Climategate Source Code, Here we go again!

[Teki187]

The article is long and fairly technical, but to boil it down the GHCN made "adjustments" to "homogenize" the raw data taken from various weather stations. This was done supposedly to remove bad readings from things like moving thermometer stations around and the like. The basic algorithm is to average the 5 closest stations and then look to see if the readings from the station in question vary drastically from the average.

Source

Another example is Australia. NASA [GHCN] only presents 3 stations covering the period 1897-1992. What kind of data is the IPCC Australia diagram based on?

If any trend it is a slight cooling. However, if a shorter period (1949-2005) is used, the temperature has increased substantially. The Australians have many stations and have published more detailed maps of changes and trends.

Source

One programmer highlighted the error of relying on computer code that, if it generates an error message, continues as if nothing untoward ever occurred. Another debugged the code by pointing out why the output of a calculation that should always generate a positive number was incorrectly generating a negative one. A third concluded: “I feel for this guy. He’s obviously spent years trying to get data from undocumented and completely messy sources.”

Programmer-written comments inserted into CRU’s Fortran code have drawn fire as well. The file briffa_sep98_d.pro says: “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” and “APPLY ARTIFICIAL CORRECTION.” Another, quantify_tsdcal.pro, says: “Low pass filtering at century and longer time scales never gets rid of the trend – so eventually I start to scale down the 120-yr low pass time series to mimic the effect of removing/adding longer time scales!”

[P]ut this in the context of what else we know from the CRU data dump:

1. They didn’t want to release their data or code, and they particularly weren’t interested in releasing any intermediate steps that would help someone else

2. They clearly have some history of massaging the data — hell, practically water-boarding the data — to get it to fit their other results. Results they can no longer even replicate on their own systems.

3. They had successfully managed to restrict peer review to what we might call the “RealClimate clique” — the small group of true believers they knew could be trusted to say the right things.

As a result, it looks like they found themselves trapped. They had the big research organizations, the big grants — and when they found themselves challenged, they discovered they’d built their conclusions on fine beach sand.

Source

Source

Just a selection of source code forges.

; 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.

; 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

;
; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid
; the decline that affects tree-ring density records)
;

printf,1,'IMPORTANT NOTE:'
printf,1,'The data after 1960 should not be used. The tree-ring density'
printf,1,'records tend to show a decline after 1960 relative to the summer'
printf,1,'temperature in many high-latitude locations. In this data set'
printf,1,'this "decline" has been artificially removed in an ad-hoc way, and'
printf,1,'this means that data after 1960 no longer represent tree-ring
printf,1,'density variations, but have been modified to look more like the
printf,1,'observed temperatures.'

Here is the link to the sections of code forged:

Source

How can people still possibly believe that climate change is in any way man made?

 

[Cosimo]

Here we go again.

 

[Strife212]

The basic algorithm is to average the 5 closest stations and then look to see if the readings from the station in question vary drastically from the average.

Sounds like good science?

 

[Ucof]

Its better than bad science though.

Goddamned heavy electricty flattening the children of Upuveli.

...that could be your mother.

 

[Nix]

How can people still possibly believe that climate change is in any way man made?

This - I'd like to remind you, ladies and gentlemen - coming from the very same person who just so happens to believe in Lizard-Men and the NWO.

Teki, you'll have to forgive my lack of tact here, but you are not in the position to be commenting on other's cognition and rationality.

 

[afraser2k]

The problem is this has been one scandal out of all the other evidence that scientists have released without any fuss from the media. I'm still undecided what's causing climate change though.

 

[Teki187]

This - I'd like to remind you, ladies and gentlemen - coming from the very same person who just so happens to believe in Lizard-Men

Can you provide a SINGLE link from this forum where at any point i have admitted to that? Please.

 

[Dolph]

Sounds like good science?

Not especially, it assumes the 5 closest stations are directly comparable, which may or may not be the case.

If you position, say 80% of your stations in highly urbanised areas (which make up a small proportion of the total land mass), and then conduct an analysis such as the above, the average temperature will skew because urban areas tend to be localised hotspots, but the 20% in non-urban areas will be the 'deviant' data and will be discarded.

It is very easy, in the move from raw data to 'cleaned' data to skew a dataset, either accidentally (because you didn't realise you had made an incorrect assumption) or deliberately (by cherry picking the data). The CRU have done that, and what is worse, they appear to have done it deliberately, and colluded to prevent the standard scientific framework of open review and repetition from picking it up by witholding data and biasing the review process.

That doesn't mean AGW is wrong or that it is not happening, there isn't enough evidence to suggest that, but it does mean that the CRU data, and every study that subsequently used that data, needs to be reviewed in an open and honest manner.

 

[Mr Jack]

How can people still possibly believe that climate change is in any way man made?

Yes, because people stating up front what they've done; that's clearly evidence of wrong doing

And that's the really remarkable thing about the CRU leak - how astonishingly feeble the objections Climate Deniers have managed to fabricate from it are.

 

[Dolph]

Yes, because people stating up front what they've done; that's clearly evidence of wrong doing

And that's the really remarkable thing about the CRU leak - how astonishingly feeble the objections Climate Deniers have managed to fabricate from it are.

Do you really think that outright refusal to share data or methods (preferring to breach the law and destroy data) and stating they will manipulate peer review to remove dissenting voices is minor? It strikes at the very heart of the scientific method...

 

[Nix]

Can you provide a SINGLE link from this forum where at any point i have admitted to that? Please.

Teki, you are conspiracy freak. You get a semi anytime anyone so much as hints that there might be an alterior motive. Feeling esoteric gets you off. If you could personify it, you'd rape it until you were sore and shriveled, or it fell off.

Wait, if it wasn't the NWO or Lizard-Men, what was it?

9/11?
Alien abduction?
Big foot?
War in the M.E.?
Israel?
Iran and its nuclear program?
Chem trails?
Soylent ****ing green?

Pick a topic, any topic, and I guarantee that if there's even a slight chance that there's a conspiracy to be had - there you are with your hand down your pants, dribbling like a paedophile on a school-bus. Don't try and take the high-ground here. You talk out of your backside all of the damn time, circle-jerking whoever else happens to have been dropped on their head, and you still expect people to take you seriously? Pull the over one.

If you want me to take you seriously stop crying wolf. Or better yet, stop cutting and pasting the inane ramblings of people more deranged than yourself.

 

[Teki187]

If you want me to take you seriously stop crying wolf. Or better yet, stop cutting and pasting the inane ramblings of people more deranged than yourself.

Couldn't careless what you thought, just wanted you to provide me with proof of me ever saying i believe in lizard men.

 

[Yamahahahahaha]

I love David Icke and I believe in Xenu and our Lizard men overlords

Happy?

 

[SiriusB]

Couldn't careless what you thought, just wanted you to provide me with proof of me ever saying i believe in lizard men.

He was using a popular forum meme as an example of your insanity. In his context Lizard-Men could encompass pretty much every bullmanure conspiracy theory you believe in.

Or he could have just been referring to aliens and how they are poised to take over the world via the NWO and affiliate secret organizations like the Illuminati.

Or he was just being witty.

 

[Sankari]

Do you really think that outright refusal to share data or methods (preferring to breach the law and destroy data) and stating they will manipulate peer review to remove dissenting voices is minor? It strikes at the very heart of the scientific method...

Can you please tell me what laws have been broken and what data has been destroyed? Oh, and where is the admission that they would manipulate peer review to remove dissenting voices? And how exactly does one manipulate peer review?

 

[Burnsy2023]

You've posted it in the main climategate thread, why make a new one?