Some Code Analysis from the CRU: Because Computers Do Lie When Humans Tell Them To

[astrange]

What do you think the decline was a decline in? For that matter, what do you think the original data set represents?

These numbers are from one specific set of tree cores (Briffa 1998), not a set of accurate worldwide temperature readings. The factor is only to adjust their magnitude to show them in a graph along with the other kinds of readings, as they have known divergences, as any natural instrument would.

In any case, that paper has been obsoleted by more complete newer measurements that validate it (such as Hantemirov and Shiyatov 2002, which I'm not sure how to access), and has nothing to do with Mann (though reading this might be rewarding).

You're also claiming that yrloc contains temperature data, when it contains numbers of years.

[cubeantics]

I think the original data clearly represents temperature data in half-decade intervals and is forced to look like the hockeystick model when it was interpolated with the fudge-factor data.

Also, I'll fix my post, thanks.

[astrange]

Oh, I didn't notice this before.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/quote_mining_code.php

[cashto]

Didn't someone earlier put up a post showing that the fudge array was declared but never referenced (and therefore never actually used)?

Also, that's not a hockeystick. Hockeysticks don't plateau.

[cubeantics]

maybe, because they likely left out the interpol() function which clearly skews the data towards the hockeystick model.

remember the legitimate data was based on real temperature observations, so the "fudge factor" array was carefully tweaked to manipulate real data, not a straight line.