Climategate: The code knows – Is the famous ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph completely fabricated?

As scientists and programmers review the leaked emails and documents from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of East Anglia University, much new information is coming to light.

While the early reports focused just on the easy to read emails that hinted at the manipulation of data, specifically trying to show that the Medieval Warming Period (roughly 900-1100 AD) was not as warm or warmer than modern times.

Here is part of an email exchange between Tim Osborn, Michael Mann (Penn State researcher) and Phil Jones (Jone ran the East Anglia CRU and has stepped down pending an independent review of leaked emails) in which they talk about removing some data points (proxy data), jokes about it being considered science and talks about the fact that it is only “likely” that the modern temperature rise they have used to scare people is actually warmer than that of the Medieval Warming Period.

Mike,

yes, you’re right: figs S4-S6 in our supplementary information do indeed show results leaving out individual, groups of two, and groups of three proxies, respectively. It’s attached.

I wouldn’t say we were immune to the issue — results are similar for these leave 1, 2 or 3 out cases, but they certainly are not as strong as the case with all 14 proxies. Certainly in figure S6, there are some cases with 3 omitted (i.e. some sets of 11) where modern results are comparable with intermittent periods between 800 and 1100. Plus there is the additional uncertainty, discussed on the final page of the supplementary information, associated with linking the proxy records to real temperatures (remember we have no formal calibration, we’re just counting proxies — I’m still amazed that Science agreed to publish something where the main analysis only involves counting from 1 to 14!

).

But this is fine, since the IPCC AR4 and other assessments are not saying the evidence is 100% conclusive (or even 90% conclusive) but just “likely” that modern is warmer than MWP.

In another email, Michael Mann appears to share data with a colleague that doesn’t show the temperature rise they want, and instructs him to not share this “dirty laundry” with anyone else without Mann’s permission:

The incremental changes are modest after 1600–its pretty clear that key predictors drop out before AD 1600, hence the redness of the residuals, and the notably larger uncertainties farther back… You only want to look at the first column (year) and second column (residual) of the files. I can’t even remember what the other columns are!

Let me know if that helps. Thanks,

mike

p.s. I know I probably don’t need to mention this, but just to insure absolutely clarify on this, I’m providing these for your own personal use, since you’re a trusted colleague. So please don’t pass this along to others without checking w/ me first. This is the sort of “dirty laundry” one doesn’t want to fall into the hands of those who might potentially try to distort things…

Now that more time has passed, programmers in the private sector and universities have begun to review leaked files that contain actual code.  What they have found is that in some cases the code contains correction or ‘fudge’ factors to artificially increase the output, which in this case is temperature readings.

If you look at JUST the correction figures and graph them, it actually forms a hockey stick, very representative of Jone’s ‘hockey stick’ temperature graph that created the global panic about global warming.

Marc Sheppard of the American Thinker explains in detail how the temperature data was manipulated to achieve the result they wanted.

In two other programs, briffa_Sep98_d.pro and briffa_Sep98_e.pro, the “correction” is bolder by far. The programmer (Keith Briffa?) entitled the “adjustment” routine “Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!” And he or she wasn’t kidding. Now IDL is not a native language of mine, but its syntax is similar enough to others I’m familiar with, so please bear with me while I get a tad techie on you.

Here’s the “fudge factor” (notice the brash SOB actually called it that in his REM statement):
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

These two lines of code establish a twenty-element array (yrloc) comprising the year 1400 (base year, but not sure why needed here) and nineteen years between 1904 and 1994 in half-decade increments. Then the corresponding “fudge factor” (from the valadj matrix) is applied to each interval. As you can see, not only are temperatures biased to the upside later in the century (though certainly prior to 1960), but a few mid-century intervals are being biased slightly lower. That, coupled with the post-1930 restatement we encountered earlier, would imply that in addition to an embarrassing false decline experienced with their MXD after 1960 (or earlier), CRU’s “divergence problem” also includes a minor false incline after 1930.

There appears to be a clear manipulation of data and attempt to suppress any data or research that doesn’t support man-made global warming.  I encourage you to read Sheppard’s full (link above) and to read through the raw emails yourself, since other than some internet sites and Foxnews there is very little coverage of what they contain.