I didn’t know that about Excel, thanks for pointing it out.

As an aside, one important thing I learned is that Excel totally hides from the Changed event and instead makes use of Renamed when you save a file. (Plus opens the file without sharing, but that’s a whole other story.)

There has been fraud regarding funds on Climate Change research:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100019956/climategate-the-lawyers-move-in-those-scientists-are-toast/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cu_ok37HDuE (ClimateGate Who’s Who)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtzMBfDrpI (Armed Response to ‘Climategate’ question). This is how the UN censors questions about Global Warming.

and more fraud in the carbon trading scheme:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-european-carbon-credit-trading-system-plagued-by-fraud/

And now, the question everyone should ask: How much carbon reduction is needed to reduce the temperature to the UN target?
Answer: A minimum of 80 years without electricity and without fuel. That is, no heating, no cooking, no cars, no trucks, no tractors for agriculture, no cargo boats and no planes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLKCyk_DhVI (Climate-Gate – Michael Coren with Lord Christopher Monckton )

Follow the money….

“The carbon market in the US is expected to be trillions of dollars by 2015, and the technology we are offering is as little as 10% to half of that number”. Earning only 10% of a trillion represents an income of 100 billions a year, which is twice the total wealth of Bill Gates. Guess who is behind this corporation, to become a trillionaire? You have to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuifVNofEtk

keep up the good work.

I’m an electrical engineer. I plotted the same array in Excel two weeks ago when the info first came out and emailed it to my friends at work. Most natural and physical things can be mathmatically modeled, but it took a sixth order polynomial to approximate this correction factor data. If something this complex and unpredictible is needed to “fix” a model, it also breaks the model.

First, the _e version has a Date Modified of 07/09/1998. However, the _d version has a Date Modified of 04/03/1999 – so while the letters might imply that _e is a later version, it seems instead that _d was the preferred one where work continued.

In fact, most of the briffa_sept98 files – _a, _b, _c, and _d – have a Date Modified later than _e. The other two files, briffa_sept98_decline1 and briffa_sept98_decline2, have a Date Modified of the same date, and the time was just a few hours before _e.

Also, I wonder why _e is separated from the other briffa_sept98 files. It’s been relegated to a different project tree – the tree is called “harris-tree”, which I believe is a reference to the programmer, Ian Harris.

What I think happened is that the _e version of the file was one of many made for the project initially, but it was then taken away from the research directories to the programmer’s own directory; perhaps as a source of templates or snippets for his future work. Meanwhile, work on “briffa” continued with the actual files, and in the process, the “ARTIFICAL correction” was commented out and disabled after serving its purpose as a “what if”.

I mean, the general shape is the about the same, the magnitude is the almost the same and the time scale is close.

Thanks again. SG.

Basically, I have come to two conclusions (right or wrong):

1. The research methods of the CRU are shoddy at best and a downright fabrication at worst. This distinction hinges on whether or not the valadj array applies a reasonable correction for the divergence problem, or if it is a blatant method of skewing data.

2. The public has been kept in the dark for several years with regards to actual raw data and analysis. We only know what the CRU tells us, and not many people have had a chance to re-validate their results (something which is absolutely vital in a scientific field, especially for research that is publicly funded). This is why we really don’t even know the context of how this program was used.

I am offering my perspective as a software developer and (former) physics researcher. And, all I’m saying, is, we need a respectable and honest 3rd party investigation of the results. Something that is not too much to ask for in any scientific field.

Please let me know if I didn’t clear up your questions, I did my best to address them all.

The hockey stick graphs I’ve seen with any kind of date range applied to them seem to show the drastic warming trends occurring in the 1900’s.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/wp-images/gore_hockeystick_fig2.JPG

However, the valadj array attempts to apply a “correction” or “fudge” to MXD data, not exact temperature data. So, without the raw data, there’s no way to tell if this correction is benign or simply a falsification of data.

These articles are an attempt to show that lying about the data is possible and deserves investigation.

[quote]
Also, it doesn’t matter that this graph flattens out at the end because it is already up around the 2.5 mark.
[/quote]

I don’t think that code is used for what you thinks it is.
Note that the last 6 dates start in 1969 and the “fudge factors” for them are flat.
But the models show an increase in global temp over that period.
If those values were cheated into the temp values it would tend to erase the “hockey stick” not exaggerate it.

This does correspond to the time satellite data started to become available though.
Maybe it has something to do with that.