The fight to convince people of climate change...

[werepossum]

Omg Chaos - you have overtaken the other morons in this thread...

If you want to argue about what we should or can do, and what we can afford to do about man's impact on the climate - I'm 100% open for that discussion.

SNIP

There are multiple lines of empirical evidence that global warming is happening and human activity is the cause. A few suggestive emails may serve as a useful distraction for those wishing to avoid the physical realities of climate change. But they change nothing about our scientific understanding of humanity’s role in global warming."

Please try not to be a complete idiot. I don't care how much navel-gazing the CAGW crowd engages in, the concept that something is accurate except where we have actual recorded temperatures to compare is bullshit. The test of a model is whether its predictions can be tested. In the case of climate models based on tree rings, they do not agree with actual recorded measurements. Replacing divergent predictions with actual measurements is not science, it is scientific fraud. I don't care if every scientist on the planet accepts it, it is still scientific fraud.

NeoV, do you understand these equations and how they were used?
;
; 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 factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

This alone should be enough to prevent these people from ever working in scientific fields again.

 

[Paul98]

NeoV, do you understand these equations and how they were used?
;
; 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 factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'

yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Do you know if, where, or what this was used for? I looked at this stuff when it first came out, and if I remember correctly this wasn't used in the code. And where it would have been used the code had been commented out.

One more question do you know what the "fudge factor" is?

Edit: though with that being said I am not sure how much I can think this tree ring data is correct if it vastly differs from our current data. If someone has an explanation that would be great, as I am not a scientist in that field.

 

[Codewiz]

Please try not to be a complete idiot. I don't care how much navel-gazing the CAGW crowd engages in, the concept that something is accurate except where we have actual recorded temperatures to compare is bullshit. The test of a model is whether its predictions can be tested. In the case of climate models based on tree rings, they do not agree with actual recorded measurements. Replacing divergent predictions with actual measurements is not science, it is scientific fraud. I don't care if every scientist on the planet accepts it, it is still scientific fraud.


This alone should be enough to prevent these people from ever working in scientific fields again.

Wow, talk about not knowing what you are talking about.

Here is the PROBLEM. As long as we have been measuring tree rings, they have lined up with our EXTERNAL measurements. We have very accurate methods to measure temperatures. Tree rings have always lined with with those measurements over the past 100 years.

With that being the case, we KNOW our temperature measurements over the past 20-30 years are dead on accurate but for some reason the tree ring growth started to diverge. Scientists aren't hiding or changing data. We have no idea why the diverge is happening. However, we know our measurements of global temperatures are correct.

So one of the data points we use for historical purposes has diverged for some unknown reason. Maybe it has done so in the past but we don't know. However, when showing MODERN temperature increases, there is no reason to use tree ring data when we know it is 100% false.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Wow, talk about not knowing what you are talking about.

Here is the PROBLEM. As long as we have been measuring tree rings, they have lined up with our EXTERNAL measurements. We have very accurate methods to measure temperatures. Tree rings have always lined with with those measurements over the past 100 years.

With that being the case, we KNOW our temperature measurements over the past 20-30 years are dead on accurate but for some reason the tree ring growth started to diverge. Scientists aren't hiding or changing data. We have no idea why the diverge is happening. However, we know our measurements of global temperatures are correct.

So one of the data points we use for historical purposes has diverged for some unknown reason. Maybe it has done so in the past but we don't know. However, when showing MODERN temperature increases, there is no reason to use tree ring data when we know it is 100% false.

Divergence starts in 1960...which is over 50 years ago. In addition, tree ring proxies greater than 100 years are increasingly suspect. Bottomline...tree rings are a horrible proxy. So much so that Loehle put together a 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies which clearly shows the Little Ice Age and MWP as global events. Isn't that curious?
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

Here's the $64 question...why are tree ring proxies used so prominently in temperature reconstructions when so many other less controversial proxies exist?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you know if, where, or what this was used for? I looked at this stuff when it first came out, and if I remember correctly this wasn't used in the code. And where it would have been used the code had been commented out.

I quoted the actual code as it was found...";" is the comment symbol and you can clearly see that the code was not commented out.

One more question do you know what the "fudge factor" is?

Good question...there are a lot of people who wonder the same thing.

Ever hear of the "Briffa Bodge"? It was the first attempt to hide the divergence problem (aka "Hide The Decline"). Then Mann used the code I quoted above to do essentially the same thing.

yrloc is a 20 element array using the year 1400 as a baseline with the remaining 19 elements representing points between 1904 and 1994 in increments of 5 years.

Therefore
yrloc=[1400,findgen(19)*5.+1904]
essentially means
yrloc = [1400, 1904, 1909, 1914, 1919, 1924, 1929, ... , 1964, 1969, 1974, 1979, 1984, 1989, 1994]

valadj is also a 20 element array that is used for "adjustment" purposes
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 factor

The original proxy data (timey) is then interpolated based on the arbitrary valadj adjustment values as follows:
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)

Notice how the adjustments in the valadj array proceed throughout the timeline...no adjustments from 1400 to 1924, then negative to neutral adjustments from 1924-1943, and finally we see rapidly escalating adjustments from 1948-1994. There is no known scientific basis for these temperature adjustments to the proxy data.

IMO, these are bad scientists who reacted poorly to negative evidence (i.e. the divergence problem). The problem here is compounded by the fact that these people are within the "inner circle" of MMGW proponents and have enormous political influence within the core climate research community.

 

[Paul98]

I quoted the actual code as it was found...";" is the comment symbol and you can clearly see that the code was not commented out.

That part was NOT obviously, but if you were too look right below where that value was actually used and it is commented out. Does it do that calculation yes. Is that calculation used anywhere in the program? No it is not and that is key! Its something they might have tried, used at some point tested vs other things,..... But it is NOT actually used in the program other than that single spot. There is no output from that data. Snippets of code mean NOTHING unless you know how they are used. This one wasn't used.

Good question...there are a lot of people who wonder the same thing.

Actually if it was used like in many other equations it was just referring to the .75. So it was simply a comment saying why they were multiplying by .75.

As for the rest of your quote yeah I know exactly what that code snippet did. But considering yearlyadj was never used anywhere in the program it doesn't matter.

 

[werepossum]

Divergence starts in 1960...which is over 50 years ago. In addition, tree ring proxies greater than 100 years are increasingly suspect. Bottomline...tree rings are a horrible proxy. So much so that Loehle put together a 2000-year global temperature reconstruction based on non-tree ring proxies which clearly shows the Little Ice Age and MWP as global events. Isn't that curious?
http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3025

Here's the $64 question...why are tree ring proxies used so prominently in temperature reconstructions when so many other less controversial proxies exist?

This. Anyone with the slightest knowledge of trees knows that growth is not dependent simply upon temperature. In fact, rainfall is at least as important an indicator; too much or too little and you get poor growth. Tree rings are indeed a horrible proxy for temperature; this goes double for hand-picked tree ring sets, and quadruple for proxy sets with actual measurements substituted on the sly to make political hay. Bottom line, if your model (in this case, using tree ring data as a proxy for temperature) works, there is no need to substitute data from ANY other set. If there is a need to substitute data, then your model doesn't work. And if there is a need to substitute data but you do it behind the scenes, then your model doesn't work and you're dishonest too.

If tree ring data do not match actual measurable temperature measurements, then obviously these data cannot be used as a proxy for temperature.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

That part was NOT obviously, but if you were too look right below where that value was actually used and it is commented out. Does it do that calculation yes. Is that calculation used anywhere in the program? No it is not and that is key! Its something they might have tried, used at some point tested vs other things,..... But it is NOT actually used in the program other than that single spot. There is no output from that data. Snippets of code mean NOTHING unless you know how they are used. This one wasn't used.

Actually if it was used like in many other equations it was just referring to the .75. So it was simply a comment saying why they were multiplying by .75.

As for the rest of your quote yeah I know exactly what that code snippet did. But considering yearlyadj was never used anywhere in the program it doesn't matter.

...and Mann just used "poor judgment" in truncating Briffa tree ring data post-1960 in constructing the graph below which was used in IPCC's Third Assessment Report. Got it.

 

[Paul98]

...and Mann just used "poor judgment" in truncating Briffa tree ring data post-1960 in constructing the graph below which was used in IPCC's Third Assessment Report. Got it.

Why was that a reply to me?

 

[SparkyJJO]

Finally - sparky - your sig - also moronic.

1) Do you think I'm being serious with that statement in there? Surely the gives it away that I'm not.

2) You seem incapable of developing a response to someone you disagree with without name-calling. I don't know why you think that is going to get you anywhere.

 

[NeoV]

Sparky - anyone clinging to 'climategate' as proof in any way, shape, or form - that this stuff is all a hoax, is, in my opinion, a moron.

Doc - how is that formula treating you? Oops, it wasn't actually used - well it looked smart at the beginning...also - you are posting graphs from 10 years ago - you may want to look at some newer 'proof' of the big con.

 

[shira]

Show us the path for reversal. Show us how much money it will take, what steps will be taken and over what time period it will take to turn this around. We've been hearing alarming 'stories' for decades. Warming, cooling, - all that. You believe what you hear now, just as generations of like minded thinkers believed what they heard during their heyday. The only thing that has changed is the sophistication level of the propaganda.

I want to see more than it's happening. I want to know what it's going to take to reverse it. I want to know how much it's going to cost, what changes we're going to have to make and the probability of success. We've heard many times before that we only had a decade left to reverse whatever trend was the scare tactic of the day. That decade came and went, another scare (the reverse) was grandstanded, we only had a decade at that time, rinse and repeat.

When you've been through three of these as I have, you understand it's nothing more than bullshit. I'd have been dead already based on the first two scares I've lived through. Number three is just another power and money grab like the first two.

But, for those who think this all 'new' it sures makes for some exciting, scary and foreboding conversations.

Isn't it interesting that you want to know the cost of mitigating MMCC, but you have no interest at all in knowing the cost of doing nothing? But of course, that's the typical mindset of MMCC deniers: They assume that doing nothing is free.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Why was that a reply to me?

The subject we were talking about was the divergence problem...no?

You are correct in saying the manipulated data wasn't actually used as the code below it was commented out. However, it's clear that the equations were constructed to hide or minimize the post-1960 divergence problem using arbitrary adjustments...as there is no scientific basis whatsoever for such "adjustments". If you have additional color on this, I'm all ears.

So, instead of actually manipulating the post-1960 proxy data which clearly shows a serious diverence problem, Mann chose to simply ignore the data. The graph he gave to the IPCC that I previously posted simply truncated all post-1960 Briffa tree ring data. An elegant solution to the problem...no?

Actually if it was used like in many other equations it was just referring to the .75. So it was simply a comment saying why they were multiplying by .75.

It doesn't appear that you understand the valadj array. .75 was used to arbitrarily adjust all elements of the arbitrary array. Perhaps you can tell me why 2.6 (effectively 1.95 since 2.6*.75) was to be interpolated with the proxy data from 1969 to 1994. I understand the data manipulation code was commented below...but why was it even there in the first place if this guy is truly on the up-and-up?

Too bad this all just reeks of agenda.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doc - how is that formula treating you? Oops, it wasn't actually used - well it looked smart at the beginning...also - you are posting graphs from 10 years ago - you may want to look at some newer 'proof' of the big con.

Perhaps you should ask Dr. Mann that question.

 

[NeoV]

Doc - the only agenda here clearly is yours

you posted a formula as some proof that numbers were manipulated - yet the formula wasn't even used

you cite them for hiding data - they provide all of the data - even things they didn't use - and you are still all over them.

Climategate, in the end, is a non-story. You may cling to it like flies cling to shit, but it's worthless in the discussion.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Doc - the only agenda here clearly is yours

you posted a formula as some proof that numbers were manipulated - yet the formula wasn't even used

you cite them for hiding data - they provide all of the data - even things they didn't use - and you are still all over them.

Climategate, in the end, is a non-story. You may cling to it like flies cling to shit, but it's worthless in the discussion.

Let's just say that I see it differently than you...and I'm OK with that....in fact, I'm really OK with that.

 

[Nemesis 1]

I posted here some time ago about the sun setting to far to the north in the summer . While I made a sundial than . and the sun indeed is not setting were it used to which has nothing to do with man made climate change . Its now a known fact the sun is not setting were it used to .

 

[SparkyJJO]

Sparky - anyone clinging to 'climategate' as proof in any way, shape, or form - that this stuff is all a hoax, is, in my opinion, a moron.

Bolded the important part. IN YOUR OPINION.

In MY opinion, you may be a moron for believing some of the stuff you do But using such opinion pieces in a discussion or debate is never in your favor.

 

[werepossum]

I posted here some time ago about the sun setting to far to the north in the summer . While I made a sundial than . and the sun indeed is not setting were it used to which has nothing to do with man made climate change . Its now a known fact the sun is not setting were it used to .

One of the eeriest things was going into a pawn shop several years ago with a buddy who was looking at golf clubs and being almost blinded by the sun penetrating into the building. The proprietor said he'd been in that building for 30 or 40 years (I forget which, but he was old and it was his father's business before him) and the sun had never penetrated like that. Then again, Art Bell had several people call in saying the sun was not rising and setting in the same places; he called an astronomer at a solar observatory and was assured that the sun was exactly where it should be. I'm not sure though that the Earth's wobble has that much effect on climate, although there is a theory that the Earth's wobble accounted for warming periods between glacial periods. Assuming that is true, then the recent earthquake in Japan (which increased the Earth's wobble) might well make the planet heat up.

 

[Paul98]

The subject we were talking about was the divergence problem...no?

You are correct in saying the manipulated data wasn't actually used as the code below it was commented out. However, it's clear that the equations were constructed to hide or minimize the post-1960 divergence problem using arbitrary adjustments...as there is no scientific basis whatsoever for such "adjustments". If you have additional color on this, I'm all ears.

So, instead of actually manipulating the post-1960 proxy data which clearly shows a serious diverence problem, Mann chose to simply ignore the data. The graph he gave to the IPCC that I previously posted simply truncated all post-1960 Briffa tree ring data. An elegant solution to the problem...no?

I was addressing the issue that you brought forward about arbitrary data being added in the code. This code was never used anywhere, as you bring up that graph it was truncated, so what that code did to data that was never used thus doesn't matter. They can manipulate the data all they want, but if that manipulated data is never used for anything what does it really matter. Now truncating data they don't like is another matter.

It doesn't appear that you understand the valadj array. .75 was used to arbitrarily adjust all elements of the arbitrary array. Perhaps you can tell me why 2.6 (effectively 1.95 since 2.6*.75) was to be interpolated with the proxy data from 1969 to 1994. I understand the data manipulation code was commented below...but why was it even there in the first place if this guy is truly on the up-and-up?

Too bad this all just reeks of agenda.

There is zero complicated about this code, yes the valadj was multiplied by .75. That's what it says in the code. I was saying that the "fudge factor" which is something that is used in many equations is most likely the .75 part. Thus they didn't just multiply by .75 before putting the values in the array. If they wanted a different fudge factor they could just change the .75 instead of all values. Now that may not be right I can't tell you for sure, but from what I have seen and worked with on other equations with a "fudge factor" the .75 as the fudge factor would line right up with stuff I have seen.

As for why the code is in there in the first place I couldn't tell you. Might be the data that they expected to see with actual temp record. What some model told them they should see. Could be just a test to see how that part of the code would work in case they wanted to do something like it in the future.... You would have to ask them why they wrote the code.

 

[bfdd]

I don't see how that code is commented out... can someone point to me where it's commented out? I see the line before it commented out and I see the note after it commented out, but not the code Doc posted.

 

[monovillage]

Here's the HARRY_READ_ME.txt file
http://di2.nu/foia/HARRY_READ_ME-30.html

 

[Paul98]

I don't see how that code is commented out... can someone point to me where it's commented out? I see the line before it commented out and I see the note after it commented out, but not the code Doc posted.

that code it's self isn't, but the part where these values should have been output was. So this code wasn't commented out, but none of the values from this code do anything or go anywhere. That is it, it isn't used anywhere else in the program, no output anywhere from this code. You could delete this code from the program and the program would run and output everything just the same as if it were left in.

 

[SparkyJJO]

It's still a friggin' computer model. We can't even get the next 10 days of weather accurate, why trust the model for the next 10 years?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I don't see how that code is commented out... can someone point to me where it's commented out? I see the line before it commented out and I see the note after it commented out, but not the code Doc posted.

In an earlier version of the code (briffa_sep98_d.pro) it's commented out as follows.

;
; 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 factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey)
;
;filter_cru,5.,/nan,tsin=yyy+yearlyadj,tslow=tslow
;oplot,timey,tslow,thick=5,color=20
;



However in a later version of the code (briffa_sep98_e.pro), Mann does indeed use the "artificial correction for the decline" code.
http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_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*********
;
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 factor
if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,'Oooops!'
;
loadct,39
def_1color,20,color='red'
plot,[0,1]
multi_plot,nrow=4,layout='large'
if !d.name eq 'X' then begin
window, ysize=800
!p.font=-1
endif else begin
!p.font=0
device,/helvetica,/bold,font_size=18
endelse
;
; Get regional tree lists and rbar
;
restore,filename='reglists.idlsave'
harryfn=['nwcan','wnam','cecan','nweur','sweur','nsib','csib','tib',$
'esib','allsites']
;
rawdat=fltarr(4,2000)
for i = nreg-1 , nreg-1 do begin
fn='mxd.'+harryfn(i)+'.pa.mean.dat'
print,fn
openr,1,fn
readf,1,rawdat
close,1
;
densadj=reform(rawdat(2:3,*))
ml=where(densadj eq -99.999,nmiss)
densadj(ml)=!values.f_nan
;
x=reform(rawdat(0,*))
kl=where((x ge 1400) and (x le 1992))
x=x(kl)
densall=densadj(1,kl) ; all bands
densadj=densadj(0,kl) ; 2-6 bands
;
; Now normalise w.r.t. 1881-1960
;
mknormal,densadj,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
mknormal,densall,x,refperiod=[1881,1960],refmean=refmean,refsd=refsd
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densall=densall+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot them
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densall,tslow=tslow,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densall,title='Age-banded MXD from all sites',$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
zeroline=tslow,yrange=[-7,3]
oplot,x,tslow,thick=3
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
endfor
;
; Restore the Hugershoff NHD1 (see Nature paper 2)
;
xband=x
restore,filename='../tree5/densadj_MEAN.idlsave'
; gets: x,densadj,n,neff
;
; Extract the post 1600 part
;
kl=where(x ge 1400)
x=x(kl)
densadj=densadj(kl)
;
; APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION
;
yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,x)
densadj=densadj+yearlyadj
;
; Now plot it too
;
filter_cru,20,tsin=densadj,tslow=tshug,/nan
cpl_barts,x,densadj,title='Hugershoff-standardised MXD from all sites',$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
zeroline=tshug,yrange=[-7,3],bar_color=20
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
; Now overplot their bidecadal components
;
plot,xband,tslow,$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
yrange=[-6,2],thick=3,title='Low-pass (20-yr) filtered comparison'
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
; Now overplot their 50-yr components
;
filter_cru,50,tsin=densadj,tslow=tshug,/nan
filter_cru,50,tsin=densall,tslow=tslow,/nan
plot,xband,tslow,$
xrange=[1399.5,1994.5],xtitle='Year',/xstyle,$
yrange=[-6,2],thick=3,title='Low-pass (50-yr) filtered comparison'
oplot,x,tshug,thick=3,color=20
oplot,!x.crange,[0.,0.],linestyle=1
;
; Now compute the full, high and low pass correlations between the two
; series
;
perst=1400.
peren=1992.
;
openw,1,'corr_age2hug.out'
thalf=[10.,30.,50.,100.]
ntry=n_elements(thalf)
printf,1,'Correlations between timeseries'
printf,1,'Age-banded vs. Hugershoff-standardised'
printf,1,' Region Full <10 >10 >30 >50 >100'
;
kla=where((xband ge perst) and (xband le peren))
klh=where((x ge perst) and (x le peren))
ts1=densadj(klh)
ts2=densall(kla)
;
r1=correlate(ts1,ts2)
rall=fltarr(ntry)
for i = 0 , ntry-1 do begin
filter_cru,thalf(i),tsin=ts1,tslow=tslow1,tshigh=tshi1,/nan
filter_cru,thalf(i),tsin=ts2,tslow=tslow2,tshigh=tshi2,/nan
if i eq 0 then r2=correlate(tshi1,tshi2)
rall(i)=correlate(tslow1,tslow2)
endfor
;
printf,1,'ALL SITES',r1,r2,rall,$
format='(A11,2X,6F6.2)'
;
printf,1,' '
printf,1,'Correlations carried out over the period ',perst,peren
;
close,1
;
end