*It’s Conclusive: CRU Climate Data Manipulation At Its Worst!

Posted: November 29, 2009 in 2009, Exclusives
Tags: ,

// <![CDATA[//

NOTE: This is an expanded version of my last post, with elements from the one before it, with other key evidence of data manipulation added in.

*It’s Conclusive: CRU Climate Data Manipulation At Its Worst!


Ignorance Is Futile:

At last some data graphing is completed from the Climategate archive, and its obscene! That combined with other revelations provides conclusive proof of wide ranging data manipulation. Yesterday I reported that virtually all temperature data is irrelevent at best, and with this new revelation perhaps Mann & friends might parrot my view, as last ditch damage control. Can anyone say Mann-Made Global Warming?

Read the details of this graph at Climate Audit.

IPCC: “Inappropriate” to hide the decline:


The “Trick”:
The red-blue lines are “before”, and the black line is “after”. MORE

More manipulation: climate ’scientists’ usage of phrases such as “hide the decline” & “artificially adjusted” in tandem with “corrected” & “reconstructed”, in their hacked / leaked emails & programming source code.

; 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.

Wheres the MWP?

Here we see Mann discussing the intent to”contain” the MWP:

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…

More from Mann:

thanks Phil,
Perhaps we’ll do a simple update to the Yamal post, e.g. linking Keith/s new
page–Gavin t? As to the issues of robustness, particularly w.r.t. inclusion of the Yamal series, we actually emphasized that (including the Osborn and Briffa ‘06 sensitivity test) in our original post! As we all know, this isn’t about truth at all, its about plausibly deniable accusations,

Meanwhile, an email by Phil Jones shows that Keith Briffa manipulated tree ring ..

Keith succeeding in being very restrained in his response. McIntyre knew what he was doing when he replaced some of the trees with those from another site.

This confirms long held suspicions that YAD061 was phony data, and it also confirms that Jones knew all about it:

“That is tree #YAD061. Seems like an outlier, that should be discarded from the analysis, right? That’s not what Bifra did. Keeping it in, the average of the group was raised a little. Just a little, but enough.” borepatch.blogspot.com…

Here Gary Funkhouser admits to manipulating tree ..
I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. It was pretty funny though – I told Malcolm what you said about my possibly being too Graybill-like in evaluating the response functions – he laughed and said that’s what he thought at first also. The data’s tempting but there’s too much variation even within stands. I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have – they just are what they are (that does sound Graybillian).

Another email shows even more manipulation:


No recent warming in the tropics worth discussing (satellite ..

No long term warming in Denmark worth discussing (remote land stations):

In fact that graph shows actual cooling after 1940 and even more after 1960, much like the “hide the decline” computer code highlighted earlier that is claimed to be in reference to the proxy data. This stuff becomes more damning the more you look at it. The following IPCC 20th Century graph with future projection doesn’t show the post-1940 decline as seen above, as described by Wigley as a “blip” to be adjusted here:

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 the
land 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.

So once again, it’d be best for them to support my in-depth assessment that temperature data is irrelevant at best:
*Beyond Climategate: Virtually all climate ’science’ temp. data is irrelevant and/or PHONY.

What else is to be said?

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s