong all along.

TheRedneck

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss


Most excellent find my friend star & bloody flag, this has got to be the best thread I have read in a while I wonder what the
Al boreites have to say now "Its got to be photoshopped"

reply to post by altered_states


Thanks. But no, I used MS Paint:




My PC configuration is defunct. Don't even have my good software installed lately.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
reply to post by altered_states

 

Thanks. But no, I used MS Paint:

My PC configuration is defunct. Don't even have my good software installed lately.

please I am on the verge of having an asthma attack and will if I see that picture again

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Dig. The Alarmists wont touch this thread. They're hoping that nobody will respond to it and it will whither away. I've linked melatonin to it in multiple threads and he skates right past it. And now that Hadley DID delete all their pre-1980 data thsi thing is really getting going:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

What's the point? It's mostly just a collection of the same old that you've posted (spammed?) in multiple threads, along with others, and that I've answered elsewhere. Bandwidth is a costly commodity and, more relevant por moi, I've more interesting things to do than repeat myself endlessly.

However, as you have something new here about the CRU - they don't actually collect any temperature data of their own. The data deleted was just mirrored at the original met offices. It's still there at the original source.

reply to post by melatonin


BS. You've not responded to several items in the op listing, and youre dodging it once again. Like Phil talking about Keith using the wrong trees with Mann. There's no getting around it. The real issue is that you press on supporting everything about the CRU case and those self-indicted applying sweeping balanket statements to it all no matter what new revelation. You havent even responded to McIntyre's new graphs up there yet.

And about the data dump, now you're claiming that ALL the dumped data (including paper and tapes) is still at the MET office, all the data kept from around thw world?
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Nice try. And this goes right into the heart of my arguments elsewhere about the sanctity of adjusted data. They've dumped all their raw data so the world will have to jump through hoops attempting to make the same reconstructions to even see how they arrived at their results. And you call this science.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
You havent even responded to McIntyre's new graphs up there yet.

I don't feel the need to. I read the post and it starts with the same old crap about 'decline' and contain MWP blah' Been there, done it, got the t-shirt. The noise is tedious and if you didn't listen last time you won't listen now.

And about the data dump, now you're claiming that ALL the dumped data (including paper and tapes) is still at the MET office, all the data kept from around thw world?
www.timesonline.co.uk...

Met offices. They hold their own copies of the data. It's where the CRU get it from.

The CRU isn't a met office data repository. It's a research institute.

Nice try.

Whatever. But that's the case. This is pretty old news actually. But got to keep that manufactroversy going

And this goes right into the heart of my arguments elsewhere about the sanctity of adjusted data. They've dumped all their raw data so the world will have to jump through hoops attempting to make the same reconstructions to even see how they arrived at their results. And you call this science.

They dumped all the raw data because they are a research institute with limited space and funding, and the data was already stored elsewhere.

It's a pity that they did discard the data, but that's life. It was done
decades ago during a period when climate science could just go about its business like any normal science without worrying about little Joe McCarthys harassing them for ideological reasons and attempts at political swiftboating.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin

However, as you have something new here about the CRU - they don't actually collect any temperature data of their own. The data deleted was just mirrored at the original met offices. It's still there at the original source.

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.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

How sad for you that you have no credibility in this regard anymore.

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.

Deny ignorance.

jw

Complain about the decline, but the top graphs show what the decline is and you skate right past them.

You know you're dodging these on purpose:

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring data:

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
www.eastangliaemails.com...

This confirms long held suspicions that YAD061 was phony data, and it also confirms that Jones knew all about it:

"That is tree #YAD061. Seems like an outlier, that should be discarded from the analysis, right? That's not what Bifra did. Keeping it in, the average of the group was raised a little. Just a little, but enough." borepatch.blogspot.com...


Here Gary Funkhouser admits to manipulating tree data:

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian).
www.eastangliaemails.com...

Keep dodging the hard stuff. Dont actually respond to the graphs, either. Just all out dismiss them and drum up as much nit picky stuff you can everywhere else. Maybe nobody will notice as long as you maintain a steady stance of acting like theres no solid debate in terms of anything that might hurt your global government / global tax cause.

Who pays you anyways?

And you're speaking matter-of-fact about what data the Met did/didnt/dont have, in terms of thats the only data 'dumped', without any form of citation whatsoever.

I know this all must be hard for you, little buddy, but I'm trying to help you enjoy life. All the guilt and fear these propagandists have filled your head with is very bad.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Complain about the decline, but the top graphs show what the decline is and you skate right past them.

I already knew what the decline is. I've explained it numerous times.

You know you're dodging these on purpose:

Not at all. Just more quote-mining. I've told you about three times, responding to your disinformation is tedious. You never take anything on board, like a good anti-science ideologue you just ignore responses and start spouting the same tripe and even more rubbish all over the shop.

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring data:

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.
Cheers
Phil
www.eastangliaemails.com...

This confirms long held suspicions that YAD061 was phony data, and it also confirms that Jones knew all about it:

"That is tree #YAD061. Seems like an outlier, that should be discarded from the analysis, right? That's not what Bifra did. Keeping it in, the average of the group was raised a little. Just a little, but enough." borepatch.blogspot.com...

Doesn't show anything of the sort. The email is actually about Keith Briffa's response to McIntyre's ballsed-up analysis. As he says, Keith was 'restrained' (he was nice to him considering), he knew what McIntyre was doing by misrepresenting the data and making his normal 'plausibly deniable accusations' of fraud - aimed at Keith Briffa on this occasion (not for the first time).

And I like this comment leading to the quote from that webpage "Of the ten cores, how many show variations more than what is obviously random? One, That is tree #YAD061". Did they tell that just by looking at the individual graphs? Great stats! lol

Also, the tree is '6', and the '1' relates to the core number. Moreover, this is not Briffas's data. He's just using the Russian scientists data. Analysis without tree 6 is almost identical to the analysis with it.

Here Gary Funkhouser admits to manipulating tree data:

I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian).
www.eastangliaemails.com...

Yeah, he was trying all he can to extract useable data from a crap set of tree-ring samples. He failed.

Keep dodging the hard stuff.

lol

Who pays you anyways?

My communist environmentalist vegetarian overlords.

And you're speaking matter-of-fact about what data the Met did/didnt/dont have, in terms of thats the only data 'dumped', without any form of citation whatsoever.

Pretty well-known actually. As I said, old news. The CRU website did have an item on this months back - it's surprisingly down due to the criminal actions of hackers at the moment. The CRU is a research institute and the likes of national met offices collect and archive meterological data. The UK historical station data is held by our Met Office.

www.metoffice.gov.uk...

And with that, see ya in another life *clicks ignore*

[edit on 29-11-2009 by melatonin]

Looks like we have some more "VERY ARTIFICIAL" data analyss:



heliogenic.blogspot.com...

"From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions.

;; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!
;yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]valadj=[0.,0.,0.,0.,0.,-0.1,-0.25,-0.3,0.,- 0.1,0.3,0.8,1.2,1.7,2.5,2.6,2.6,$2.6,2.6,2.6]*0.75
; fudge factorif n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’;yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1940s 1930s — see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

All you apologists weakly protesting that this is research business as usual and there are plausible explanations for everything in the emails? Sackcloth and ashes time for you. This isn’t just a smoking gun, it’s a siege cannon with the barrel still hot.

[edit on 29-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Here's another graph 'hiding the decline':

Follow the green line (UEA, Nov. 2009):


The decline (deleted):


Details here.

But wait, whats this?


More details, and more.



Where's the MWP in the above graphs?

The Medieval Warm Period - A global Phenomenon

Follow link for worldwide interactive map showing data from all over earth:
pages.science-skeptical.de...

wattsupwiththat.com...

[edit on 29-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]