“these will be artificially adjusted”: Global Warming FRAUD Source Code furthers email meltdown

Forget the hacked Global WARMongeror emails, comments in the dataset source code are already showing to be even more damning. Less than a week has passed and we're just now getting a glimpse into this, while those who released the archive in effect called it a sample.

Read the breaking news thread for complete coverage of the hacked global warmongeror controversy.

camirror.wordpress.com...

People are talking about the emails being smoking guns but I find the remarks in the code and the code more of a smoking gun. The code is so hacked around to give predetermined results that it shows the bias of the coder. In other words make the code ignore inconvenient data to show what I want it to show.

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*********

Think of all the people who have looked at this code, and it takes a hacker to give us a glimpse...


[edit on 23-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

I am overjoyed that the tide seems to be turning on Global warming/climate change. I just wonder why it is happening now? I mean it looked like the ultimate way to control the masses (constant monitoring of everything we do for carbon footprint) and squeeze every last penny out of us with 'green' taxes. I just feel like it's too good to be true, are these and the Iraq war emails designed to incite public outrage and then some kind of demand for change in our governments, the old 'Problem, Reaction, Solution' method?

I agree alot of the so called Global Warming effect is an artifact of the statistical smoothing process. And ALL the future projections are GIGO. I spent a lot of years creating computer models at NASA and know you can always get the results you want if you are willing to work at it. ALL the people who are primary sources for Global Warming are professionals who have a $$$ driven need to find a problem that they can get $$$ to do further work on. Find a disinterested researcher who doesn't benefit monitarily by finding a manmade warming effect but who does find the trend and I will listen. But so far i haven't found such a source.

Very important, but the MSM have so far massively sidestepped this issue. I really can't believe that they are just avoiding an issue like this.

I'm in the UK and only the Telegraph has properly addressed this issue.

Sadly it would appear that this will wind up in the trash heap ignored and the march towards global taxes and controls will continue.
People don't like being confused with the facts.

You do understand the 'decline' in particular proxy data in the modern era is a well-established and discussed phenomena in the paleoclimate literature?

Quite an example of 'fraud' - one that's discussed freely, is noted in papers using these proxies, and is the focus of discussion in the literature.

I heard about this on the War Room talk radio show a few mornings ago.

Haven't heard anything since. Probably because it came from a hacker. Meaning that it might be real, but it could be manipulated data too. Meaning the hacker could of just made it up, or it could be real archived emails.

Does it really matter? No. We all know that there are people out there (TPTB) that want to depopulize the Earth. Face it, there are quotes from a few dozen rich and powerful men, throughout the decades, about controlling men, controlling food supply, and "not wasting a crisis" that show the utter evil inside the elite.

reply to post by melatonin


Dear sir, please do explain these for all of us:

****** APPLIES A VERY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION FOR DECLINE*********

these will be artificially adjusted

(stop in 1940 to avoid
; the decline

Perhaps you should head over to Climate Audit to put McIntyre and the others (many actual programmers and climate scientists) in their places, damn silly foolhearted feebleminded denier conspiracy kook nutters they all must be.

And then some:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the 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.”

With this one they say the data is wrong, might explain what some of the above means:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

Contain the Medieval Warm Period, eh:

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–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….

Oh, dear:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. ... The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk...

We probably need to say more about this. Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important.

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 theland 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.
Removing ENSO does not affect this.
It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.
Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling in the NH—just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.
The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note – from MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987 (and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it currently is not)—but not really enough.
So ... why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem? (SH/NH data also attached.)
This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.
Tom.

blogs.news.com.au...

The Korttajarvi record was oriented in the reconstruction in the way that McIntyre said. I took a look at the original reference – the temperature proxy we looked at is x-ray density, which the author interprets to be inversely related to temperature. We had higher values as warmer in the reconstruction, so it looks to me like we got it wrong, unless we decided to reinterpret the record which I don’t remember.

As we all know, this isn't about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations.

Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.

www.examiner.com...

Hmmmm:

“This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”
— HARRY_READ_ME.txt

What do you say, mel?

[edit on 23-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

If climate change skeptics are deniers then surely the opposite are the sympathizers. In WW2 Germany it took the visual slap in the face of seeing piles of dead bodies before the sympathizers finally admitted to what was happening around them, and they could sympathize no longer. I wonder what it will take for bad science sympathizers to pull their head out and stop defending the climate change Nazis.

I just found this in frs_gts_anom.PRO:

; 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))
rdbin,tmpgrd,tmpfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet
rdbin,dtrgrd,dtrfl,gridsize=2.5,/quiet

tmn(nland)=(tmpgrd(nland)-(0.5*dtrgrd(nland)))/10.0
frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)+frscal(tmn(nland))
endfor

frssyn(nland)=frssyn(nland)/(nor2-nor1+1)

for im=0,11 do begin
temp=frssyn(*,*,im)
nfin=where(temp gt 0)
temp(nfin)=(temp(nfin)/100.0)*days(im)
frssyn(*,*,im)=temp
endfor
frssyn(nsea)=-999.9

; Calculate synthetic frs from tmin, convert to anomalies
; relative to synthetic mean frs, and apply to normal frs
print,'Calculating synthetic anomalies'

Mel, could you explain for us what "frs" & "tmn" refer to, so we might be able to understand the meaning of "sythethic"?

I also found this in 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.

Hmm. This could explain what some of this 'artifical' language has been about, which could cool things over, or add to the damnation...

The fact that they kept this 'scientific' code secret all these years seems to have some relevence here...

et al:

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
nyr=mxdnyr
;
; Now process each PCR version in turn
;
for iper = 0 , 6 do begin
;
case iper of
0: perst='14001976'
1: perst='14531976'
2: perst='15831976'
3: perst='16601976'
4: perst='16971976'
5: perst='17431976'
6: perst='18221976'
endcase
;
; Restore the next PCR-based reconstruction
;
fn='calibmxd5_abdlow_pcr'+perst+'.idlsave'
print,fn
restore,filename=fn
; Gets: mxdyear,mxdnyr,nx,ny,xlon,ylat,fdstatus,recontemp
;
; Check that the grids match
;
abserr=total(abs(g.x-xlon))
if abserr ne 0. then message,'Grids do not match!'
abserr=total(abs(g.y-ylat))
if abserr ne 0. then message,'Grids do not match!'
;
; Identify period of overlap
;
ist=where(timeyr eq mxdyear(0)) & ist=ist(0)
;
; Put in the reconstruction, replacing any data already there
;
for iyr = 0 , mxdnyr-1 do begin
fd=reform(recontemp(*,*,iyr))
kl=where(finite(fd),nkeep)
if nkeep gt 0 then begin
oldfd=fdcalibpcr(*,*,ist+iyr)
oldfd(kl)=fd(kl)
fdcalibpcr(*,*,ist+iyr)=oldfd
endif
endfor
;
endfor
;
; Finally, replace the original calibrated MXD values, since these are
; preferable to the PCR-based reconstructions

and then 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.

moving on, mann/mxd_pcr_localtemp:

;
; Tries to reconstruct Apr-Sep temperatures, on a box-by-box basis, from the
; EOFs of the MXD data set. This is PCR, although PCs are used as predictors
; but not as predictands. This PCR-infilling must be done for a number of
; periods, with different EOFs for each period (due to different spatial
; coverage). *BUT* don't do special PCR for the modern period (post-1976),
; since they won't be used due to the decline/correction problem.
; Certain boxes that appear to reconstruct well are "manually" removed because
; they are isolated and away from any trees.

mann/oldprog/hovmueller_lon:

; Plots a HovMueller diagram (longitude-time) of meridionally averaged
; growing season reconstructions. Uses "corrected" MXD - but shouldn't usually
; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to
; the real temperatures.

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.

Alright, this is could be your big chance to clear some of this up. Please explain what these acronyms are, and how to make sense of this.

And what exactly is this 'decline'? I've always wondered why Mann used the tree rings for the past but switches to satellites / ground stations, or whatever in more recent years. It always seemed to me that if tree rings are supposed to be reliable for 'ancient' times then they should be able to accurately tell us the temp for 2004 or whatever.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

Originally posted by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Perhaps you should head over to Climate Audit to put McIntyre and the others (many actual programmers and climate scientists) in their places, damn silly foolhearted feebleminded denier conspiracy kook nutters they all must be.

They generally are. Hard truth, I know.

And then some:

"I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline."

Yeah, for the proxy data the modern observations are added for recent trends. It's a 'trick', as in a clever way of doing something. These semantic arguments are tedious. Perhaps pick out a dictionary - that's the trick!

The decline is as I've outlined already. In some of Briffa's proxy data the more recent observations diverge from the real observations. They show declining temperatures, whereas actual thermometers show inclining temperatures. It's a well-known problem with that proxy data - the 'divergence problem'. Discussed widely in the literature and noted in articles using that data.

The funny thing is that McIntyre et al already know this (search his blog). So why are they trying to spin it as fraud?

Don't ask those hard questions, though.

“This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”
— HARRY_READ_ME.txt

What do you say, mel?

I say that I often know how Harry feels. Debugging code is a pain in the ass. Although, I'm much less than an amateur, lol, I can still throw together something for the purposes I need it.

As for the questions on what appear to be defined variables in that code above, no idea. Not my code. They also don't need to release the code, that's the researcher's work no matter what McIntyre believes - if they are forced to release, then they probably would. You see, the idea is to replicate findings, not duplicate

Although, all NASA-GISS code is freely available. Not heard a squeek from McIntyre about it. Must be fine then.

ABE: PCR is a statistical method if that helps any.

ABE2: You appear to have more issues with semantics here:

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

Does your post contain anything more than quote-mining and semantic failings, does this teapot tempest go beyond that?

The MWP is a defined (sort of) time period - medieval warming period. The data would need to go that far back to contain it.

When you've finished rooting through someone else's knicker drawer, perhaps the best thing to do would be:

1. Outline which particular studies are problematic
2. Indicate why and where there is a specific problem in those particular studies
3. Show how this effects our current understanding of climate science

As at the moment, it's like responding to a creationist's Gish-gallop.

Cheers.

[edit on 23-11-2009 by melatonin]

This is almost as deep a deception as the 9/11 cover-up. I think there just may be a sinister world government that may come to light...and it may not be in the way they planned themselves coming to light.

reply to post by ExPostFacto


Global Warming is the Left's version of the Right's 9/11. For example:
Al Gore used a nuclear bomb subliminal in his Inconvenient Truth trailer



Not to mention he cites 9/11 in the form of global flooding from arctic meltdown will raise sea levels and 'sink' the 9/11 memorial.

Here goes a video, from "Plane Stupid", showing polar bears dropping from the sky in what appears to be New York City, like the jumpers on 9/11:


[edit on 23-11-2009 by IgnoranceIsntBlisss]

reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Editorial: Hiding Evidence of Global Cooling:
www.washingtontimes.com...

Originally posted by pumpkinorange
reply to post by IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Editorial: Hiding Evidence of Global Cooling:
www.washingtontimes.com...

Jeez, that's a dreadful article. Thermometers are showing warming, but some proxy data begins to show a divergence from observed temperature. Therefore not using the proxy data = hiding global cooling even though the thermometers show warming, lol.

[edit on 24-11-2009 by melatonin]

reply to post by melatonin


Then it sounds to me like the proxies are almost worthless. Especially if we're to talk about drafting policy based on them.

Here's my observation. It has been slightly cooler the last 2 years. I grow a garden every year for last 11 years. Last 2 years I never got the high heat that I was used to for my tomatoes and zucs, they did not grow as well and it was a later start of the season. I also kept wondering where in the world it was getting hotter, because our summer was pretty darn mild, more than in years past. Hey it's not scientific, but you know what you know, you know what I mean?