I wonder if they used this station, which is famous in Russia? See details here
Steve McIntyre reports on Climate Audit that there’s an email from Michael Mann that is relevant:
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
More bullying from the team.
=============================
Guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
It’s true, and it’s huge. Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, Russian papers are reporting that the Russian surface station data was sorted by CRU to use the highest warming stations only.
Russia affected by Climategate
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
They specifically state that lack of measurement is not the cause. If they claim the full set of Russian data does NOT support global warming, imagine how different the bright red dot over Russia would look. Again the accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data. This data and code release is the subject of illegal blocking of FOIA’s is one of the keys in the Climategate emials. We need to know the list of stations used and we must have copies of the raw data.
This is a very powerful accusation, which if true could change much about the climate science debate. Many papers are based on this dataset which has the highest trend of the major ground datasets.
Here is a PDF (in Russian) can anyone provide a translation?
http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf
Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 70-450 dumps and JN0-522 study guide to guaranteed pass 1z0-042 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
One of those things. You go out picking cherries, you’re going to end up in the pits.
Leaving out the ‘cold’ russian temperature stations might be one reason why the AGW maps show such hot temperatures in Siberia.
This a big. (Esp. as the satellites are iffy at the poles.)
Ha!
Just posted on the tips to get this on as a post & when I came back , here it is. Good works Anthony & mods!
If true, this will be a bigger blow to AGW than the initial Climategate blow.
The wheels are falling off the AGW cart
Does this mean more riots in Copenhagen?
Holy HadCRU, Batman!
Does anyone know what sort of body the Moscow-based “Institute of Economic Analysis” is, and whether it speaks with any authority on climate matters?
CRU did the trick and used a high pass filter to select the stations that match their AGW models. What would you expect?
A list of all the papers based on this data set will be huge. Is there any un-manipulated data left?
Is there an extradition treaty with Russia? I hear the Gulags aren’t as cold these days.
If true, then this is massive. Suddenly Glen Beck will be singing To Russia With Love 🙂 But seriously, this thing unravelling by the hour. If I were Mann, Jones and the rest of the CRU I’d lawyer up pretty fast.
Whom are you going to believe: The people whose emails depict many years of collusion or the people who claim the colluders misrepresented thier data?
John in NZ (11:57:23) :
Is there any un-manipulated data left?
Old newspapers.
SNOW IS RARE.
I just went to check the typical weather for Denmark: ‘climate is temperate, snow is rare.
The Gore Effect strikes again. Snow for the next three days. [snip – best no go there. ~ Evan]
Norm
If this is shown to be true,then the senior scientists at CRU and probably NOAA need the names of defense lawyers. I’m sure readers of WUWT will be happy to supply a list
Interesting, but not surprising, really. The Russian temp anomalies had looked odd for some time. It was hard to understand why Siberia was seemingly so much warmer than everywhere else.
When will the CRU realize that coming clean now will be less painful than having their lies discovered one by one?
I wonder how many studies were based on the HadCRUT database? In this case the fish is rotting from both ends.
There goes my hypothesis.
I was wondering if the Siberian stations were sending out ridiculously overly-inflated temperature readings a) because it was traditional to do things like that, b) to hasten the demise of the West, or c) for a laugh (with b and c being closely related). So, in actual fact, they were just not interrupting the enemy while in the process of making a mistake. I wonder what changed?
Anthony,
Here are the first nine pages translated from Google.
http://viewer.zoho.com/docs/sMcXv
A poster on a previous thread mentioned that the Russian media were providing better coverage of the climategate story than the ‘western’ MSM. ‘Whence this madness?” I think he said – something like that.
Well, I see a lot of AGW skeptics waking up real fast to just how controlled our western MSM is (has been for many, many decades). And I am very happy to see that happening.
And I not saying the Russian media isn’t controlled as well – of course I’m not.
I’m just expressing satisfaction that people – at least those who are interested in ‘climate change’, hopefully not just the skeptics – are waking up to the fact that the media is TOTALLY controlled. And that’s quite a lot of people, waking up.
As I’ve said before: what else have we been lied to about, by those we though were beyond reproach? “The government wouldn’t do that!”, “All the scientists say so”, “I saw it on the telly”. Regarding conspiracy – “thousands of people would have to be in on it”, etc., etc..
Waking up can be a painful process, but it’s better to have the blinkers off than on.
“Is there any un-manipulated data left?”
That is the question! The Team keeps saying that the ClimatGate e-mails only influence a small portion of the mountains of data. But in reality, what data is really left? All the proxies that show “unprecidented warming”, and all the historic measurements are all bunk. It would seem that the only ones left are satallites wich are only 30 years old.
We don’t need the CRU data if the Russians will make theirs available?
“Does anyone know what sort of body the Moscow-based “Institute of Economic Analysis” is, and whether it speaks with any authority on climate matters?”
My concern would be that the IEA is a free market lobbying group/think tank. Now there is nothing wrong with that and I have no reason to doubt that what they say is correct. But that may well make it easy for this to be ignored by the warmists. It would be nice to see someone in Russia with a solid science/climate background back this up.
Anthropogenic Data Manipulation again? Shocking!