the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Climategate Anniversary

Posted by Jeff Id on November 19, 2010

By John Pittman

On 11/28/2009, JeffID graciously posted an article of mine http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/context-2/#more-6449 . Now that the anniversary is approaching, I wanted to go back and look at some items of interest including a couple of predictions I made. I started the article with a comment about the apologists Anne Kelly and George Monbiot reactions to Climategate, and wrote:

Expect others to soon follow trying to downplay what occurred. This development, from just an influence to a catastrophe, will be detailed, and it will show that there will probably be a long line of misleading apologists in the near future.

Talk about an understatement. We have had at least 3 investigations that were so interested in downplaying what occurred, to call them investigations is simply misleading. To show that there are scientific reasons for skepticism regarding temperature reconstructions, I relist some of the more interesting quotes with my bolding.

>>On Mon, 3 Nov 1997, Keith Briffa wrote:

I have been agonising for months that these results are not some statistical artifact of the analysis method but we can’t see how. For just two species (spruce in the western U.S. Great Basin area and larch in eastern Siberia) we can push the method far enough to get an indication of much longer term growth changes ( from about 1400) and the results confirm a late 20th century apparent fertilization! The method requires standardizing (localized mean subtraction and standard deviation division) by species/age band so we reconstruct relative (e.g. per cent change) only. We have experimented with integrating the different signals in basal area and density (after extracting intra ring ring width and density data where available) within a ‘flat mass’ measure which shows a general late 20th century increase – but whether this incorporates a defensible relative waiting on the different components (and what the relative carbon components are) is debatable. We now need to make some horrible simplistic assumptions about absolute carbon in these (relatively small) components of the total biomass carbon pool and imlpications for terrestrial and total carbon fluxes over the last few hundred years – and beyond! Without these implications we will have difficulty convincing Nature that this work is mega important.

>>From: “Michael E. Mann” mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Can you believe it???

Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 09:02:53 -0500

[Incidentally, MM make much of the tendency for some tree ring series, such as this one, to show an apparent cooling over the past couple decades. Scientists with expertise in dendroclimatology know that this behavior represents a decrease in the sensitivity to temperature in recent decades that likely is related to conditions other than temperature which are limiting tree growth]

>>From: Keith Briffa k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Date: Tue Nov 23 16:01:56 2004

I think the “hook” needs to be the important opportunity to assess recent changes in lake and tree productivity and see if any evidence for response to climate , as well as searching for unprecedented evidence of climate change. I realise this is predominantly a lake project with a link to trees and models , but the links must be more than token . I can provide more background as to where we are with tree-ring work in Euro-Siberia if needed . I think the model stuff also needs specific justification . Is Simon going to contribute here? Don’t get hung up on the “decline or changing sensitivity issue” in trees . This is NOT a great problem in Scandinavia, Ural/Yamal and is anyway a divergence in trend and quite subtle and evident in wood density mostly. We are also of the opinion that it could be partly a statistical processing artifact – we are exploring this now.

>>From: Phil Jones p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2005 11:22:31 +0000
FYI.

Just look at the attachment. Don’t refer to it or send it on to anybody yet. I guess you could refer to it in the IPCC Chapter – you will have to some day !

>>Phil,

I would immediately delete anything you receive from this fraud. You’ve probably seen now the paper by Wahl and Ammann which independently exposes McIntyre and McKitrick for what it is–pure crap. Of course, we’ve already done this on “RealClimate”, but Wahl and Ammann is peer-reviewed and independent of us. I’ve attached it in case you haven’t seen (please don’t pass it along to others yet). It should be in press shortly. Meanwhile, I would NOT RESPOND to this guy. As you know, only bad things can come of that. The last thing this guy cares about is honest debate–he is funded by the same people as Singer, Michaels, etc… Other than this distraction, I hope you’re enjoying the holidays too… talk to you soon,

mike

The next four paragraphs are the conclusion. But, I think it is appropriate to consider the implications of MMH10 and McShane-Wyner10 when reading them.

M&M break the “hockey stick.” In an effort to show independent support for unprecedented warmth use a series (Yamal) began where it is known that the number of replications are small, and there appears to be a fertilization problem, or a problem with the best (longest lived) trees were known to have appeared to have been shadowed or influenced some way such that they did not grow uniformly. The non-uniformity violates the assumptions (homogeneity and stationary) necessary for comparing present growth with past. Even more problematic for Yamal and the reconstructions using it is that the area is known to be data rich. This underlines the concern of the limited numbers in the chronology.

Further, the stonewalling of McIntyre, McKitrick, and others who point out problems that were known, but were denied or ignored by the dendro community and the use of cores for which it was determined at one time to be fertilization not temperature, cannot be made to look good. In the emails, it is apparent that it was known that the replication and number of chronologies were a problem. It was known that the standard deviations of ring width were a problem. It has been admitted by Dr. Briffa in a recent statement that they are working on some, if not all, of these problems. But the tense is a refutation of TAR and 4AR, where it is portrayed as settled science.

It is a refutation because these reconstructions were used to support the claim that the warming is unprecedented and that no model with natural forcings only could replicate the post 1950 warming. In the 4AR, the IPCC state that the warming past 1950 was assumed to be manmade. They conclude that this was very likely due the unprecedented warming and the models. This meme is repeated over and over again in the 4AR. Now that these conclusions of warming and anthropogenic cause are questioned, where does that leave the science? At the SAR, though some will claim that the models alone can be used. There are two problems with this. The first problem is that is not how the models were developed, and extrapolating models without checking against a backcast invites uncontrollable problems from initial values, as is documented in the literature. The thread on CA on exponential growth is a mustread. The second problem is a quote one can find all over the net, that models did not predict current temperatures; and it is a travesty that they didn’t.

So, we are at “man is influencing the climate”, not “catastrophic global warming.” With all the posts and articles, it will not be long until it is confirmed just how far and how long the public and reporters were misled about the consensus and quality of the claims. The emails show that the public statements are far from the private ones, and no amount of spin is going to change that. That M&M and others are showing that the problems are even worse than these scientists thought, while these same scientists were stonewalling these efforts of the critics, that could have made the science stronger, by gaming the very system they were publicly claiming was impartial, is beginning to sink in. Soon it will sink in, as more and more is made public, that the real problems with Yamal and stripbark, etc., have only been partially discussed. At that point, it will be apparent that the Wegman report may have been the most unappreciated work on climate change science, outside of McIntyre and McKitrick’s efforts.

So have the problems with AR4 been sinking in? I would say that with Judith Curry, recent changes and charges by professional societies, and others exploring the uncertainty and not liking the findings, it has.

For detailed looks, I recommend both the Hockey Stick Illusion, and Climategate: The CRUtape letters.

39 Responses to “Climategate Anniversary”

  1. Climategate will be a blessing in disguise, if the public realizes that these events have simply confirmed the validity of President Eisenhower’s 1961 warning about the dangers to our free society from a federal scientific-technological elite:

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel

  2. Layman Lurker said

    Thanks John. Also from the “We don’t know as much as we thought” category, have you seen this?

  3. [...] TAV: Climategate Anniversary [...]

  4. Niklas said

    Did anybody notice this at Real Climate?

    Why would they change the language to French? Or whatever that is. Maybe my browser wasn’t working correctly. I used Google Chrome. Is that a common glitch?

  5. Sean said

    Dotearth has an aniversary article as well. Revkin’s conclusion is that it was barely a blip in the consensus climate science, no measurable consequence on the understanding in the field. I guess people see what they want to see. As much as I like bloggs, I think the discussion would move ahead more quickly if both sides would regularly debate each other face to face in the same room.

  6. curious said

    2 Layman – are you sure the link in your comment is working as intended? For me it comes back here?

  7. Layman Lurker said

    #2

    Doh! Right you are. Here is the link I tried in #2:

    http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2010/11/17/kracked-up-over-kratatoa-models-have-it-all-wrong/

  8. John F. Pittman said

    Nice link Layman. I remember reading parts of the original and thinking it was typical AGW scare tactics at the time. It turns out it was worse than I thought! lol!

    It is good to see that it has been conceptually corrected. I would not hold my breath that it will be implemented. But then, perhaps another paper MMH13 or 14 will re-open the wound if they refuse to address it.

    Besides, I think this was one that Gavin hid from rather than address ;) , since it would have contradicted the reasonable position he took on the Pinatubo eruption, quick and short with a decay in years, not decades.

    In fact there does seem to be sort of a differnce. So I am not sure how straight the accounting is at your link. It really may be down to conceptual differences in how to run the models rather than that the models themselves are wrong.

  9. Layman Lurker said

    John, have you seen or read Santer’s House testimony? I’d be curious on whether his comments give deference to the Gregory findings.

  10. John F. Pittman said

    No. But I will this weekend. It has been a hell of a week for me.

  11. Layman Lurker said

    His testimony is here.

    Damn vague if you ask me. No “state of the art” descriptions of the science and issues in climate modeling. No mention of Gregory’s findings, however, it is telling that Gleckler et al is not in the list of references (deference to Gergory?).

  12. John F. Pittman said

    Yep. You nailed it, bland.

    From Santer’s testimony:

    We must therefore rely on numerical models and paleoclimate evidence (18, 19, 20) to estimate how the Earth’s climate might have evolved in the absence of any human intervention. Such sources of information will always have significant uncertainties.

    Looking at the quotes from the emails above just blows away all of the apologists such as James Wight at Lucia’s

    Climategate was a fake scandal, an ad hominem attack on climate science. It’s not so much the email hacking/leaking that bothers me as the smear campaign against climate scientists, and the media’s double standard in giving a lot more coverage to the attacks on climate scientists then the inquiries which exonerated them.

    and

    Several independent inquiries have cleared the CRU scientists of hiding or manipulating data, downplaying uncertainty, or corrupting the peer review and IPCC processes.

    Sean, I think it is in the eye of the beholder. However, having spent my last Thanksgiving holiday season reading and studying just a portion of the emails for the better part of a week 8 or more hours a day, those who see no wrong, are wearing blinders or did not read. Mosher’s statement that the emails are worse in context is what I showed on just one subject at the beginning of the post. What I prove in that 2009 post was that they knew about problems that the skeptic community was banging on about. In the 4AR, they literally made stuff up, ignored legitimate complaints, handwaved away legitimate complaints, that were in comments made before it was published. As asked before, when will the silence of the lambs end?

  13. Bad Andrew said

    Andrew’s Climategate Take:

    Same As It Ever Was

    Climate Science was clearly fraudulent before Climategate, during and after. In that sense, the event was irrelevant. Anyone who was/is paying attention is aware of this.

    Andrew

  14. Oxbridge Prat said

    Email 1024334440 remains a personal favourite – Ed Cook speaking with Keith Briffa about Michael Mann:

    Hi Keith,

    Of course, I agree with you. We both know the probable flaws in
    Mike’s recon, particularly as it relates to the tropical stuff. Your
    response is also why I chose not to read the published version of his
    letter. It would be too aggravating. The only way to deal with this
    whole issue is to show in a detailed study that his estimates are
    clearly deficient in multi-centennial power, something that you
    actually did in your Perspectives piece, even if it was not clearly
    stated because of editorial cuts. It is puzzling to me that a guy as
    bright as Mike would be so unwilling to evaluate his own work a bit
    more objectively.

    Ed

    >I have just read this lettter – and I think it is crap. I am sick to
    >death of Mann stating his reconstruction represents the tropical
    >area just because it contains a few (poorly temperature
    >representative ) tropical series. He is just as capable of
    >regressing these data again any other “target” series , such as the
    >increasing trend of self-opinionated verbage he has produced over
    >the last few years , and … (better say no more)
    >Keith
    >

    Hard to beat that for clarity.

  15. Nice post Mr.
    Please visit my blog.
    My blog is indonesian language, to select English language, you have select “Pilih Bahasa” and click “Inggris” in homepage site http://tulisandi.blogspot.com/

    thanks.

  16. Kenneth Fritsch said

    The article linked by LL tells a tale that is so typical of the sloppy work that some climate scientists produce because they see a conclusion that fits their advocacy position well and at that point they turn off their brains. It works well for their advocacy positions as it generates those headlines that the MM will tout as more evidence for the need for immediate AGW mitigation. As for their science reputations, it appears that a “we have moved on” is sufficient to allow their reputations to live for another day and another blockbuster “scientific” revelation for the MM to once again tout.

  17. Rob R said

    Layman Lurker

    Nice link. Yet another crack in the paper-thin edifice.

    AGW is in mortal danger of a slow death from small cuts.

  18. Thanks.. Mr.
    I from Indonesian.

    I use Indonesian language in my blog’s.

    This link use Indonesian language:

    Please translate this line

    makasih artikelnya. Artikel lain yang mungkin anda cari:
    Submit site ke mesin pencari Google Download aplikasi untuk membaca QR Code Download kamus lengkap untuk handphone
    Download Opera Mini 5.1 untuk Symbian
    cek Pagerank
    Download mp3 Tak Gendong – Mbah Surip Terimakasih

  19. tonyb said

    John Pitman

    A nice article, thank you. There is a debate going on here on this subject;

    http://climatesight.org/2010/11/17/the-real-story-of-climategate/

    I originally made a passing comment about sea levels on the thread. The owner of the blog is highly censorious and selective and what followed was truly bizarre with such as Tamino accusing me of saying things I never did.

    Eventually after posting content verbatim and in context using only ‘official’ sources I made this comment;

    “I don’t need a few days to check my ‘cites’ as this must be the first time in the history of AGW that its proponents complain when someone references information from the IPCC (many times), Nasa, Noaa, Wkipedia, Dr Jeff Masters, University of Colorado, Proudman, Holgate, Jerry Mitrovica, Grinsted, Moberg, Professor Brian Fagan and William Connelley.”

    John, It would be very interesting if you were to post your article on climatesight and see how long it remains up.

    For what its worth, this was my contribution over there on Climatesight about climategate

    “Firstly, congratulations. I thought it was a very nicely written and succinct paper. I don’t agree with most of your conclusions though.

    I am British so the CRU emails are of particular interest to me. Having met Prof Jones I have enormous personal sympathy for him and what this matter has done to his health. Anyone issuing death threats or harassing him should be prosecuted.
    On a professional basis I have rather less sympathy. He came to believe that the data he worked on with public money was his own and refused to allow anyone to see it, which precipitated the FOIA requests (cites follow)
    .
    We tend to have two types of inquiries over here. The first veers towards the intensive ten year inquiry we had into ‘Bloody Sunday’ which cost 100 million pounds. The second type- and much more frequent- will be familiar to any readers here who watch that old British TV series ‘Yes Minister’.

    In that series politicians, or the civil service, try to thwart the aims of the opposite side who want to get to the bottom of something by agreeing to hold an inquiry. The intention is for nothing to be actually done. It is called kicking the ball into the long grass.

    This is particularly popular at awkward times like before an election or where some flaw in Govt policy might come to light and is usually achieved by having terms of reference that don’t allow proper investigation or by appointing chairmen who are sympathetic to what the desired end result is.

    The British enquiries you mention fell into many of these categories-one of the inquiries interviewed those involved for 1 day in total. (cites follow)

    A number of investigations have been carried out into the official inquiries that you are quoting in your article. This is a good one as it deals with all of the British one plus that from Penn State.

    This sets the scene.

    http://www.thegwpf.org/press-releases/1532-damning-new-investigation-into-climategate-inquiries.html

    This is the report itself

    http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/Climategate-Inquiries.pdf

    (the author gained a degree in Chemistry then became a Chartered accountant which explains his forensic mind).

    Here are some of the opening remarks of this ‘inquiry into the inquiries’ as made by Lord Turnbull;
    (Andrew Turnbull was in the British Govt for some years, first as Permanent Secretary, Environment Department,1994-98; then as Permanent Secretary to the Treasury 1998-2002, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service 2002-05. He is now a Crossbench member of the House of Lords.

    (Turnbull being a former head of the civil service is especially pertinent as he knows how these enquiries are intended to work)

    * these enquiries were hurried

    * the terms of reference were unclear

    • insufficient care was taken with the choice of panel members to ensure

    balance and independence

    • insufficient care was taken to ensure the process was independent of

    those being investigated, eg the Royal Society allowed CRU to suggest the

    papers it should read

    • Sir Muir Russell failed to attend the session with the CRU’s Director Professor

    Jones and only four of fourteen members of the Science and Technology

    Select Committee attended the crucial final meeting to sign off their report.

    • record keeping was poor.

    The following comments come from early on in the linked report;

    ” *The Climate Change Emails Review headed by Sir Muir Russell included several vocal supporters of the manmade global warming hypothesis.

    *One member had worked at UEA for 18 years.

    *Only CRU scientists were interviewed and no oral evidence was taken from critics.

    * The panel failed even to ask witnesses whether emails had been deleted.

    * The panel simply said they had not seen any evidence that information subject to FOI had been deleted, despite strong evidence to the contrary.”

    The allegations were not properly or meaningfully investigated but equally-because of that- they remain neither proven or unproven. In classic ‘Yes Minister’ style the ball has been kicked into the long grass and whether it will ever be found again remains to be seen.

    Personally I feel that CRU have not lived up to the expectations created by its first director Hubert Lamb. If anyone wants to get a proper well balanced view of our changing climate in a historic context I can recommend his book ‘Climate history and the modern world.’

    I have no particular comment on Penn state as I do not have sufficient knowledge of how that inquiry was conducted.”

    tonyb

  20. boballab said

    I have no particular comment on Penn state as I do not have sufficient knowledge of how that inquiry was conducted.”

    tonyb

    That whitewash was more blatant, they cleared him because he brings in many grants and they stated it so:

    The results achieved by Dr. Mann in the period 1999-2010, despite these stringent requirements, speak for themselves: He served as principal investigator or co-principal investigator on five NOAA-funded and four NSF-funded research projects. During the same period, Dr. Mann also served as co-investigator of five additional NSF-and NOAA-funded research projects, as well as on projects funded by the Department of Energy (DOE), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Office of Naval Research (ONR). This level of success in proposing research, and obtaining funding to conduct it, clearly places Dr. Mann among the most respected scientists in his field. Such success would not have been possible had he not met or exceeded the highest standards of his profession for proposing research.

    http://live.psu.edu/fullimg/userpics/10026/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf

  21. John F. Pittman said

    TonyB, I will look at this over the holidays. I had to look at a computer after work, and am just catching up. I am going on vacation and plan to spend some time on the issues.

  22. tonyb said

    John F Pitmann

    It would be good if you could go over and comment but I would advise you to copy your replies to over here as a record. Sceptic replies are routinely deleted or pruned so they are left out of context.

    I have suggested elsewhere that the site would make a very good case study for censorship and selecting editing. I was warned but I didn’t believe it :)

    tonyb

  23. Jeff Id said

    #22 I think the site is run by a highschool girl isn’t it?

  24. tonyb said

    Jeff

    Yes. I suspect she is an acolyte of Tamino as he was the first to comment on her article. Also early on she deleted a post of mine in reply to Tamino and he then accused me of saying something which I had never said, which made it sound as if she had contacted him privately.

    A famous climate scientist (I won’t embarrass him by naming him) then sided with Tamino to repeat his claim that I had said something I hadnt. I previously had a lot of respect for his work, now I will always be wondering if he checks his citations for his work as badly as he checked Taminos’ cite of me.

    There is certainly nothing over there that resembles a fair debate, however it has been noted as I received several private emails confirming I was correct (with my post on historic sea levels).

    I think its very worrying that an 18 year old can behave in this way. However it seems increasingly common for students to be hyped up by their tutors and they become green zealots who won’t listen to other viewpoints.

    Still, the idea that they claimed my cites ‘suck’ amused me when they were ALL from ‘reputable’ sources- see my #19 for the long list of people who they refused to accept, including IPCC and NASA.

    If you fancy taking a look into our intellectual future I suggest you wander over. Take a hard hat.

    tonyb

  25. Jeff Id said

    Tony,

    I hardly consider the IPCC a reputable source :D

  26. tonyb said

    Jeff

    Thats why I put inverted commas round it. I mean reputable to the AGW crowd. :)

    tonyb

  27. Jeff Id said

    Tony,

    A mind that young and that closed is a bit frightening. I don’t know what makes a person so certain of anything at 18 but it sure isn’t the mark of a thinker.

  28. Layman Lurker said

    Tony, just for the heck of it I plotted the 5 year close up images of sea level global time series from U of Col with and without the inverted barometer applied.

  29. Jeff Id said

    Lurk,

    What are you talking about?

  30. kim said

    Amazing display of censorship; every skeptic argument blanked with ‘citations needed’. I think it might be hopeless over there.
    =============

  31. kim said

    TonyB and LL, wouldn’t it be nice to see Josh Willis’s latest?
    ============

  32. Layman Lurker said

    #29

    Tony was getting kicked around a bit at climatesight. It started with a comment on sea level rise. Kate started doing her moderation thing – snipping posts that didn’t include a citation. Tony responded to the snip by posting a long and well cited post on historical and modern sea level rise. Part of his comment was to say that the last 4 or 5 years of sat data (per the U of Col time series data here) were “static” in terms of sea level rise. Tamino angrilly challenged Tony on this, suggesting he was misrepresenting the data, that he doesn’t understand why an inverted barometer is needed to process the data, blah, blah. Tony responded by saying that the posted feature time series graph at the U of Col site is of the *non* IB data. Reading this I decided to look at the data a little more closely.

  33. Layman Lurker said

    #30

    Kim, I think you should cut her a little slack. She’s just a kid. Her ambition is to become a climate scientist which is admirable. Like many, she is going into this with her mind made up but she has rationalized her views as being open minded because it aligns with the consensus and likely here political bent. Not likely to change unless a non-warming reality swamps her in a few years. Then again, maybe a warming reality will swamp us :).

  34. Layman Lurker said

    #32

    I fitted a linear trend to the non-inverted barometer data with the seasonal signal removed to check Tamino’s assertion that the trend was about 3mm per year. Tamino was right, the trend for my plot was about 3.1 mm rise per year. Not that I would put a lot of stock in a 5 yr trend of noisy data – especially when the end point is just a few months removed from an el nino.

    I would still rather go to an english pub for a brew with Tony any day. ;)

  35. Jeff Id said

    #34 can you write it up? It wouldn’t take much, just links to the data, the plots and the two sentence result. I’m curious because I’m unfamiliar with barometer adjustments for sea level.

  36. Layman Lurker said

    #35

    Yes.

    I am just in the process of double checking my trend from #34 now as I think I calculated it for the entire 18 year period rather than the last 5 years.

  37. Layman Lurker said

    The corrected trend for my 5 year (non IB and seasonal signal removed) sea level plot is 2.7 mm per year of rise.

    Jeff, for some reason the fitted linear trend does not show up on the graphics device (but the summary info has been processed). Here is my code:

    sea<-read.table("file:///Users/Owner/Desktop/data_files_for_R/sea_level_noinvbar.txt",header=TRUE)

    plot(sea[456:607,],type="l")

    linfit=lm(sea$msl_noib_mm[456:607]~sea$year[456:607])

    lines(linfit,type="l")

    I downloaded the data from here.

  38. Layman Lurker said

    Here is a description of the “Inverted Barometer” process and satelite sea level data correction. The page also has references for those who want to follow up on the science in detail.

    Curious about the 5 year sea level data being discussed by TonyB and Tamino at ClimateSight, I followed the data link provided by Tony at ClimateSight. By clicking on “time series” you arrive at a page to access global and regional time series data in text files. There are four different ways to look at the data based on 2×2 combinations of Seasonal cycle included/removed vs. Inverted Barometer correction applied/not applied.

    I compared only the seasonaly adjusted data with and without the Inverted Barometer adjustment. The plots are a little deceiving and should have been graphed together (IOW, another 45 minutes of farting around on R to figure out some head slappingly simple code) but you can see by looking at the y axis of the graphs. If I calculated correctly, the slope of the IB adjusted graph is actually less (2.45mm/yr) than the non IB adjusted (2.7mm/yr). For some reason I could not get the fitted linear trends to show in the plots. A difference plot of the IB adjusted minus non-adjusted was not very revealing.

    Code:

    ###5 year sea level data. Seasonal signal removed. No Inverted Barometer adjustment

    sea<-read.table("file:///Users/Owner/Desktop/data_files_for_R/sea_level_noinvbar.txt",header=TRUE)
    plot(sea[456:607,],type="l")#5 year data plot
    linfit=lm(sea$msl_noib_mm[456:607]~sea$year[456:607])#linear trend fit
    lines(linfit,type="l")#added linear trend to graphics device
    summary(linfit)

    ###5 year sea level data. Seasonal signal removed. Inverted Barometer applied.

    seaIB<-read.table("file:///Users/Owner/Desktop/data_files_for_R/sea_level.txt",header=TRUE)
    plot(seaIB[455:606,],type="l")#5 year data plot
    linfitIB=lm(seaIB$msl_ib_ns_mm[456:607]~seaIB$year[456:607])#linear trend fit
    lines(linfitIB,type="l")#added linear trend to graphics device
    summary(linfitIB)

    ###5 year difference graph of IB applied vs. IB not applied

    diff<-c(seaIB$msl_ib_ns_mm[456:607]-sea$msl_noib_mm[455:606])
    plot(diff)

    Note: Code is not quite turnkey as the data is accessed from my hard drive and not directly from the U of Colorado website.

  39. tonyb said

    Layman Lurker (love to have a drink with you) and others

    What you are saying is being taken a little out of context because of the way posts were removed or edited. This was my original comment which was deleted and citations asked for; it referred to a link someone made to Michael Mann which said

    .“If climate change is an elaborate hoax, then the ice sheets must be in on it; the sea level must be in on it; and the polar bears are likely in on it, although they are big losers.”

    I replied

    “What exactly do you believe sea level to be doing? Are you aware that (generally) it is lower today than during the MWP or Roman Optimum?

    Are you aware that the worldwide modern sea level record was cobbled together from only 23 tidal stations, only eight of which are older than 100 years and ALL of which have been moved? (see Chapter 5 of AR4)

    Are you aware that sea level has remained virtually static for the last four years or so and it would have to quadruple its previous rate of increase to reach the 1 metre rise suggested for the end of the century?”

    (Note the word ‘virtually’ and that satellites record different things to coastal tide gauges)

    I had been warned (but didn’t believe) about the censorship and posted my comments on the thread where the discussion had come about and from which I followed the initial link.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/17/climategate-anniversary-humor/

    There are lots of references to the site here, which I had not really previously been that aware of. It all kicks off really with Smokey on Nov 17 at 3.45 (I had made a post that was deleted and I was asked for citations)

    The thread is a bit mixed at this stage but worth reading to see the developing context

    My Nov 18 at 1.58 gave cites, all from ‘reputable’ sources in context and verbatim

    If you continue reading you will see Smokey on same day 9.09 (his post deleted) and same day at 6.16 (his post deleted)

    Please continue reading to see the context

    My post nov 19 at 2.29-see my ref to Tamino. The first part was entirely removed this prompted a response from Tamino accusing me of BS in saying measurements should be taken in a method that was unscientific . As you can see I said nothing of the sort and as the reference had been deleted Kate had obviously alerted him and paraphrased incorrectly my post

    See my post of nov 19 at 9.09

    Then my post on same day at 3.01 in which I quote what Tamino said about my BS. I repeat again that I never said this and agreed that four years was far too short a time from which trends could be deduced and asked him to remember this when claiming accelerated sea level rise this century .First part removed

    Over the next few days Tamino accused me again of talking BS and I again pointed out that I hadn’t said what he thought I had. Several others (including an internationally famous scientist) also accused me of BS to which I again said I hadn’t said what I was being accused of (all deleted) I have emailed the scientist pointing out he is supporting accusations against me that aren’t true-I’ve had no reply.Having admired his work in the past I’m disappointed he didn’t check the cites before jumping into print.

    I was told that my ‘science sucks’which was what amused me as I had said;

    “I don’t need a few days to check my ‘cites’ as this must be the first time in the history of AGW that its proponents complain when someone references information from the IPCC (many times), Nasa, Noaa, Wkipedia, Dr Jeff Masters, University of Colorado, Proudman, Jerry Mitrovica, (holgate) Grinsted, Moberg and Professor Brian Fagan.

    As you can see not a mention of anyone they would consider suspect. So if I agree that my science sucks presumably we can disqualify from any further participation most of the big names in AGW?

    At this point I gave up recording everything as it was becoming silly.

    I agree that Kate is young and should be cut some slack but equally she has a responsibilty of ensuring that people are allowed to say things that might disturb her world view without being censored or taken out of context.

    Everyone here should also be aware that Satellite data is relatively new compared to tide gauges, is not as accurate as claimed and has some disparities with tode gauges . The IPCC say the two measurements should be correlated.

    tonyb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers

%d bloggers like this: