5 ms·

opening paragraph comments on a code fragment: From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hem

opening paragraph comments on a code fragment: From the CRU code file osborn-tree6/briffa_sep98_d.pro , used to prepare a graph purported to be of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and reconstructions. ; ; Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!! ; 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 if n_elements(yrloc) ne n_elements(valadj) then message,’Oooops!’ ; yearlyadj=interpol(valadj,yrloc,timey) This, people, is blatant data-cooking, with no pretense otherwise. It flattens a period of warm temperatures in the 1930s--see those negative coefficients? Then, later on, it applies a positive multiplier so you get a nice dramatic hockey stick at the end of the century.

indy 17y ago
jgrahamc mentioned in an earlier comment (and also on his blog: http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/about-that-cru-hack.html http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/about-that-cru-hack.html) that these variables aren't used.
- waterlesscloud 17y ago
  Great, so now all we need is to run this in the released data and verify if the graph was produced with the code commented in or out. If there was released data, that is. The point being we only know how the code looks in that file, we don't know when the commented out sections were commented out. So nothing is proven here either way.
- defen 17y ago
  Check out harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro - http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro You'll see that it is used in that version of the program.
- skmurphy 17y ago
  They are used in the next version, see http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro (promoted from a comment by jgrahamc on his blog which I would think should get added to his main blog post).
etal 17y ago
Notes: 1. The fudge factor is flat after 1970. The hockey stick we care about is after 1980 or so, sharply increasing in the 1990s and 2000s. 2. The fudge corresponds to problems with recent tree-ring data that were discussed in previously published literature (I don't have the citation). The phrase "very artificial" almost certainly means it's a crude estimate based on some model that's simpler than the author would prefer -- hence, the flat line for recent values. 3. If this was an open-source project, you'd see a reference to the article that explains where the fudge came from, but it's not. Natural scientists tend to not really believe in software engineering, they just write a procedure and munge it until it works, leaving dead code and mysterious comments in their wake. (Source control? That sounds like fluffy industry stuff...) As JCG pointed out, yearlyadj isn't used in the copy of this script that we have, although it might have been used in an earlier draft of the script.
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Natural scientists tend to not really believe in software engineering, they just write a procedure and munge it until it works, leaving dead code and mysterious comments in their wake. (Source control? That sounds like fluffy industry stuff...) Not the ones I've worked with. While they may be a little behind the times (CVS instead of hg, fortran instead of c), most academics aren't stupid. Even by academic standards, this code is fugly.
  - etal 17y ago
    Physics and math software is usually fine, sure, since the performance and reliability of the code matters in the experiments. I mean traditional biology and the less computer-oriented sciences, where they tend to just use scripts to filter data into a usable form, crunch some numbers, and generate visualizations. There, unless the software is the point of the research, writing code doesn't get the same priority (or respect) as traditional experiments. A lot of those professors just don't care about writing maintainable code; I'm guessing Dr. Briffa is one of those.

indy 17y ago

jgrahamc mentioned in an earlier comment (and also on his blog: http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/about-that-cru-hack.html http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/11/about-that-cru-hack.html) that these variables aren't used.

waterlesscloud 17y ago
Great, so now all we need is to run this in the released data and verify if the graph was produced with the code commented in or out. If there was released data, that is. The point being we only know how the code looks in that file, we don't know when the commented out sections were commented out. So nothing is proven here either way.
defen 17y ago
Check out harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro - http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro You'll see that it is used in that version of the program.
skmurphy 17y ago
They are used in the next version, see http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro http://di2.nu/foia/harris-tree/briffa_sep98_e.pro (promoted from a comment by jgrahamc on his blog which I would think should get added to his main blog post).

etal 17y ago

Notes: 1. The fudge factor is flat after 1970. The hockey stick we care about is after 1980 or so, sharply increasing in the 1990s and 2000s. 2. The fudge corresponds to problems with recent tree-ring data that were discussed in previously published literature (I don't have the citation). The phrase "very artificial" almost certainly means it's a crude estimate based on some model that's simpler than the author would prefer -- hence, the flat line for recent values. 3. If this was an open-source project, you'd see a reference to the article that explains where the fudge came from, but it's not. Natural scientists tend to not really believe in software engineering, they just write a procedure and munge it until it works, leaving dead code and mysterious comments in their wake. (Source control? That sounds like fluffy industry stuff...) As JCG pointed out, yearlyadj isn't used in the copy of this script that we have, although it might have been used in an earlier draft of the script.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
Natural scientists tend to not really believe in software engineering, they just write a procedure and munge it until it works, leaving dead code and mysterious comments in their wake. (Source control? That sounds like fluffy industry stuff...) Not the ones I've worked with. While they may be a little behind the times (CVS instead of hg, fortran instead of c), most academics aren't stupid. Even by academic standards, this code is fugly.
- etal 17y ago
  Physics and math software is usually fine, sure, since the performance and reliability of the code matters in the experiments. I mean traditional biology and the less computer-oriented sciences, where they tend to just use scripts to filter data into a usable form, crunch some numbers, and generate visualizations. There, unless the software is the point of the research, writing code doesn't get the same priority (or respect) as traditional experiments. A lot of those professors just don't care about writing maintainable code; I'm guessing Dr. Briffa is one of those.