Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations

I wonder if they used this station, which is famous in Russia? See details here

Stevenson Screen at Verhojansk Meteo Station looking ENE

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.

The article is linked here:

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.

Global air temperature anomaly map for August 2003 showing hot European summer.

Here is a PDF (in Russian) can anyone provide a translation?

http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

Share


Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 70-450 dumps and JN0-522 study guide to guaranteed pass 1z0-042 exam.


272 thoughts on “Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations

  1. 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

  2. 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?

  3. CRU did the trick and used a high pass filter to select the stations that match their AGW models. What would you expect?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

  6. 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

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. I wonder how many studies were based on the HadCRUT database? In this case the fish is rotting from both ends.

  10. 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?

  11. 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.

  12. “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.

  13. “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.

  14. Yes, “the accusation is completely believable”, coming from the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis – they certainly have no reasons at all to be biased. Of course, they hedge their bets, only stating “probably tampered with Russian-climate data”.
    So where is the Russian raw data archive, and where is the Russian analysis of their data…? For that matter, when will WUWT do an analysis like the one for Darwin?

  15. And now the Chinese are crying foul at Copenhagen:

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580346,00.html

    The Chinese and some other developing nations have objected to what they say is the inclusion of material in the new document that was not covered in negotiations among the many working groups of diplomats who have toiled for more than a week here in the hope of producing an agreement that world leaders could sign. According to the Chinese official, the new document changes seem to have “come from the sky.”

    So does the warming in Siberia also appear to have come from the sky.

  16. The way I see it-the Russians now control the Gas supply to Europe.It does not matter
    now whether or not it is cold or hot.They have Europe by the shorts,
    -they are about to pour cold water cold water down them….

  17. The selection of data and stations to show only the hotter zones (in order to hide the decline) would be consistent with the fact that the ice coverage is increasing since 2007.

  18. I have been expecting this for awhile, it always seemed that the areas where the warming was highest were always where the potential of any sort of input from the people living there was lowest.

  19. Hang on – it just hit me that they’re talking about the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the British Meteorological Office, not CRU!

  20. Nick Stokes (11:55:35) :

    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?

    Sort of Cato institute, just in Russia. It’s lead by Andrey Illarionov who happens to work also for Cato institute in the US.

    Illarinov has been an AGW sceptic for years.

  21. If the West start building nuclear power stations, we won’t need Russian oil, so they won’t be able to blackmail and bilk us. That’s why the Russians are suddenly trying to undermine CRU. Funny that. Commies undermining Commies.

  22. Something about the way the report is worded is iffy?? It makes too many claims that doe not seem to have any basis.

    I’m on the “deniers” side of the fence but this smells fishy.

  23. It is a pretty easy read via google’s translator.

    Just keep in mind that in Russian, you have to use double negatives. So “they never didn’t include the data” means “they didn’t include the data.”

    And you can scroll through the original Russian to look at the charts, which the translator drops.

  24. Yall say that global warming is a socialist plot to take over the world, and your favored source is… the Russians? Strange bedfellows indeed.

    Why would you trust the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis when it was a Russian server which housed the hacked CRU emails? Does THAT not seem suspicious?

  25. @Richard Tyndall

    For the Warmists it doesn’t matter where it comes from Just look at how they treat Christy, Spencer, Lindzen and the Pielke’s. God could apear as a burning bush, hand them 2 tablets that state AGW is false and all they will do is scream about the amount of pollutants that bush is putting intot he air.

  26. Jeff : Your

    Here is a PDF (in Russian) can anyone provide a translation?

    I believe this would be a concise summary of that document:

    doveryai, no proveryai

  27. The 136 stations currently used in the U.S. to measure climate are for the most part at airports. Reference the most recent copy of the GHCN v2.mean file. Actually, this count should really be 134 as there are two stations where most of the monthly mean values are missing (North Little Rock Municipal Airport and Kahului Airport in Maui). I don’t know why the data is missing for these two stations — wunderground shows data for them during 2009.

    In 2006, the GHCN v2.mean file had 1177 stations in the U.S. The decline from 1177 to 136 is about an order of magnitude.

    The main thing to note is that the current stations in the U.S. are mainly at airports.

  28. [Richard Tyndall (12:15:57) :

    “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.]

    [Speer (12:24:21) :

    The Founder/Director of this Russian institute is:
    1. a skeptic for a very long time already
    2. a very influential guy (he was senior advisor for Poetin)]

    Yeah, it would be good to get some independent scientific support on this since the guy has apparently been vehemently anti-Kyoto from the get-go. At the very least he should release the raw data to the public.

  29. “My concern would be that the IEA is a free market lobbying group/think tank.”

    Yes, that is my only concern as well, but seeing as this claim could easily be corroborated or disproved then why would they take a chance? They must have evidence to support this claim, and as the emails re: the Siberia papers show, it indeed have the ring of truth to it.

  30. Well, I’ve been of the opinion the world is warming, but CO2 is not the only culprit in the warming of the planet.

    But now I’m seeing so much data manipulation, I’m not even sure the Earth is warming, and how much it’s warming by if it is!

    I’m of the opinion that too much data has been deleted and/or manipulated to make anything reliable, one way or the other. When it comes to believing Russian data over that of the CRU, I find myself scratching my head and picking “None of the Above”.

  31. The debate on AGW reminds me of a Ghandi quote.

    “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

    It seems we are in a transition from the 3rd to 4th stage.

  32. Russia has a low population density. They have lands that are distant from heat island effect. I suspect the cause for some local worming trends is becoming obvious. Russians should feel insulted in how they abused tree proxy data.

  33. Lack of attribution and authorship leave one wondering. Whether it’s just the translation or bad Russian journalism, the lack of attribution here is troublesome. Saying that IEA is not enough. Someone in the IEA actually did the analysis. Who?

  34. Predicador (12:23:17) :

    Nick Stokes (11:55:35) :

    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?

    Sort of Cato institute, just in Russia. It’s lead by Andrey Illarionov who happens to work also for Cato institute in the US.

    Illarinov has been an AGW sceptic for years.

    You do not need climate science credentials if you are an economist and looking realistically at the economics of “battling climate change.”

  35. WAG (12:29:26) :

    If it were “that suspicious”, the DOE would not have put holds on all US employees data at CRU, Penn State would not be investigating Mann, and Phil Jones would still be running CRU.
    No, they defended the emails because they are real, not made up by Russians.
    Then they tried to justify thier email exchanges.
    None of the implicated ever said the emails were manufactured.
    Al Gore is walking around making one huge gaffe after another trying to repair the damage and James Hansen disowned Cap & Trade to avert attention.
    Nice try, but no cigar.

  36. Boballab

    Fair point :-)

    I just have an instinctive distrust of all these think tanks and lobbying outfits. As I say I am minded to believe them. It ties in well with what else we know about the weird data coming out of the Russian stations but I would so love to see this verified by another source.

    WAG (12:29:26) :

    That only works if you believe the CRU data wasa hacked. Most of us don’t. It looks way more likely it was a whistleblower inside CRU. The use of the Russian server was just convenient to cover tracks.

  37. I find these times of world-governance-creating (Copenhagen), really obvious and blatant ignoring of substantiated facts (behaviour of MSM re climategate), combined with the bizarre sight of Danish police detaining people who are supporting the Copenhagen (NWO) agenda, really bizarre….

    So much going on there, there really is, IMHO.

    If anyone knows the song ‘Busted’, first popularised by Johnny Cash:

    I think a parody of it, re climategate, would be something to put onYouTube.

    Except that they’d “pull it” (who else said that?) pretty quickly…

    Here’s my suggestion for a verse:

    The scientists lied
    The Truth was denied,
    Now they’re busted.

    Their graphs are all crap,
    They’re facing a rap,
    They’re busted.

    So dear Micheal Mann
    And the whole hockey team
    You’re busted
    Now we know things,
    Are not quite what they seem
    You’re busted
    Your lies are exposed
    Your cover is blown
    You’re going to jail
    And the faults all your own
    You’re busted!

  38. This is interesting – the southern hemisphere and the tropics haven’t warmed, all the warming is in the northern hemisphere and most in Russia and Canada.

    Has anyone investigated Canada’s temperature record??

  39. “Vincent (12:26:44) :

    Something about the way the report is worded is iffy?? It makes too many claims that doe not seem to have any basis.

    I’m on the “deniers” side of the fence but this smells fishy.”

    I agree. A lot of bogus stuff comes out of Russia (anyone remember the Podkletnov gravity shield?). These claims need to be assessed soberly and sceptically.

  40. Sadly, this sort of damning evidence will never appear in the MSM. The skeptics need a new strategy, IMO, because their current mostly internet-based tactic is being drowned out by the other side’s huge propaganda machine. They need new ideas. Even the increased popularity of sites like WUWT, climateaudit and others is not enough to push back the tide of GW disinfo that has swept the world in the last decade.

  41. I just got through the google translated document. The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.

    One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

    The paper failed to go the final step and compare a strictly rural set of data vs the CRU data.

  42. Oh, and they concluded by saying “if this is what the CRU did with Russia’s data, imagine what they must have done with the rest of the world.”

    Clearly they are a political economic organization, but raw data is raw data.

  43. I’m beginning to think that the Copenhagen exercise has been a valuable experience for the world. We’ve seen the undeveloped countries, which oddly include China, India, Brazil and South Africa, step forward with their hands out to the developed countries saying: “The science is settled: You’ve screwed up the world with your CO2. Now, unless you want us to clear cut the rainforests, you’ll pay us enough now to feed our people for years to come without having to do much developing of anything.” Meanwhile, the developed countries claim to be trying to devise tax schemes so that they can pay to save the rainforests. Hopefully, some delegations there are trying to stall to see whether the present solar minimum really is grand and might bring about some global cooling.

  44. “see whether the present solar minimum really is grand and might bring about some global cooling”
    Some nice activity today…

  45. Those of us who have been following the issue for some time likely recall the “Where’s Waldo” series of posts at CA. These pointed to the intersting coincidence of hot spots with sparse data in places like Siberia, China, Africa and the poles.

    Well now we learn that Siberia has a lot of temperature records – in stark contrast to what GISS and HadCRU led us to believe. And guess what – the temperature omitted records tell quite a diffrerent sory.

    Where’s Waldo – Indeed!

  46. vboring (12:51:15)

    Did the Russian release the raw data files? And if the UHI-contaminated files were picked, shouldn’t they have been dumped and only the rural files used instead of “all the raw data”? And couldn’t that have resulted in a rise of less than 1.4C rise since 1860?

    Just wondering.

  47. Should the recent change to GISS data into it’s new ‘homoginsed’ form (as reported here a few days ago) be seen as a pre-emptive attempt to cover the ‘cherry picked sites deception’ by rigging the underlying data instead?
    As I understand it the new homoginised data set mostly adjusts the rural sites. So if anyone – or an enquiry – were to use the new homogenised data not realising how it had been changed as input to try and cross-check CRU’s results but on rural stations then hey presto – I estimate they would find similar warming.
    From the establishment’s angle this nicely makes the ‘cherry picking’ issue irrelevent and even vindicates CRU’s warming!
    This ‘homoginisation’ of the data surely needs much more publicity, it looks like blatant data riging and I’m amazed they think they can do this – they are either total fools or have considerably more immunity and power than we think.
    It makes the Russian intervention reported here extremely important because we would hope it’s less likely that the Russian data can be got at and rigged.
    I feel very sad that we should have to look to Russia for scientific honesty and integrity.

  48. @ Jakers (13:00:59)

    They use the correct terminology (HadCRUT), I abbreviate.

    I hope people read this for themselves or at least look at the graphs and charts. The analysis makes a pretty obvious case for unjustifiable data selection techniques.

  49. “Has anyone investigated Canada’s temperature record??”

    One of my guest bloggers is working on that right now. Interesting findings to come, if initial results prove correct…

  50. vboring (13:07:30) :
    I don’t think you have your abbreviation correct then. CRU is the Climate Research Unit of East Anglia U., or something like that, and HADCRUT comes from Hadley, don’t it?

  51. I am going through it is the moment (with my school language knowledge)
    I will post a summary later, if there will be no one which does it sooner.

    On the first glance it seems only covering the facts.

  52. Funny that you can get more truth about AGW and the climategate mess from Pravda than you can get from the NY Times. Who would have ever thought?

  53. The founder of the Institute of Economic Analysis has a Wikipedia page. He was director till 2000 and is still listed as the blog writer. From 2000-2005 he was Putin’s senior economic adviser. He is an outspoken skeptic.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Illarionov

    An English language interview with him inn 2004 about Kyoto is available in RealPlayer format:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40165000/rm/_40165633_russia_kyoto_17may_vi.ram

    “Why so much disinformation going on?”

    “Science is still not settled down.”

    “We did not see so far any scientifically proven fact that there is any clear relations between carbon dioxide emission of anthropogenic character and global warming. We do see a lot of confirmation that global warming goes due to natural forcing, not to anthropogenic forcing.”

  54. @Jakers

    HadCrut is the combination of the Sea Surface Temp record from the The Hadley Center and the land surface temp record as compiled by the CRU of the University of East Anglia. So any overall measurements that say HadCrut in it the land protion comes from CRU.

    Had=Hadley
    CRU= Climatic Research Unit
    T=Temp

  55. I have no idea if these people deserve any credibility or not.

    But that’s the problem with not making the data available –it breeds conspiracy theories like maggots.

    Get the data out there. It will *eventually* create something much closer to consensus on major points of the temperature record.

    Not immediately, but eventually. Immediately, it will breed a host of reports like this one. Some of them will have varying degrees of merit, and some will be meritless. But the only way to get thru to the other side where a large degree of consensus *does* exist is to actually go thru the process.

    The stakes here are huge. That the scientists aren’t comfortable with the degree of scrutiny they are getting from “outside their lodge brothers” is just too bad. Be grown ups and deal with the reality that for the trillions of dollars you want the rest of us to re-purpose you will have to go thru this kind of scrutiny.

  56. Jakers,
    I agree with you, it’s pretty sad when our “scientists” are not as smart as a fifth grader. Thanks for pointing that out.
    Mike

  57. If you peruse the truly rural stations at surfacestations.org, it’s pretty impressive how the truly rural stations show little warming and follow the PDO fluctuations over the years. I see similar patterns in Lucy Skywalker’s data above as well some of the plots in the Russian paper. Very interesting, in deed….

    The one thing I don’t ever recall seeing discussed, though, seems obvious to me. Ice core data indicate CO2 rises on the order of 700-800 years after the temperature increases. The Medieval Warm Period was about 700-800 years ago. Could that lag be a significant factor in the rising CO2 levels today? If so, then it’s just coincidental that we’ve seen warming (if we’ve actually seen warming) while the CO2 levels were increasing.

  58. Because I see organized climate change proponents as essentially self-serving, anti-capitalists, I’m having a hard time buying anything that comes out of the USSR… I mean Russia … even if it fits my world view.

    The end result is that the data appears to be flawed, the interpretation of the data self-fulfilling, and the interests too vested to move.

  59. One would think GASPROM would have done this years ago and put it out, and would fall all over itself to get the raw data publicly available. What’s going on over there?

  60. Yes, as noted above use the Google Translator.

    The work to me appears very stringent and damning of CRU methods.

    Here is the Google translated last page conclusions.

    Page 21

    With Given the negative divergence of the temperature series until the mid 1950 years (up to 0,56 ° C) and a positive divergence of the temperature series in the mid-1990 years (up to 0,08 ° C) overstating the extent of warming of the staff HadCRUT, for the territory of Russia from 1870 to 1990-ies can be estimated as minimum of 0.64 degrees C.

    This estimate is at the same time very conservative, because calculations of temperature on the territory of Russia have been used all means at the base Hydromet data without conducting any meaningful their selection, as well as without them with the necessary correction, for example, the effect of urban heat effect.

    Distortion of temperature on such a scale for a country of such scale as Russia (12,5% of global land), can not affect (?) the over-scale global warming submitted HadCRUT and used in the IPCC reports.

    For identify the extent of this overstatement, and refinement of data on global change temperature should be a recalculation of the entire global array of temperature data.

    If the procedures for processing climate data found on the example Russia also apply to data relating to other regions the world, the inevitable correction of the calculation of global temperature and its changes in 20 century can be significant

  61. Speer (12:24:21) :

    “The Founder/Director of this Russian institute is:
    1. a skeptic for a very long time already
    2. a very influential guy (he was senior advisor for Poetin)”

    While I am all for being cautious about “think tank” institutes claiming facts one way or the other, it amuses me that certain people will jump all over the messenger in this case, but will not think twice when pro-AGW types (Al Gore, Jim Hansen, et al) make all sorts of wacky claims…

    In my opinion, if there’s more Russian land temperature data, then let’s see it – we can make up our own minds as to its significance. Given the evidence in the CRU e-mails, it would not surprise me in the least that they would cherry-pick the Russian data set.

  62. ” Invariant (13:28:19) :
    Jakers (13:10:15) :
    Which part of Peter’s analysis is erroneous?”
    How would I know? How would anyone know? It’s just a quick video of some graphs.

  63. It’s all because Russia has fossil fuels to sell … ‘says Al Gore’. See how easy it is to discredit.

    The pattern is clear, the CRU-NASA team has been cherry picking data around the world to try and assemble their hockey stick. No wonder they refused to give out their software code.

  64. NOAA’s latest spin- they even call them talking points.

    “A. Yes. That is one reason why NOAA created the Climate Reference Network. These stations
    adhere to all of the Global Climate Monitoring Principles and are located are located in areas free
    local human influences and have excellent site location characteristics. They are closely
    monitored and are subject to rigorous calibration procedures”

    What a bold bunch of liars they are!

  65. Quoting:
    “Just keep in mind that in Russian, you have to use double negatives. So “they never didn’t include the data” means “they didn’t include the data.”
    Commenting:
    It can go to triple negatives. For example – Я никогда не знаю ничего – “I never don’t know nothing.”

  66. “Call in the Cavalry: An American Team B

    Climategate just confirms what has long been obvious to those paying attention and living in the real world. Global warming never had anything to do with science. It was all about power and money. The UN saw it as a grand opportunity to expand its powers into a world government, and, in fact, is still breathlessly pursing this undemocratic, neo-fascist nightmare in Copenhagen. That explains the IPCC’s hopelessly bad science. Other world governments saw it as a tremendous opportunity to expand their power and control, and so joined in encouraging the Grand Hoax. The worldwide Left and media fellow travelers (imagining themselves as “liberals”) who philosophically, and quite naively, favor such centralized government control as a means to do “good,” joined in perpetuating the scientific hoax as well. Environmentalist extremist groups saw it as the chance for the final victory in gaining control over all private business, and hopefully achieving the ultimate environmentalist dream in repealing the Industrial Revolution. Michael Crichton’s State of Fear is now revealed as the ultimate sourcebook for understanding these environmentalist organizations.”

    The Great Hoax

    http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/16/the-great-hoax

  67. The CRU crew presents:

    The Biased Unethical Meteorology rap

    Yo! CO2 is on the rise
    As icecaps melt before our eyes
    Temperatures are getting’ higher
    And Al Gore is our favourite liar.

    Pump it up, pump up the gas
    Pump it up, before it’s passed.
    Somethings rotten in Denmark
    Kill the lights, keep ‘em in the dark.

    We get the data, fresh and clean
    And fix it up, know what we mean?
    Then cherry-pick the ones that rise
    The graph goes up, before our eyes.

    Shut ‘em down, shut down the guys
    Shut ‘em down, that see our lies.
    Somethings rotten in e-mails
    Flush the data, if all else fails.

    If our weather gets much colder
    Our cap and trade won’t get much older.
    We have to strike while the iron is hot
    Because our planet, it is not!

  68. I was wondering if a simple project can work. There are alot of people who view this sight that live all over North America. Was wondering if a simple project of everyone simply getting their daily temperature in their town and the the 20 nearest towns to them, and logging how many degrees plus or minus from “Average” it was for any given day, then simply summing the “anomolies” for the month. If you compile these from hundreds or thousands of towns, spread across north america, then you can see if if the end result is generally negative or positive. I think a cool website can be built for this which allows thousands to contribute. Then a comparison can be made against NASA.

  69. I’m sure Russians of all people would love to see a little global warming and if their scientists say something is fishy, then there is something really rotten in Denmark.

  70. tty (13:02:40) :

    “OT but amusing.

    There is a blizzard in Copenhagen.”

    Throw in a lean and hungry wolf-pack and you’ve made my day!

  71. “Funny that you can get more truth about AGW and the climategate mess from Pravda than you can get from the NY Times. Who would have ever thought?”

    Having seen Pravda articles pop up on a US Conservative site in the past year, I’d say there are English-speakers working for Pravda who know what buttons to push simply by reading US sites. That said, in spite of the fact that this accusation coincides with the cherry-picking of data by CRU and company, I would remain skeptical unless/until the Russian source releases the data to back up the claim.

  72. My upside down pyramid “picture” is becoming more and more appropriate. Think of climate science as a pyramid (upside down). The tip is the CRU-style science. Everything else is built on top of that in an ever-expanding pile. All the tens of thousands of news reports and the scientific papers you hear quoted in them are part of this pyramid with its tip crumpling. Somebody with a modicum of artistic ability good make a nice depiction of this to headline some of these posts.

  73. Jakers, the Russians interests in AGW are complex.

    One camp, those associated with petrodollars thru extraction and transport have little interest in a warmer world as it drives down speculated prices, others see it as an opportunity to make some carbon credit cash off of all of the industrial retrenchment they have endured over the past 15 years (an unintentional, carbon credit windfall). The best scenario for them is a treaty with weak enforcement and verification mechanisms, and a debunked warmer world scenario.

    And that is just the big fish, and who knows who is actually pulling the strings in the Kremlin and media this week. They do seem far more pragmatic about this then our elected leaders.

  74. Nick Stokes (11:55:35) :

    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?

    Not sure it matters in this case. Either the CRU did leave out a significant number of “inconvenient” Russian stations or they did not. Surely “authority” in this case comes from being right.

    WAG (12:29:26) :

    Yall say that global warming is a socialist plot to take over the world, and your favored source is… the Russians? Strange bedfellows indeed.

    Why would you trust the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis when it was a Russian server which housed the hacked CRU emails? Does THAT not seem suspicious?

    Come on… you can surely do better than that.

  75. Probably the most telling data selection bias: the HadCRU used 72 out of 73 (98.6%) stations that were moved while only using 25% of the total set of stations available.

    The chance of that happening randomly 0%.

    The reason they would prefer station that have been moved: it gives them the opportunity to provide a “correction.”

    The UK Met office has a good graphic depicting which stations they have data for (red) and which stations they used to create the HADCRUT3 records (gray): http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/locations.GIF

    You can see the big part of Russia with plenty of red dots, but no grays.

  76. There was a comment to a post a couple of years ago, on Steve’s site, that always stuck in my head. Basically it pointed out the hockey stick blade shot up about the time communism collapsed in Russia and the author of the comment made the equation that a lot of Russian surface stations may have gone out of service as a result of the political turmoil. At the time it could have been said that people maintaining surface stations would still have been doing their job – they needed the money with the Russian currency having problems. However, on reflection it was not the Russians who had failed to keep the temperature stations up to date but western climate scientists who deleted them. Might there be some mileage in checking out when these rural stations were deleted and whether or not it corresponds with the hockey blade in a meaningful fashion?

  77. I don’t know how the surface station data are weighted together to arrive at a global statistic, but with the cherry picking of just Russia and Antarctica together, we’re talking about a lot of land surface area of the globe. And aren’t there problems with China as well? Oh my!

  78. Jakers

    Why would Gazprom want to get this information out years ago? They have sold vastly more gas, at high-demand driven prices, to replace coal-fired generation. I saw an estimate yesterday that replacing US coal fired generation would result in a 50% increase in US electricity prices because of the effect it will have on natural gas prices. Those who live in states without much coal fired generation won’t be immune to the higher gas prices (quite the contrary since they’re already gas dependent).

  79. Richard Tyndall (12:15:57) : “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?” … It would be nice to see someone in Russia with a solid science/climate background back this up.

    And who would that be? Does it take someone with “a solid science/climate background” to observe that big chunks of data are missing?

    I realize that no matter who speaks out on the issue, there will always be those who shoot ad homs at the speaker. What are your CREDENTIALS?????? Russians can’t be trusted, not like the British, etc.

    But the nub of the issue is whether the IEA assertions are correct or not, not whether the IEA are running dogs of capitalism, Putin’s whelps, or whatever. It’s the assertions that are true or not, regardless of the splotches on the asserter.

  80. Martin B (12:49:48) :

    “Vincent (12:26:44) :

    Something about the way the report is worded is iffy?? It makes too many claims that doe not seem to have any basis.

    I’m on the “deniers” side of the fence but this smells fishy.”

    I agree. A lot of bogus stuff comes out of Russia (anyone remember the Podkletnov gravity shield?). These claims need to be assessed soberly and sceptically.

    Does it matter, just check the data and position of the 476 stations mentioned, then check cru`s choice of 121, if they are mainy urban it`s cherry picking, same as the tree rings. Russia is twice the size of the US why are less atations used,134 in US.

  81. Might be wrong but I seem to remember something the “Sceptical Environmentalist” about Siberia during the Soviet empire days being given more resources if it was colder so they tended to report colder temperatures for finantial gain.

    Once the USSR collapsed there was no need to do this so they reported the actual temperatures and so it immediately looked like significant warming in Siberia from about 1990 onwards.

  82. Invariant (14:19:59) :

    Jakers (13:46:59) : How would anyone know?

    What is meant by the phrase “Emperors new clothes”?

    “The Emperor’s New Clothes” (Danish: Kejserens nye Klæder) is a short tale by Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an Emperor a new suit of clothes invisible to those unfit for their positions or incompetent.
    When the Emperor parades before his subjects in his new clothes, a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!”

  83. I’ve just discovered a neat little feature on the BBC website. One can suggest search terms for their stories! In the heat of the moment I inserted “Climategate”, “Warmergate” and “BBC bias”. Sadly I forgot “Wattsupwiththat?”. You, dear colleagues, will not make the same mistake.

  84. Jakers (12:33:58) :

    Invariant (12:25:46) : –
    Well, you could read this http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf

    Sir, I read the first item above – …/response-v2.pdf. At the bottom of page 2, in the response to the fifth question, I read: “Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center…”. (italics mine)

    I don’t claim to have a handle on much of what is going on here, but I suspect their method of homogeneity adjustment is part of the problem, and any analysis using that data will be useless. If they homogenize the good data with bad data from surrounding stations, just what difference would you expect to see?

    Sorry about the links, I don’t know how to make them work.

    Ben

  85. PJB (13:54:29)

    Very nice. Now who can organize a professional rap group to produce a cool YouTube video with it? We need some sort of supercool viral publicity. It would be good for the cause and attract a younger following.

  86. Even the countries that repress freedom of the press and citizen-journalism appear to be reading these blogs and using this information to inform their position at the conference.

  87. In the lead piece it says “Steve McIntyre reports on Climate Audit that there’s an email from Michael Mann that is relevant:” If you double check the linked email It was an email written to Michael Mann, the quoted comment was from Phil Jones.

  88. I wonder if this is information that Russian FSB had promised to release in response to claims that it’s behind Climategate hacking…

    I am native russian speaker. Unfortunately this document is 21 pages long and I really have no time to translate it all.

    It looks that google did a fairly good job of translating though. It failed miserable on translating the title – it should be “How warming is made” (google turned it into “How is warming” :)

  89. It makes you think about how this will and should play out in the courts in regards to the EPA. The EPA has just issued an endangerment finding on CO2, now post climategate we discover all kinds of questionable behavior on the part of scientists (some out of country) who did the science EPA relied on. It’s doubtful Lisa Jackson (head of EPA) is going to back down from her endangerment finding. It seems like what is needed is a trial at which scientists can be sworn and questioned. I don’t see how this plays out.

  90. I must confess now to cherrypicking.

    Wilfully and blatantly, I am addicted. I am typing now with red stained fingers.

    Each year at this time the cherries come in, some from my backyard but most commercially from the nearby Young and Coootamundra region. They start small firm and red, firm enough to travel interstate and overseas and move on to large deep,deep, red almost plum sized beauties that can only travel well from the tree to your mouth. The rest ? cooked with brown and palm sugar and frozen to last throughout the summer.
    In our off season we go get Californian cherries and they are welcome, wish we had more trade like this with the US.
    36 degrees C here today, with welcome storms predicted tonight.

  91. I can provide at least the legend to the graphics …

    Schema 1 – geographic distribution of stations in Russia, blue are NOT used by HadCRUT

    Schema 2 – distibution of stations into grid 5° lon x 5°lat – blue are not used. longitude is horizontal

    Graphic 1 – Temperature records of some stations above 70° N latitude, not used in the HadCRUT

    stations: terpaj-Tumsa?
    Salaruova (NOAA RA21647)
    Saskyalh (218020)
    Dzalynda
    Kjusjur (21921)
    Jubilejnaja – probably airport (per google)

    There is a not also that although there are 16 stations between 50-55°N and 70-90°E, not one station is part of the dataset.

    Graphic 2 – Temp. records of stations of cell 65-70°N 35-40°E not used in HadCRUT
    Teriberka(22028)
    Kanevka (22249)
    Zizgin(22438)

    Graphic 3 – Temp records of stations of cell 50-55°N 35-40°E used in HadCRUT
    Pavelec
    Kursk
    Voronez
    all of them are showing warming…

    Graphic 4 – number of measurements available – HadCRUT uses station Toko (yellow one)

    Graphic 5 – dataset of stations Sortavala and Petrozavodsk as reported by Russian Weather Service
    Graphic 6 – same as above, but as reported by HadCRUT

    Graphic 7 – temp. data of stations Buinaksk and Machackala. Used is Machackala, although the station was moved 3 times in the past

    Graphic 8 – mean temp. difference of all stations (blue) and hadcrut (red), baseline 1961-1990, 11 year smoothing (hope it makes sense)

    Graphic 9 – Temperature anomaly Difference between all and hadcrut, 11 year smoothing

    Note – the NOAA station numbers are without any guarantee

  92. Kitefreak
    “As I’ve said before: what else have we been lied to about, by those we thought 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..”

    I’d like to suggest some! After growing up trusting global warming was man made, I looked again at the way it was being ‘managed’ & the similarities are marked.

    In particular, the orchestration of media, science & politicians to limit the agenda & the use of ridicule to marginalise dissent.

    I ask people to look again at the evidence that has been gathered by people regarding 9/11, 7/7, vaccinations being used to spread illness & cause the pandemics of autism & autoimmune diseases, bioweapons being released into populations, chemtrails, suppression of zero point ‘free’ energy devices & the truth embargo on the ET/UFO presence.

    Just as people here have relentlessly pursued the truth in the area of climate, others of integrity have been working hard despite being attacked both personally & professionally.

    I agree with you kitefreak, you can almost hear the masses waking up to realise the emperor has no clothes…

    For me, it was

    loose change:

    & zeitgeist:

    & after seeing several UFO’s myself I watched Dr Steven Greer’s ‘disclosure project’
    part 1

    part 2

    since that time Dr Ed Mitchell, Apollo astronaut has also come forward

    I think what we are witnessing is a global awakening to how we have been manipulated & controlled by those in power who have developed techniques & technologies secretly so as to consolidate their power & wealth over humanity.

    When I first started to become aware of this, I was very sad & angry but as I learnt more I discovered that one of the areas of knowledge that had been studied & suppressed was the area of consciousness & how it interfaces with what we know as reality, & the power we have when we claim back our consciousness & learn how to use it…

    ‘what the bleep do we know’ started that all off for me.

    http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/what_the_bleep_do_we_know.php

    Hope someone finds the links useful.

    Just want to thank everyone here for their integrity & commitment to the truth because by revealing the truth, you are actually preventing the imposition of a fascist tyranny on humanity, whether you know it or not.

    Love to all.

  93. I’m glad to see that someone posted this news over at RC on their “Are the CRU data “suspect”? An objective assessment.” Thread. I’d like to relate my experience there, over the last two days.

    I posted a comment yesterday suggesting that their “objective” assessment wasn’t terribly “objective”. Eric snipped my comment from three paragraphs to one paragraph and dismissed it with a curt “read it again, slowly….” In other words, the RC crew who claim the Climategate emails are “taken out of context” is perfectly fine with editing comments to the point where they are “out of context” so their snappy comebacks makes themselves themselves look good to the alarmist acolytes.

    I posted a second comment today, reeinforicing the lack of “objectivity” in their thread, suggesting that if they were really trying to be objective, they would have selected the most “pristine” (least needing UHI and TOB and other “anthropogenic” fiddling) sites from the database, rather than a random selection, and would have used the pristine sites to confirm CRU’s results as well as the validity of the “concensus” anthropogenic corrections they and CRU apply to the raw data. Otherwise their objective analysis has only confirmed Pielke’s opinion of CRU and GISS et all as not being independent.

    I also pointed out that although the means matched in their figures, the variances don’t, so why not? That is the kind of question they that a peer reviewer would key on, and unless they can explain why not, it further discredits the “objectivity” of their analysis.

    I now note my second comment AND THE FIRST have been deleted.

    So once again we see their hypocrisy — after railing against skeptic web studies that haven’t gone through rigourous “peer review”, they do the same things themselves and post an “objective” study on RC for the alarmist acolytes to propagate — without “peer review” — then suppress critical comments that point out faults — known in some scientific circles as “peer review”.

    So, all in all, my objective opinion of their use of “objective” is summarized in the quote from the Red Queen “Words mean what I say they mean”

  94. Ah here it is: The Environment Debate. BBC feature/discussion on the movie “The Age Of Stupid” (ironic title, that), with Lindzen, Watson and Lombourg. I thought it was well balanced, although they didn’t discuss the CRU emails (it seems they weren’t allowed to because they’re the subject of an enquiry – LOL).

  95. I have just watched BBC’s Tuesday night NEWSNIGHT.

    I am lost for words. I was screaming at the TV.. YOU FRICKING LIAR…..

    It was the most shameless attempt at Primary School Level opinion forming + an appeal to authority featuring the most deceitful SCIENTIST I have ever heard.

    I must go now… and smash something to pieces.. or punch the wall. Or something. This package needs recording and posting on Youtube…. It was pure evil.

  96. “reLOVEution (14:50:57) : wrote

    Kitefreak
    “As I’ve said before: what else have we been lied to about, by those we thought 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..”

    Good thought out post.
    May I just disagree with you on the Zeitgeist video to be aware. While I agree with the Ghost of Our Times premise, the conclusion is Gaia worship.

    My I recommend these for those interested in a complete awakening.

    Down load this video, as it is very difficult to find on the Internet.
    The Calling – Full HD Version

    http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=55659929

    KYMATICA, by Ben Stewart

  97. Confirmation of this charge is needed from an official Russian government source, or at least an established Russian scientific society.

  98. From the first page:
    “It is easy to see that the meteorological stations located in the Russian territory is not entirely uniform and their concentration significantly higher in western and southern parts of the country, while in the north and east – notably less.

    However, it should be noted that the total Meteorological measurements are carried out in 152 cells grid in the Russian territory. In other words, the existing meteorological network infrastructure provides a good opportunity to reach observations in the vast majority of the country. For inclusion in the calculation Global temperature data from all cells in the Russian territory, the share of Russia’s participation should constitute approximately 10% (152 cells of 1500 cells of world grid). However, it turns out that this is not so. “

  99. Jakers (12:33:58) :
    >> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

    This seems suspicious. An increased number of stations should give less variation, not more.

    With lots of stations to average, the IPCC/CRU claims an amazing accuracy of +/- 0.05°C which only grows to +/- 0.15°C back in 1880 (long before Stevenson screens and with recording to the nearest 1 degree). The measurement error is supposed to be 0.04C on monthly average temperatures (Phil Jones et al, 2004).

  100. Roger Knights (15:16:31) : Confirmation of this charge is needed from an official Russian government source, or at least an established Russian scientific society

    Dont be daft. The Russians want to be paid for their oil and then again in cap n trade from the guys they sell it to using the oil. And Gordon Brown and his stupid glum men are stupid enough to want to do so and urge others to follow his example.

  101. “From the first page:
    “It is easy to see that the meteorological stations located in the Russian territory is not entirely uniform and their concentration significantly higher in western and southern parts of the country, while in the north and east – notably less.”
    EM Smith? – “The March of the Thermometers”? wow!

  102. This is OT but I hadn’t heard it mentioned in the news yet.

    Executive Order 13514 signed on 5 Oct applicable to all U.S. Federal Agencies requires agencies to establish reduction goals perform inventory, etc., etc. ……….

  103. Not for this topic but can someone explain how one can infer temperatures from tree rings, especially to the degree of precision that seems to be claimed by Briffa et al.

    When I was going through Pleistocene geology courses years ago, we learned about using tree rings to establish chronologies, but I don’t think anyone would have tried to correlate rings to temperature.

    Can anyone help out.. or provide some links?

  104. Thanks Michael, I see earth as a sentient being, more like a mother. I didn’t get the Gaia worship thing in ZEITGEIST at all, what made you feel that?
    I have seen Kymatica & loved it, but am downloading the calling.
    Isn’t this an amazing time to be alive!?
    A RENAISSANCE OF HUMANITY!
    X

  105. My Grandfather told the story of how he lost his first job in 1904. He worked for a butcher who fired him for not being able to learn how to weigh his fingers along with the meat without getting caught by customers. Some at CRU should suffer the same fate.

  106. John Mackie – I saw the same (Wednesday ;)) Newsnight, and had to turn over for the sake of the TV.

    They weren’t even sceptics in the audience, but plants.

  107. john mackie (15:12:52) :

    “I have just watched BBC’s Tuesday night NEWSNIGHT.

    I am lost for words. I was screaming at the TV.. YOU FRICKING LIAR…..”

    Same here it was an absolute disgrace. Totally misleading and shallow. For others it was the experiment you may have seen with plastic bottles, temperature probes and CO2 introduced to one of the bottles. Claiming it proved Global warming.

    Here’s how to complain

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/

  108. Not only the plastic bottle nonsense… but the ‘Scientist’ who snidely tried

    a) to imply the emails were hacked over a long period… (because they covered a long period)…. and

    b) some attempt to imply that cell phonese etc. were hacked.. (If I remember properly).. and only some kind of government secret services could do that. (I think he said that.. I was too busy shouting at the TV. I will rewatch on IPlayer and refresh my memory.

    THEN… it moved on to…’now you have seen the plastic bottle thing’ are you still skeptical?

    CUE… OBVIOUS plant… ‘NOW I AM A BELIEVER!’… he dutifully chirps. FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I want to know WhoTF they think they are kidding.

    ARGHHH!!!

  109. whoops, my mistake,

    Both of my comments are posted on RC (on pages 2 & 3), the first one is snipped, the second one not yet…

  110. ReLOVEution I agree with you to some extent. But I’m fussy about evidence.

    I focussed on Climate Science because that was a clearly defined issue that had been corrupted, a whole order of magnitude bigger than the rest as regards immediate importance, and to me it could be fought and needed to be fought. The Second World War was able to define the evil of Nazi Germany territorially. But it doesn’t work like that now. The battleground has shifted. Almost all the malfeasance is from positions of power, globally: media, politics, and the faux front of the Science that had been usurped from within. It is just like Hamlet’s uncle, murdering Hamlet’s father the true king, by pouring poison in his ear while he slept, and then marrying Hamlet’s mother, Lady Science.

    Then I found these wonderful blogs that actually work by the values and integrity I also support, that could give me the leads to discover and understand the true science. Like many I got hooked!

    But Climate Science is only the beginning. There is more, as you note. Yet also, IMHO, ClimateGate could not have happened earlier. I am aware it could have been an act of divine intervention, not even a whistleblower. To those who discount the possibility of miracles, I say:

    Go check the evidence. The data. The facts. Dig deeper than CSICOP or Sagan.

    And BTW, read the older story of Hamlet written by the Danish Saxo Grammaticus, quoted at length in the classic Hamlet’s Mill. It is an even truer analogy of the climate scam than Shakespeare, and it is earthier and full of life.

  111. In it’s Google translation, the report seems legitimate. It’s title page cites author and collaborator,

    Author: NA Pivovarova Редакция: А.Н.Илларионов Revision: AN Illarionov

    and from what I can gather of the main text, makes a fair case for re-examining the Russian temperature record using different criteria. For example, the authors don’t think a sufficiently large sampling of stations was used to represent the large land mass involved.

    I look forward to reading a good translation, which some of you may provide.

  112. Jakers (12:33:58) :

    Invariant (12:25:46) : –
    Well, you could read this http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/wmo/ccl/rural-urban.pdf

    Jakers, thanks for the links. In the 2nd PDF contained a reference to Boice (1996), “UHI in San Antonio, TX”. The conclusion of that paper: “Despite many mitigating influences (much vegetation, little polluting industry) San Antonio has an increasing UHI”, which elsewhere in the abstract was estimated to be 5.4°F / Century. (The SA temperature data was compared to 3 rural surrounding towns).

    I guess Peterson didn’t bother reading the Boice abstract before referencing it in his paper.

  113. Finally! The Russians cooperate with Obama! Diplomaceh-by-weakness pays off bigtime!
    Must get to the TV stat before he starts his triumphant tout.

  114. Important caveat – their analysis rests on assumption that all of the Russian station data used has already been released (my translation):

    “ГУ «ВНИИГМИ— МЦД» currently maintains open access to a database that includes temperature changes of 476 Russian surface meteorological stations up to year 2006 http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php.

    Out of approximately 1500 meteorological stations for which Hadley Center released the data, 121 station is located in the territory of Russia. They comprise approximately 8,1% of the total number of stations for which data was released and 2,4% of the total number of stations whose measurements were used to calculate global temperature. Since the accompanying note states that the data of of approximately 3500 other stations is to be released pending permission from national authorities, it can be assumed that there will be no more data from Russian stations among them

    In other words, to calculate global surface temperatures (land temperature) Hadley Center, apparently, used the data of only quarter (121 of 476) of Russian stations, for which it either did not need or already received permission from Russian authorities.”

    If I understand correctly, the authors are a bit sloppy with identifying who calculates what and who releases the data. Other than that the analysis looks impressive to this nonscientist.

    Appeals to a person of Mr. Illarionov or his advisory role to president Putin is nonsensical. Yes, Illarion is indeed a liberal, has been adviser, but he also has been one of the most outspoken Putin’s critics. What the authors say should stand or fall on merits.

  115. The beautiful irony is in the so-called divergence problem. If Briffa compared his tree rings to doctored temperature data, they would show a divergence in the exact direction as he found. On the other hand if he used non-value-added data perhaps the divergence would not exist or at least be attenuated.
    You gotta love it.

  116. The real crime is that it takes the Russians to “discover” that the books have been cooked in the Russian data set. Where is the U.S. government? Where is Obama, Holdren, Hansen and the agencies on this. The crime is that they are part of the coverup. At the moment they are all still shouting fire in the movie theater. What other datasets have been cooked?

  117. One could take a rather (you should pardon the expression!) “skeptical” view of the Russians’ claim that:

    “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.”

    I do not subscribe to the “conspiracy theory of history”. But, it seems to me that if the CRU crew and their buddies around the world (who together succeeded in getting the “CO2 causes global warming” bandwagon rolling) expected the high level of funding for their “research” to continue after Copenhagen, the very last thing they should have been touting is that “the science is settled” (or too often heard words to that effect).

    You see, if the outcome of the Copenhagen CarbonFest were to meet their wildest dreams, it would be “irresponsible” of the nations of the world to continue funding the CRUdites, wouldn’t it? More likely the response would be “thank you very much, your work is done here”.

    So, with the CarbonFest in chaos – and the “real” agenda finally forging its way to the fore – a presumably non-binding “agreement” , rather than a binding “treaty”, appears to be in the works. This could keep the door open for continued funding of “climate science” research.

    Perhaps in anticipation of this newly opened door, we now have the Russians stepping up to the (funding?!) plate, since it increasingly appears that the Hockey-stick Team has at least three strikes against them (and we’re still counting those strikes!)

    http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/chaotic-copenhagen-a-truth-slips-out/

  118. why do we trust any single organization to provide the global temperature record? Would it not close the door on manipulation if each country created their own temperature record instead of submitting raw data to a handful of organizations who may or may not have an agenda?

  119. “Dr.T G Watkins (12:02:43) :

    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.”

    *****************************

    I know an alcoholic lawyer with dementia who flunked the bar and really needs some work. He would work REAL hard and he’s cheap.

  120. It is interesting to examine one of the Siberian cells the IPCC shows as having the strongest warming on earth : – 65 to 70 N; by 115 to 120 E.

    Despite claiming the strongest warming, the IPCC has no data for this cell at all and none appear on the GISS list. It shows all surrounding cells (except the one above which is blank) as warming but to a lesser degree.

    Surrounding cells are as follows (from GISS data):
    Left:
    Olenek (slight warming)
    Selagoncy (no change)
    Right:
    Dzardzan (no change)
    Zhigansk (no change)
    Below:
    Suntar (slight warming)

    The Russian paper claims this this cell does have a weather station that is not used by CRU/IPCC.

    Does anyone have information on this station please ?

  121. Big Al’s Sub Shop.

    Big Al’s Motto: I am a liar.
    …-

    “The clarification said that Mr Gore “misspoke” on the polar ice prediction and that he meant that the cap would be nearly ice-free.”

    “Al Gore tries to cool ‘climate spin’ by correcting claims of North pole thaw”

    “Mr Gore’s office, however, stood by the choice of data. It said that the US Navy research unit was in a stronger position to give predictions as it had unique access to measurements of ice volume by submarines.”

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6959509.ece

  122. Leon Palmer (15:09:44) :

    Leon – sadly, you experience is not unique. The people who run RC have no respect for you ir your opinions unless you think like them. It’s the same with the MSM and conservatives – somehow people think that if they are nice enough, their opinions will be aired objectively, when, in fact, they will be ridiculed unless they are in line with the MSM journalists.

    The response to RC is the same as my response to the MSM. Don’t patronize their site, and don’t try to win their respect – it’s a losing cause. They simply don’t care about what you or anyone else thinks. It’s their sandbox – let them have it and ignore them.

  123. Well, we now know why there is a decline in the tree-rings starting in about 1950-60.

    Temperatures were actually falling in the northern areas where most of the tree-rings come from.

    We used to understand there was a general decline in temperatures from 1940 to about 1979, especially in the more northern areas. The tree-rings picked this up (and there are not many tree-ring samples dated to the post-1979 period when it started to warm up a little again).

    But the actual temperatures were adjusted upward which created a “divergence”.

    So, Jones and Mann were not only “hiding the decline” in tree-rings, they were also hiding the decline in temperatures.

  124. I don’t wish to dampen the spirits of fellow sceptics at this apparent revelation but I would suggest a possible alternate take. It appears to me that the Russian authors are suggesting that the subset of temperature records recently posted December 08, 2009 by the MET at

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html

    are not representative of Russian stations. This is very likely true based on my reading of their report. They may not be saying that HadCRUT does this with official temperature determinations.

  125. I really think it is very important to continually mention and remind everyone of the people behind this activity.
    The Hadley Climate Research Unit consists of people.
    People with names.
    People with names, who in their positions made decisions and directed others..
    Deliberate and unethical decisions and directions.
    It wasn’t a Center or a system that did this. It was people.

    These people, with names, must be held accountable and face severe consequences in order to preserve the “Center” and institutions human progress relies upon.

    Way too often individuals escape consequences when Mr. Nobody “The system” takes all the blame.

    All that does is make sure the problem will happen again and again.

    Name them.

  126. Unrelated post.
    I have just watched the most excruciatingly absurd ‘experiment’ to prove CO2 causes global warming on BBC’s Newsnight (a nightly, highly regarded’ authoritative source of information). I am lost for words. Watch it on BBC i-player and particularly keep a close eye on the temp. readouts. Even I, a senior retired establishment chap, wonders if there is a conspiracy against science or are just reaping the demise of science teaching in schools so that all our journalists and politicians are, in the nicest possible sense, ignorant (not unintelligent) of science.

  127. Frank K. (17:07:52) :

    I believe that have a good idea for an objective analysis, that done objectively might confirm the CRU results. If so that would be a real contribution to the science, since most of the scepticism revolves around the “anthropogenic” corrections, more than around the raw data (which has it’s own set of problems).

    However, I don’t believe they will, and if even if they did and it falsified CRU, would they publish it? So I still think it is incumbent upon skeptics, lukewarmers, alarmist to stimulate them with a stick every now again to measure their response :-)

  128. Soon enough “Climate change” – formerly known as “Global Warming” will join the ranks of bad predictions.

    And it will yet again confound “scientists” (SIC) how so many could be so easily led astray by so few. (Until they remember a man in Germany some 64 years ago.
    A man with brown trousers and a dodgy preussian moustache.)

  129. Dr A Burns (17:00:14) :

    It is interesting to examine one of the Siberian cells the IPCC shows as having the strongest warming on earth : – 65 to 70 N; by 115 to 120 E.

    Despite claiming the strongest warming, the IPCC has no data for this cell at all and none appear on the GISS list. It shows all surrounding cells (except the one above which is blank) as warming but to a lesser degree.

    Surrounding cells are as follows (from GISS data):
    Left:
    Olenek (slight warming)
    Selagoncy (no change)
    Right:
    Dzardzan (no change)
    Zhigansk (no change)
    Below:
    Suntar (slight warming)

    —–

    Interestingly, when you go to the VNIIGMI-MTsD website (http://meteo.ru/), they show the following on their stations list (http://meteo.ru/climate/katalog2.htm):

    Station Sukhana, ID 24136, running since 1938 with no recorded moves. Lat 68deg37′ N, Lon 118deg20’E. That’d be the one right in the square you are looking at. Smack in the middle of the square, even.

    The raw Russian data is available via an app at http://aisori.meteo.ru/climate

  130. AdderW (16:36:15) :
    maz2 (17:00:55) :
    “al gore’s office”
    “mr. gore’s office”
    what, his office at google?

    even i have what can be called an “office”
    MSM still sucking up, imho

  131. Dr.T G Watkins(Wales) (17:20:21) :

    Unrelated post.
    I have just watched the most excruciatingly absurd ‘experiment’ to prove CO2 causes global warming on BBC’s Newsnight (a nightly, highly regarded’ authoritative source of information). I am lost for words. Watch it on BBC i-player and particularly keep a close eye on the temp. readouts. Even I, a senior retired establishment chap, wonders if there is a conspiracy against science or are just reaping the demise of science teaching in schools so that all our journalists and politicians are, in the nicest possible sense, ignorant (not unintelligent) of science.

    What gets me, and leaves me dumbfounded, is how “not actually understanding anything” seems to have become a virtue in our western-anglo society.

    Being in agreement with others trumps demonstable knowledge of a thing.

    Groupthink in action.

  132. Just to push back a little, I remember reading that during the Soviet Union days, sites in Siberia got extra support( fuel etc) in colder weather. So there may well have been a bias to report colder temperatures then, with a more recent catchup.
    In any case, clearly the quality of the recorded data has to be vetted more intensely than has been done to date.
    For unbiased sources, it appears that Dr Briffa’s tree cores are probably more correct overall ( adjusting for outlier instances such as Yamal trees) than the mass of the CRu’s thermometers. Shipboard readings from old log books may be the most reliable human record that we have, free from UHI distortions or economic incentives for adjustment.

  133. Jerry (16:27:32) :

    “The beautiful irony is in the so-called divergence problem. If Briffa compared his tree rings to doctored temperature data, they would show a divergence in the exact direction as he found. On the other hand if he used non-value-added data perhaps the divergence would not exist or at least be attenuated.”

    It’d be amusing to find out that, taking into account the “human factor” that tree rings are a better means of measuring temperature than thermometers and satellites!

  134. Chiefio has done a credible job of looking at station dropout and relocation statistics around the world. In his words, “the only warming I see is from Thermometer Change.”

    If rural stations are shut down, the average temperature will rise. If high altitude stations are shut down, the average temperature will rise. If mercury thermometers are replaced with electronic substitutes, the continuous record is interrupted and naturally things must now be ‘adjusted’ to conform. All of these changes have happened, and if you rely on GHCN statistics taken at face value, the latest decade IS the hottest. But this is indeed “man-made warming” because it occurs only in the statistics, not in the, you know, actual atmosphere, which has inconveniently refused to warm.

    Spend some time at his site…start at this link. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/

  135. RE: Bill Parsons (12:37:28)

    “Lack of attribution and authorship leave one wondering.”

    Don’t bother wondering. Just take a leaf out of the warmist bible. Lets say that this report was authord by, I don’t know, over 4000 expert climate scientists from 5000 of the worlds top research institutions across over say 500 countries and is based on over 100 000 peer-reviewed articles. No repeat that 1 million times to yourself until you believe it, then repeat it 1 million times to all your friends until they believe it, pretty soon it will become fact.

  136. Why yes, I can translate:

    Ze Mann iz, how to say, much stupid! Ze global warming? Nyet!

    That about covers the article I think.

  137. Not sure if anyone already posted this… I am pretty sure the new story originated from Kommersant – Notice that is the name above the story on RIA Novosti. Here’s the Google translated page of the story on Kommersant:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.kommersant.ru/&ei=GZcpS8SkCJKYtgen1fCACQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKommersant%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu%26rlz%3D1I7GGIH_en

    REPLY: There are several stories on that page, none of which seem relevant. Please provide more info. -Anthony

  138. Has anyone tried to overlay CO2 concentrations (e.g., from GOSAT) with temperature anomaly map? It would be interesting… I expect that there would be a big discrepancy between the purported warming of Siberia and CO2.

  139. Some commenters have raised questions about Dr. Andrei Illarionov.

    I have had the honor and privilege of having spent some time with him. He’s not only an excellent analyst, more importantly, he is a person of the highest integrity, principles, and courage. But for these attributes, he might have been as wealthy as any oligarch – something many pushing cap-and-trade would love to be. He stood up to Putin and, in my opinion, is fortunate he’s still a free man and to have survived. Read the Washington Post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122700456.html

    Yes, he’s a skeptic, as all thinking men ought to be.

    In my book, he’s right up there with Professor Vaclav Klaus. Yes, I’m biased.

    [REPLY – Well said! ~ Evan]

  140. Since Real Climate won’t post my comments anyway, I speak directly to the moderators. Something like, “I hope they bury the hockey stick with your career” or “Why are you still here? – no one believes a word you say.”

  141. Here is the answer of International Civil Coalition on Climate Change
    Source: http://www.iea.ru/kioto_order.php?id=8

    Scientific consensus on climate issues do not exist …

    Message of 56 newspapers, including the “Novaya Gazeta” to the world community about the dangers of global warming met with a ambiguous assessment of the experts.

    December 7, 2009 “Novaya Gazeta”, along with another 55 editions in 44 countries issued a common column editor, prepared by the editors of The Guardian. In it readers appealed step forth with the “united front” against what the authors call “a real threat to mankind”.

    The International Civilian Coalition on Climate Change (GKIK) disagreed with this treatment and prepared its response to it, published to date in 14 countries. GKIK believes that “the treatment of 56-ty” significantly distorts the actual picture of climate change. Moreover, instead of help in solving the real problems facing humanity, it urged the international community to implement a policy that threatens mankind in incomparably greater degree than actual and quite modest (in a historical perspective) of climate change on the planet.

    The appeal, issued on December 7, argues that “global warming will cause irreparable damage to our planet, and with it, and our well-being and security.” In fact, raising global temperatures, recorded in the twentieth century, does not go beyond the more unusual and extreme fluctuations of the thermal regime, repeatedly observed in Earth’s history. On the other hand, the suppression of economic growth and slowing down (if not a halt) standards of living as a result of the recommended treatment policy is a real problem for billions of people around the world, including the citizens of our country.

    Adoption of the “11 of the last 14 years were the warmest in the history of observations is not entirely correct, since the period of instrumental observations is too short, so on that basis make such arrogant statements about the long-term climate changes. The global climate during the repeated warming of the past – the medieval climatic optimum, the ancient climatic optimum, the Holocene Optimum – was warmer than the present climate at 1-3 ° C. Moreover, in the last 10 years is not observed increase in global temperature, and satellite data indicated even a slight cooling.

    Adoption of the “Arctic ice melt” is outdated. Instead of reducing the area of ice cover in the Arctic is actually observed in 1979-2007 yy. In recent years its growth has come. In those same years an increase in the Antarctic ice sheet was observed.

    “Excessive prices for oil and food” to a certain extent are the result of policy restrictions on the use of hydrocarbons, the effect of extrusion from the structure of arable food crops through improved crop plants from which ethanol is produced to replace hydrocarbons as fuel. In other words, the very recommended treatment policy ensures “high prices for oil and food, leading to chaos awaiting us in the future.”

    It is not true assertion that “in scientific journals will no longer raises the question of whether to blame the warming of humanity. There is still vibrant discussion in the scientific community on climate change issue, its direction, magnitude, speed, impact, possible, permissible and optimal actions of mankind in this regard.

    Perhaps the only thing you can agree to some extent in a published appeal, it is the fact that the currently available scientific evidence is confusing. In other words, this appeal confirms that nothing like this so-called “scientific consensus” about climate change on the planet does not exist. The degree of uncertainty in understanding the nature of climate change is such that it does not allow any responsible governments to take costly solutions on the shaky and even more lack of scientific basis.

    The forecast of the extents of warming and its effects, made in the appeal: “At 3-4 ° C – the very small increase, which can be expected in the case of inaction – will dry whole continents, turning grasslands into desert. Half of the species will become extinct, millions of people will be forced to leave the place of residence, the whole country will go under the water” is based on no serious scientific research and is a pure fantasy of its authors.

    It is unfortunate that the letter, published in the pages of “Novaya Gazeta”, contains a statement about “the guilt of humanity, reflecting an anti-human views of the authors of this text.

    Andrei Illarionov,
    President of the Institute of Economic Analysis, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute

    GKIK’s answer

    Poverty, which supposedly take care of the initiators of the treatment 56-tees, is a consequence of state policy that prevents people to create wealth and provide decent living for themselves and their loved ones. It is unfortunate that some leaders of developing countries attending the summit in Copenhagen, trying to explain the hunger and disease in their countries only references to climate change.

    Under the guise of concern for the poorer countries, the leaders of the Copenhagen Conference in fact, seems more interested in ensuring the financial interests of companies such as, for example, ArcelorMittal, fearful of losing 1 billion pounds of carbon credits in 2012, whith the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol.

    Instead of articulating and prosecution of false targets, political leaders gathered in Copenhagen, should concentrate on the other – to develop policies that promote more effective human adaptation to climate change, economic growth, the development of free trade, protection of property rights, strengthen democracy.

    Sincerely, members of the International Civil Coalition on Climate Change (GKIK):

    Eustace Davie, FMF, South Africa, Julian Morris, IPN, United Kingdom; Franklin Cujo, Imani, Ghana; Obianva Ekenedilichukvu, CETD, Nigeria; Nonoy Oplas, MGT, Philippines; Singyan Feng, Xia Yelyang, CIPA, China; Naydzher Innis, CORE, U.S. Barun Mitra, Liberty Institute, India; Martin Krause, CIIMA-ESEADE, Argentina; Pierre Bessar, Institut Constant de Rebecque, Switzerland; Rokio Guydzharro, CEDICE, Venezuela; Wolfgang Müller, Oliver Knipping, IUF, Germany, Andrei Illarionov, IEA , Russia; Carlo Stagnaro, IBL, Italy, Jose Luis Tapia Rocha, ILE, Peru; Vae Sayful Wang Yan, MTT, Malaysia; Krasen Stanchev, IME, Bulgaria.

    [REPLY – Very well. But PLEASE CHANGE YOUR TAG. Or I shall be obliged to start deleting your posts. ~ Evan]

  142. Yes, well said Mr./Dr. Goklany!

    But now onto more serious matters/not.

    Dr.T G Watkins (12:02:43) :

    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.”

    My contribution, I’m suggesting the “Ward Churchill + Judith Curry” defense strategy: the rights of genuine fakes [Indian and Scientist] and “tribes” [both, again] to have equal standing with other tribes in this great country; and, regardless, as justifying almost anything Climate Scientists might do as fitting the Tribal Standard of Practice in Climate Science. I will not elaborate further as to the secret weapons in my medicine pouch, except you can be sure it counts a coup de grace or two. And I do expect to be paid if this defense is used, because it’s “proprietary” – it’s mine, bitches! Not just anyone can use it.

  143. I wrote today in a comment on RealClimate (not published) re: their “cherry picking” defense: How large must the sample size of picked cherries be before it ceases to be “cherry picking?”

  144. Ian B (15:41:35) :

    James Randi appears to have broken ranks–

    http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html

    That link doesn’t work.

    Jerry (16:27:32) :

    “The beautiful irony is in the so-called divergence problem. If Briffa compared his tree rings to doctored temperature data, they would show a divergence in the exact direction as he found. On the other hand if he used non-value-added data perhaps the divergence would not exist or at least be attenuated. You gotta love it.”

    Wow. “Getting warmer” (closer to the truth)?

    “Way too often individuals escape consequences when Mr. Nobody “The system” takes all the blame.

    “All that does is make sure the problem will happen again and again.

    “Name them.”

    Maybe there’ll be a congressional investigation (of NASA, etc.)

  145. I thought there were about 1200 official temperature stations in the USA, and most of them were visited by Anthony’s volunteers. Tonight I see there are only 134. What gives?

  146. With respect, Dr. Goklany appears not to have read the front page of his own website lately, in which he claims to be the originator of the following policy: “Sustainable development will make developing countries less vulnerable to future climate change while helping solve today’s urgent climate-related problems such as malaria, hunger and threats to species and ecosystems.”

    It is hard for me, so far, to reconcile such claims with his statement earlier in this thread that all thinking men should be skeptics.

    Perhaps, at a minimum, he would like to disavow any connection between malaria and “climate change”?

  147. RE:
    Lucy Skywalker (13:24:10) :

    **Here’s the GISS unadjusted Russian stations I used for my page comparing Yamal treerings to lots of nearby thermometer records. It all bears out this latest report IMO.**

    Have you checked which stations RC used in their “verification” of “no problem”?

  148. The more facts that come out the better. But if those in power in the US want to pass cap and tax they will – remember CO2 according to the EPA is a poison. Those with an agenda are not going to let facts get in the way, so don’t celebrate too soon. The MSM are still ignoring it or downplaying the facts… otherwise seemingly intelligent people are ignoring the facts because AGW is a religion for them, they automatically filter out the facts that don’t agree to their belief in AGW. We still need to inform as many people about this site and others that provide the facts. In the US, this is similar to the fact that over 60% don’t want Obamacare but they those in power are fighting to pass it. The fight is not over until every politician admits they were duped.

  149. AlexB (18:22:29) :

    RE: Bill Parsons (12:37:28)

    “Lack of attribution and authorship leave one wondering.”

    Don’t bother wondering. Just take a leaf out of the warmist bible. Lets say that this report was authord by, I don’t know, over 4000 expert climate scientists from 5000 of the worlds top research institutions across over say 500 countries and is based on over 100 000 peer-reviewed articles. No repeat that 1 million times to yourself until you believe it, then repeat it 1 million times to all your friends until they believe it, pretty soon it will become fact.

    Get a grip. I didn’t see the author and translator’s name until I opened up the PDF. On my old machine that took awhile.

  150. Justin (17:33:43) :

    Fantastic ! Thank you.

    I plotted the data in Excel and it shows a slight cooling ! How on earth can the CRU scammers change a cooling cell, surrounded by cells with no warming, to the greatest rate of warming on earth !?

    Looks like another Darwin to me !!

    It will be interesting to investigate some of the surrounding cells in detail.

  151. reLOVEution (14:50:57) :

    In particular, the orchestration of media, science & politicians to limit the agenda & the use of ridicule to marginalise dissent.

    I ask people to look again at the evidence that has been gathered by people regarding 9/11, 7/7, vaccinations being used to spread illness & cause the pandemics of autism & autoimmune diseases, bioweapons being released into populations, chemtrails, suppression of zero point ‘free’ energy devices & the truth embargo on the ET/UFO presence.

    Just as people here have relentlessly pursued the truth in the area of climate, others of integrity have been working hard despite being attacked both personally & professionally.

    I can attest that people have been attacked physically as well. The forces behind these cover ups are devoid of moral or ethical standards. They have been motivated by the worst kind of greed – denial of knowledge. That is changing now. It has changed. And those of us who love mankind rejoice.

    Lucy: yes the battleground has shifted. And these blogs are in the theatre. This was an instinctual battle – with empirical data the weapon. I look forward to reading the origins of Hamlet. Thanks to all.

  152. Retired BChE (20:11:49) :

    I thought there were about 1200 official temperature stations in the USA, and most of them were visited by Anthony’s volunteers. Tonight I see there are only 134. What gives?

    Good question. I took a look at what stations are in the recently released HadCRUT3 “subset” for the state of Arkansas (where I live). Just two: Fort Smith, and Little Rock (the airport, and only back to 1937). But there are a half a dozen or more CRN sites in Arkansas. Why aren’t any of those in there?

  153. Why the Russian Meteorological Record was tampered with by GISTEMP and USHCN?

    Both GISTEMP – the NASA Goddard center data and USHCN make important corrections to the raw temperature data, available at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx

    The raw data shows no unusual recent warming tendencies at all; most sites are cooling – check for yourselves above.

    The two sites GISTEMP and USHCN reference some papers on corrections which I took care to read – I am a mathematical physicist.

    What these sites do not tell is the MAGNITUDE of the corrections they use, which is hidden inside parameters of their programs and inaccessible on a case by case basis to the outside.

    STATIONS WITH INTERRUPTIONS IN DATA, LIKE THE ONES THEY PICKED FROM RUSSIA, SIMPLY PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LARGE AND UNCHECKED CORRECTIONS.

    Since the warming arises out of corrections alone, you can start to see what is going on.

    I think that as much as possible ideological differences need to be avoided. I absolutely don’t care whether people I deal with have opinions of one kind or another.

    One should stick to the raw data, and its handling or mishandling – that does not include fudgeable models, but actual thermometer data.

    If as becomes more and more clear the Earth is now not warming up any differently from the way it did in the last 120 years, in fact even less than before, while CO2 levels have measurably grown, you don’t need a PhD in meteorology to see the lack of connection.

    So stick to the thermometers, which show no heating, and to the corrections which make it pop up.

    The Russian data fudge is very important, since most warming was supposed to have happened in Siberia – we now start to understand the data tricks behind it.

    Remember that Al Capone was brought down by a tax accountant. So if you have a colleague who is a professional statistician, please try to have him or her take a look at the data handling process – they can detect something off from five blocks away.

    I find it strange for instance that correcting for lack of data or for unusual data jumps compared to neighboring stations produces a huge one-sided warming up effect from the data, rather than corrections going both ways. If you toss a coin and get 90 to 10 instead of 50 – 50, you start to have doubts. And of course today we know the trick played on the Russian data – which simply magnifies the opportunity for unchecked data fudge.

    For me, in a concrete case, Hokitika in New Zealand, a rural station with no data interruption for 120 years, I tried to find the exact reason and magnitude for corrections as large as 2 degrees, far outside the range suggested by the scientific papers I read. It turns out that nobody involved can answer that question.

    Just quoting some papers about adjustments and then having the actual magnitude and motive of each adjustment in each case is not transparency, and not clean science. Making that data available in clickable form, for an issue which affects each of us, if not through climate at least through massive economic impact, is a must, and is extremely feasible if there is nothing to hide.

    Remember that the raw data shows no human generated recent global warming whatsoever; it all comes from the corrections.

    If they decided for instance to make the corrections twice as big – or ten times as big for that matter – which GISS did, between 2000 and 2008 – under the current system nobody could check it. I asked a specific question about a specific station, and no one could tell me the reason for the unusually high correction. That’s because only the people who tweak the program know the actual parameters, and even they cannot discuss an individual case.

    Any individual case should have the full correction data available. Just posting references to papers on corrections is by no means a substitute. I read those papers and I realized that the source and magnitude of each correction can vary, and under the current system is opaque to the public.

    I wish I could play with such a program and produce twice as much global warming by doubling the magnitude of the corrections – that’s what GISS did. Under the current system – post references to papers about corrections and then do what you want to the data – this is very possible.

    In a shipment, the customs service is cutting open and checking a random case of oranges, and then a few oranges in it.

    Until the analog of that is possible with processed meteorological data, the unusual warming up theory produced by unchecked corrections is highly suspicious.

    I don’t think that a good solid scientific argument should be underestimated. It does filter to the mass media – which is in fact happening these days. If a good reporter feels backed by data and by scientifically competent people, he or she will have a field day setting the record straight.

    Then the general public, which is asked to make serious personal economic sacrifice for a theory contradicted by measured raw data, will make up their minds in an informed way.

  154. I wonder if Hadley CRU or NASA GISS ever signed any agreements with the Russian Federal government? I wonder if falsifying Russian government federal records carries any penalty?

    Maybe some researchers will get to discover if Siberia really is melting as they claim. I mean, at this point, who would believe CRU?

  155. So weird to think. If there was no internet this whole thing would have never even seen the light of day. The MSM was so used to being able to control the message… but that ship has sailed (and crashed into an iceberg.)

    And here I thought the internet was just for lookin’ at boobies. ^___^

  156. The Daily Mail Headlines this story today but “surprise, surprise” when the papers were reviewed on BBC Breakfast show at 0640 this morning they only commented on the powdered face of some celebrity female. The cameras got in so close as to try to obscure the headline. I’m buying a Daily Mail today to find out more.

    I intend complaining to the beeb but it will have to be tonight as work is calling.

  157. “Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.”

    Perhaps it is time to turn to the journals for release of reviewer comments for relevant papers and relevant reviewers on grounds of public interest. This would enable an open examination of what reasons and arguments have been made by reviewers to accept or reject relevant papers.

    I can understand their reluctance to release the documents, but there is good reason for them to do so in the circumstances.

  158. geoff pohanka (11:45:09) :

    Leaving out the ‘cold’ russian temperature stations might be one reason why the AGW maps show such hot temperatures in Siberia.

    I’m not sure about this. Satellite readings appear to show the as th surface temperature readings, i.e. Siberia is or has been warming.

  159. Harold Ambler (20:28:56) : “With respect, Dr. Goklany appears not to have read the front page of his own website lately, in which he claims to be the originator of the following policy: Sustainable development will make developing countries less vulnerable to future climate change while helping solve today’s urgent climate-related problems such as malaria, hunger and threats to species and ecosystems.’ … Perhaps, at a minimum, he would like to disavow any connection between malaria and ‘climate change’?

    RESPONSE: Note I say “climate-related” not “climate change related.” BTW, you are right, I haven’t read my website recently. It took me a while to figure out which website you were referring to. Cheers.

  160. Because the Institute for Economic Analysis is known for their thorough scientific work on global climate issues.

  161. WAG (12:29:26) : Why would you trust the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis when it was a Russian server which housed the hacked CRU emails? Does THAT not seem suspicious?

    Not suspicious at all. You wash the release by bouncing off as many places as reasonably possible and try to land on a server with poor mutual disclosure treaties. I.e. a US hack would never land on a UK server, given a choice of any non-EU non-extradition alternative country. Also, USSR / Russia has a long history of such open boxes being ‘available’. It’s a good choice from a hacker point of view; nothing more.

    Now what would have been suspicious is if the release had been to a UK server. I’d be very suspicious that it was NOT a UK source and they were just doing a wrap around… You never put your stuff on a machine where you are. You want that physical separation and you want the legal hurdles. If you can toss in a language problem too, well, hey, sweet as honey…

    So the fact that it was served from a Russian server makes it almost certain that it is not a Russian operation.

  162. janama (12:44:10) :
    This is interesting – the southern hemisphere and the tropics haven’t warmed, all the warming is in the northern hemisphere and most in Russia and Canada.

    Has anyone investigated Canada’s temperature record??

    Yes. NCDC / GHCN deleted the Rocky Mountains in recent records (but leave them in the baseline) and they erased Yukon and Northwest Territories, but kept ONE northern station that is in the local “banana belt” being near water to moderate the arctic cold:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/ghcn-up-north-blame-canada-comrade/

    They really don’t like to keep cold mountains in the recent records. Russia is more subtile in that they need to keep out of the elevation, which is south, but away from the very frozen far north. So you tend to get a ‘by longitude’ change where things move closer to warmer skinnier land near warmer waters. Harder to catch with the broad tools I’ve used.

    There is also an interesting chart showing that asia, with Russian and China removed, shows no warming. It looks to me like they hit “the big countries” first and most:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/02/ghcn-asia-chinese-footprints-in-siberian-snow/

  163. Troels Halken (12:45:36) :
    In a earlier post it was stated that Scandinavia, execpt Denmark, was not showing a warming trend…

    I did a “Viking Area” study of GHCN that shows no warming to speak of in the area of Iceland, Greenland, UK, Ireland, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland. It is an aggregate of those countries, but I could also do breakouts by country if anyone wanted it. Leave a note on the page in the link if you want individual countries from anywhere in particular:

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/10/29/nordic-north-nothing-much-to-see/

    Denmark is country code 612 while Sweden is country code 645.

    This is a ‘heads and tails’ in that I’m going to chop out the middle of the report for brevity. Not much is lost as not much happens until the very end:

    Thermometer Records, Average of Monthly Data and Yearly Average
    by Year Across Month, with a count of thermometer records in that year
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    YEAR  JAN  FEB  MAR  APR  MAY  JUN JULY  AUG SEPT  OCT  NOV  DEC  YR COUNT
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1768 -2.1 -1.2 -0.3  5.9 10.6 15.5 17.4 16.6 12.5  8.7  4.6  3.2  7.6    1
    1769  1.0  0.0  2.7  6.0 10.7 15.4 17.2 15.9 14.1  7.0  4.0  1.6  8.0    1
    1770 -0.9  1.1 -2.3  4.7 11.2 15.0 17.9 17.9 15.6 11.1  3.4  2.0  8.1    1
    1771 -2.7 -3.7 -4.0  1.7 11.9 18.0 17.3 14.9 13.1  9.5  2.5  2.5  6.8    1
    1772 -2.3 -3.2 -2.2  3.5  9.1 15.4 16.9 16.6 14.1 11.2  6.9  2.7  7.4    1
    1773  1.0 -1.5  1.4  6.1 12.6 15.4 18.3 18.4 14.8 11.5  5.0  2.2  8.8    1
    1774 -4.2 -0.5  2.1  6.6 11.4 16.5 17.8 16.6 13.0  9.0 -2.8 -2.2  6.9    1
    1775 -1.9  1.2  3.1  5.9 11.4 18.7 19.4 19.5 17.5 10.4  1.5  2.0  9.1    1
    1776 -7.8  0.5  2.8  6.6 10.4 18.1 20.5 19.1 15.0 10.2  4.9  2.0  8.5    1
    1782  1.7 -1.7 -0.4  4.8 10.7 16.2 17.7 17.3 15.4  7.9  2.1  1.1  7.7    1
    1783 -0.3  2.2  0.3  8.1 14.0 19.1 21.4 19.3 16.1 11.6  3.8 -0.1  9.6    1
    1784 -3.8 -1.7 -2.2  3.7 11.7 16.1 17.2 17.1 14.3  8.3  5.3  0.0  7.2    1
    ......
    1973  1.7  2.7  5.0  5.5 11.2 16.0 18.5 16.7 13.4  7.5  3.7  1.6  8.6    3
    1974  2.8  3.1  3.6  8.3 10.6 14.6 15.2 16.5 13.9  7.4  5.7  4.7  8.9    3
    1975  4.8  1.9  3.0  5.7 11.1 14.7 18.1 19.8 15.3  9.4  5.0  4.1  9.4    3
    1976  0.6  0.5  0.1  5.7 10.8 15.2 18.2 17.7 12.9  9.2  5.7  0.5  8.1    3
    1977  0.2  0.1  3.3  4.7 11.4 15.7 15.9 16.1 12.3 10.5  6.1  3.2  8.3    3
    1978  1.6 -1.4  2.3  4.8 11.8 15.6 15.3 16.3 11.8  9.7  7.6 -0.1  7.9    3
    1979 -2.9 -2.8  1.2  5.1 10.3 15.7 14.5 15.6 12.9  8.3  4.9  2.5  7.1    3
    1980 -1.4 -1.2  0.6  5.6 10.5 15.4 16.8 16.0 13.9  8.6  4.1  2.3  7.6    3
    1981  0.0  0.5  2.5  5.7 12.7 14.1 16.1 16.1 13.7  8.3  5.1 -2.8  7.7    3
    1982 -2.4 -1.0  2.8  6.0 10.6 14.5 17.9 17.5 13.7 10.3  6.6  2.9  8.3    3
    1983  4.5 -0.4  3.6  6.3 10.5 14.8 18.0 17.4 13.5  9.6  4.3  1.9  8.7    3......
    2001  2.5  0.6  1.2  5.7 11.5 13.5 18.4 17.4 12.8 11.8  5.3  1.0  8.5    3
    2002  2.6  4.2  4.2  7.2 13.0 16.2 18.0 21.7 15.1  7.5  4.6  0.3  9.6    3
    2003  0.1 -1.0  3.1  6.8 11.8 16.2 18.5 18.3 14.6  7.1  7.0  4.3  8.9    3
    2004 -0.4  1.9  3.8  8.1 11.8 14.1 15.9 18.8 14.2  9.8  5.4  4.0  8.9    3
    2005  3.4  0.3  1.1  7.3 11.1 14.3 18.3 16.4 15.0 11.3  6.4  2.7  9.0    3
    2006 -0.8  0.4 -0.1  6.1 11.7 16.0 21.0 18.0 16.7 12.8  8.0  7.0  9.7    3
    2007  5.1  2.0  6.3  9.1 12.3 17.0 16.4 17.7 13.4  9.1  5.4  4.1  9.8    3
    2008  3.9  4.6  3.6  7.4 12.4 15.7 18.2 17.2 13.7 10.3  6.3  3.0  9.7    3
    For Country Code 612
     
    From input file /gnuit/GIStemp/STEP0/to_next_step/v2.mean_comb
    

    Looks like a little warming at the end for Denmark, but not out of line with the early 1970s. One really ought to inspect what stations are kept in the record, though.

    For Sweden:

    Look at ./Temps/Temps.645.yrs.GAT (Y/N)? y
     
    Thermometer Records, Average of Monthly Data and Yearly Average
    by Year Across Month, with a count of thermometer records in that year
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    YEAR  JAN  FEB  MAR  APR  MAY  JUN JULY  AUG SEPT  OCT  NOV  DEC  YR COUNT
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1739 -7.0 -6.5  0.5  3.5  9.5 15.0 17.4 14.4 12.5  4.9 -0.8  0.6  5.3    1
    1740 -6.1 -6.5  0.5  5.3  7.1 13.6 16.5 15.5 11.0  2.4 -0.1 -2.3  4.7    1
    1741 -7.3  0.3  2.0  4.0  7.5 13.6 16.7 15.1 11.0  7.7  3.4  0.1  6.2    1
    1742 -5.7 -0.3 -0.4  4.0  8.6-99.0 14.7 13.8  8.9  6.7  1.1 -2.7  4.4    1
    1743  0.3 -1.0  0.9  3.9  8.7-99.0 15.5 17.0 11.0  3.2  3.0  0.3  5.7    1
    1744 -3.4 -1.1 -1.2  0.8  9.9 14.1 16.4 13.6 11.1  4.5  1.3 -5.0  5.1    1
    1745 -5.0 -8.2 -4.1-99.0  9.8 16.1 15.4 18.4-99.0  6.1  0.1 -3.0  4.6    1
    1746 -0.6 -4.9 -6.6  1.8 11.3 14.9 17.1 14.5 11.3  4.7 -1.0  1.2  5.3    1
    1747 -4.7-11.3 -3.8  2.3  9.4 18.0 15.3 14.3 12.3  7.6 -0.9 -4.6  4.5    1
    1748 -3.5 -2.5 -6.7  2.5 10.8 16.4 17.5 17.2 10.6  5.5 -0.1 -2.0  5.5    1
    1749 -3.2 -7.3 -5.3  2.8 11.0 14.2 16.4 16.9 11.6  5.0  2.6 -2.6  5.2    1
    .....
    1932 -0.8 -4.5 -3.5  2.5  7.8 11.7 18.0 15.3 10.2  3.1  1.0  1.1  5.2    3
    1933 -3.6 -6.7 -2.2  1.8  7.2 14.8 17.8 14.9 10.3  5.6 -1.7 -5.0  4.4    3
    1934 -0.9 -2.8 -1.5  2.8 10.2 13.9 16.9 16.3 13.6  6.4  1.4  0.1  6.4    3
    1935 -4.5 -4.0 -2.5  2.8  6.2 14.6 16.7 14.4  9.5  5.5  3.0 -1.6  5.0    3
    1936 -4.7 -9.4 -2.8  1.9  9.4 17.4 17.8 15.6  9.6  2.8  2.0  1.4  5.1    3
    1937 -3.2 -6.9 -3.6  4.0 11.5 15.3 18.7 17.9 11.0  7.2  1.1 -5.7  5.6    3
    1938 -3.7 -0.9  1.3  3.1  8.3 13.9 18.0 17.3 12.3  6.9  3.7 -1.3  6.6    3
    1939 -4.1 -0.9 -1.9  2.6  8.3 14.2 17.4 18.3 10.0  2.5  1.7 -5.4  5.2    3
    1940-10.5-11.9 -7.9  1.1  9.9 15.0 17.2 14.2  9.9  5.0  0.1 -5.3  3.1    3
    1941-12.6 -8.4 -5.1  0.1  7.2 13.6 19.9 14.8  9.5  2.5 -1.4 -7.2  2.7    3
    1942-13.3-12.3 -8.5  2.7  6.9 12.3 16.1 15.4 10.7  5.5  0.0 -3.1  2.7    3
    1943 -6.9 -0.5  0.7  4.7  9.5 15.1 16.5 14.5 10.9  6.9  1.1 -1.1  6.0    3
    1944 -4.0 -3.3 -2.7  0.6  6.9 12.5 17.9 16.9 10.5  6.6  1.4  0.1  5.3    3
    .....
    1970 -9.5-13.3 -3.2 -0.3  7.8 15.7 14.9 14.7  9.4  4.7 -2.4 -2.7  3.0   13
    1971 -3.5 -4.3 -5.1  1.4  8.8 12.8 15.4 14.4  9.3  5.3 -2.0 -0.5  4.3   10
    1972 -6.8 -4.1 -1.1  2.3  7.8 14.6 17.9 14.4  9.3  5.1  0.5  1.1  5.1   10
    1973 -0.9 -3.2  1.0  1.8  8.3 14.7 18.3 14.2  8.4  2.5 -2.4 -5.7  4.7   10
    1974 -1.9 -1.5 -0.8  3.9  8.1 13.7 14.4 14.4 11.8  4.1  0.6 -0.7  5.5   10
    1975 -1.5 -1.5 -0.3  2.3  9.1 12.5 16.1 16.2 11.9  5.9  1.5 -1.2  5.9   10
    1976 -7.8 -3.8 -4.2  2.1  9.3 12.9 15.7 15.2  8.1  3.8  0.2 -5.3  3.9   10
    1977 -5.6 -7.6 -1.0  0.6  7.7 13.0 14.1 13.9  8.9  6.1  1.2 -2.5  4.1   10
    1978 -4.3 -8.1 -2.5  1.5  8.7 13.8 14.8 13.8  8.6  5.3  2.1 -9.5  3.7   10
    1979 -9.9 -8.1 -1.9  1.9  8.6 14.9 14.3 14.1  9.8  3.3  0.5 -4.3  3.6   10
    1980 -7.8 -8.7 -4.5  3.3  7.8 15.1 16.2 14.0 11.0  3.7 -2.7 -3.7  3.6   10
    1981 -6.3 -6.1 -5.4  2.0  9.7 11.4 15.1 13.4 10.0  4.5 -1.3-10.7  3.0   10
    1982-10.1 -4.9 -0.3  2.6  7.7 11.2 16.2 15.1 10.1  5.2  1.6 -2.3  4.3   10
    1983 -2.1 -5.8 -1.7  3.1  9.1 12.6 16.2 14.3 10.4  5.3 -2.0 -4.3  4.6   10
    1984 -7.1 -3.4 -4.3  3.3 10.4 12.8 14.4 14.2  8.4  6.0  0.0 -1.5  4.4   10
    1985-12.2-14.5 -3.1 -0.1  7.3 12.5 15.2 14.0  8.6  6.0 -3.0 -8.7  1.8   10
    1986 -9.9 -9.2 -1.0  0.5  9.2 14.6 15.0 11.9  7.0  5.3  2.2 -6.5  3.3   10
    1987-13.5 -6.9 -6.3  2.4  6.6 11.1 14.3 11.7  8.9  7.0 -0.1 -4.1  2.6    9
    1988 -2.7 -3.9 -3.7  1.3  9.6 15.0 16.6 13.8 11.3  4.3 -2.6 -4.6  4.5    9
    1989  0.5 -0.2  1.3  3.7  9.4 13.9 15.6 13.9 10.7  5.4  0.7 -4.3  5.9    9
    1990 -3.2  1.7  1.3  4.5  9.4 13.6 14.9 15.0  9.1  5.6 -0.9 -0.8  5.8    9
    1991 -3.0 -7.0 -0.6  3.1  6.9 10.8 16.4 15.8 10.3  5.6  1.6  0.0  5.0    9
    1992 -1.1 -1.2  0.8  1.2 10.7 15.7 15.1 13.6 10.3  0.5 -0.9 -0.8  5.3    8
    ....
    2001 -2.8 -7.1 -4.7  2.3  8.3 13.0 16.3 14.6 10.4  6.8 -0.1 -5.2  4.3    7
    2002 -4.3 -1.6 -0.9  4.4 10.6 15.1 16.8 17.7 10.6  1.6 -3.2 -7.2  5.0    7
    2003 -8.0 -4.7  0.0  2.7  8.9 13.6 18.1 14.9 10.5  2.9  0.9 -2.3  4.8    7
    2004 -6.6 -4.4 -1.0  4.4  9.1 12.2 15.0 15.6 10.8  4.9 -1.3 -0.8  4.8    7
    2005 -1.6 -4.7 -4.0  4.0  7.6 12.9 17.2 14.6 11.1  6.3  2.2 -3.7  5.2    7
    2006 -5.3 -5.9 -6.5  3.1  9.1 14.1 17.6 16.5 12.5  6.0  1.9  1.6  5.4    7
    2007 -3.5 -6.8  1.5  4.5  8.7 14.5 15.2 15.0  9.5  5.4 -0.4 -0.3  5.3    7
    2008 -2.1 -1.7 -2.7  3.1  8.4 13.1 15.8 13.2  8.8  4.5 -1.1 -2.4  4.7    6
     
    For Country Code 645
    

    1930s were warm, ’40s cold. Mid 1980s were cold. Now is a lot like the 1740s. But it was warmer in the 1839-1859 era:

    
    1839 -3.8 -2.7 -4.8  1.4 11.9 15.9 18.6 15.6 13.3  7.9  2.3 -3.0  6.1    3
    1840 -3.4 -2.7 -1.9  5.8  8.1 14.8 15.8 15.5 12.8  4.8  2.6 -5.8  5.5    3
    1841 -5.4 -6.1  0.8  6.0 13.6 15.0 15.5 16.4 12.0  7.5  1.2  2.1  6.5    3
    1842 -3.5 -0.3  0.9  3.9 12.4 14.6 15.4 19.1 11.5  5.3 -0.8  2.0  6.7    3
    1843 -0.7 -1.0 -1.1  3.4  7.9 14.0 17.2 18.2 11.4  5.1  2.2  1.6  6.5    3
    1844 -4.5 -8.3 -3.2  5.6 11.3 13.8 14.3 14.8 12.2  7.2  1.1 -4.6  5.0    3
    1845 -0.3 -8.6 -5.4  4.7  8.8 16.2 18.2 16.0 11.3  5.8  3.6 -1.0  5.8    3
    1846 -2.1 -1.9  3.5  6.2  9.8 15.9 19.0 20.8 13.4 11.6  2.4 -4.4  7.8    2
    1847 -3.9 -3.9  0.2  2.9 11.0 14.6 16.7 18.4 11.4  6.0  4.2 -0.4  6.4    2
    1848 -6.6 -2.6 -0.3  4.1 11.1 15.3 16.9 14.4 11.3  6.6 -0.8 -1.4  5.7    1
    1849 -4.7 -0.2 -0.4  5.0 12.2 14.9 16.0 16.3 11.8  6.5  2.1 -3.9  6.3    2
    1850 -8.6 -1.8 -3.9  2.7 10.7 16.3 17.8 17.4 10.6  4.6 -0.6  0.1  5.4    1
    1851 -1.8 -2.2 -3.5  4.0  7.6 14.3 16.6 15.2 11.5  8.3  2.1  0.4  6.0    1
    1852 -1.6 -4.6 -1.4  0.7 10.9 16.0 19.8 17.9 12.8  3.0 -0.5 -0.3  6.1    1
    1853 -0.3 -7.2 -7.5  0.3 10.0 16.9 18.9 15.3 12.5  7.0  2.7 -1.9  5.6    1
    1854 -4.4 -3.6  1.0  4.7 11.1 15.0 19.6 18.6 11.7  7.0 -0.3 -2.3  6.5    1
    1855 -6.0-11.5 -3.9  2.6  7.9 15.5 20.9 15.2 10.5  6.9  0.8 -6.1  4.4    2
    1856 -4.6 -6.5 -2.4  3.8  6.7 13.9 15.9 12.4 10.3  7.2 -3.8 -3.1  4.2    2
    1857 -6.5 -1.2 -1.1  1.6  8.1 13.5 16.6 18.7 12.2  8.5  1.7  2.0  6.2    2
    1858 -2.1 -4.0 -0.7  3.3  9.4 16.7 19.3 18.7 14.3  6.0 -2.6 -1.5  6.4    2
    1859 -0.5 -0.2  0.5  2.2 10.1 15.8 16.9 16.5 11.6  5.8  1.7 -3.6  6.4    6
    
    

    The GHCN data are just a flat file of characters and anyone can do this kind of chart. It isn’t hard. FWIW, an ‘eyeball’ of the whole report looks like there is a “ripple” in the temps that I would expect is an ocean current flipping. It would probably show up better in a group of selected stations.

  164. Ian B (20:18:09) :

    RK: That link doesn’t work.

    “Works for me. Does your computer have an internet?”

    Now it works. Maybe the site was briefly offline.

  165. Apart from omitting stations that don’t “tell the story” another trick is to adjust downwards the warm years of the 1930’s. Santa Rosa NM is one example. If you look at the GISS version you see the modern day temperatures soaring above the thirties. In Burt Rutan’s AGW debukum, he compares that Santa Rosa, with the unadjusted data. The difference is startling. The original data shows the thirties were as warm as now. In other words, no trend.

    Now, the question is, why would they be adjusting data 70 years later? I mean, why have they only just discovered that the thirties were too warm? I mean, come on!

  166. A bit OT:

    I have been searching the net for something I feel is sorely missing, which i am now planning to make myself. But it seems like a big undertaking and therefore would like to pitch the idea to all of you, in the hope that some of you may already have to data and competence needed to do it.

    A visual representation of ALL temperature measurement stations available distinctable from those actually used by in the various global temperature studies, complete with raw data means and adjusted means. Animated to reflect changes in location, selection, means and % of adjustments over time, all the way back to the start of temperature recording. Obviously this need to done with a world map to show the station locations.

    And I feel that all this data should be referenced for easy access and quality control.

  167. The gift that keeps on GIVING!

    So pleased that this Russian paper is out. God Bless Mother Russia! (Two mistakes about Russian – #1. To think they are too strong, #2. To ever think they are WEAK in any way.. Yes a connundrum.

    I’m now getting copies of the WUWT articles from friends that I’ve turned on to WUWT.

    This Russian article was just recycled in FORCE to me. (Partially as I gave an Atmospheric Physics lecture a week ago and said, “Part of the problem with the CRU tabulations is the handling of Russian data. Which I THINK has been done by being highly selective about which Russian data they used.” I noted that statement “had no factual basis at the moment”. My how time (and information) FLYS!

  168. I posted this over at CA as well:

    I have a tangential question that I have been wondering for a few days now: When CRU selected these Russian stations I thought back to the old CA and WUWT run at South American UHI calculations, and the absurd distances they were willing to go to find other stations to adjust against (I think the record was 1500 km?) My question is, did CRU adjust Russian stations against only the limited subset of Russian stations…. and if so, how did this selectivity in Siberia cascade to adjustments in other stations around the world?

    I’m thinking mostly at this point about the WUWT blog about Darwin Station adjustments where they jumped 500km for an adjustment. It wouldn’t take too many degrees of separation, at 500km a pop, to “teleconnect” screw ups in Siberia to screw ups in Australia.

  169. “The systemic selection of data” by British researchers has exaggerated warming in Russia by 0.64 degree Centigrade, the institute said.”
    […]
    “The Met Office refuted the Russian criticism, saying it would be “impossible” to manipulate the data.
    “It’s the World Meteorological Organization that chooses the stations for use in climate monitoring,” Met Office spokesman John Hammond said by phone from Devon, England. “Locations are evenly distributed around the globe. The Met Office doesn’t chose the observation points, and therefore it’s impossible for us to tamper with the data.”

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601095&sid=a3ZVxxSVzSVQ

    Impossible to be selective with data? The WMO chooses which stations to use in all climate monitoring?? Strange that the Met is defending certain research with this approach.

  170. The Russian IEA document is only looking at the subset of stations that are not covered by non-disclosure agreements. As indicated by the MetOffice press release:

    This subset is not a new global temperature record and it does not replace the HadCRUT, NASA GISS and NCDC global temperature records

    Any conclusions in this Russian IEA document do not refer to the HadCRUT temperature series.

  171. The quote from Mann should have a “chilling effect” on all the true believers. While it is possible that he blocked the papers for valid reasons,it sounds from his tone like it was done for the purpose of propping up his own position. With this in mind the credability of the two journals and the review process at both is greatly damaged.

    If your hypothesis can not be defended in open scientific debate it means it is wrong. If you still believe in the “consensus” after reading that quote I have a bridge for sale.

  172. Indur M. Goklany (00:57:06) :
    Harold Ambler (20:28:56) : “With respect, Dr. Goklany appears not to have read the front page of his own website lately, in which he claims to be the originator of the following policy: Sustainable development will make developing countries less vulnerable to future climate change while helping solve today’s urgent climate-related problems such as malaria, hunger and threats to species and ecosystems.’ … Perhaps, at a minimum, he would like to disavow any connection between malaria and ‘climate change’?

    RESPONSE: Note I say “climate-related” not “climate change related.” BTW, you are right, I haven’t read my website recently. It took me a while to figure out which website you were referring to. Cheers.

    Your defense that you use the term “climate-related” rather than “climate change related” is belied by the phrase “climate change” earlier in the same sentence!

    You have declined to reject the link between “climate change” and malaria, despite the repeated debunking on this site, in books, and in other media of the link between this awful disease and tropical warmth. As Paul Reiter has made clear, malaria is a poverty-related disease, with a devastating outbreak place in Siberia, very close to the Arctic Circle, in the 1920s.

    I will go further and say that the text on the front page of your website (the one your name connects to through WordPress, by the way, nothing complicated about it) is standard climate-change alarmism.

    In the video linked below, you make several other claims that are in keeping with AGW fear-mongering at its worst, including that hundreds of thousands of deaths per year can be attributed to climate change already, and that Lord Stern’s catastrophic climate predictions for the year 2100 may be accepted “for the sake of argument.”

    By the way, the number of deaths that can be attributed to climate change is zero. Can we agree upon that?

  173. JohnV, I believe Climate Audit destroyed the ” non-disclosure agreements” excuse.

    And how do know what is in HADCRU? Do you have a copy?

  174. JohnV (10:37:02) :

    The Russian IEA document is only looking at the subset of stations that are not covered by non-disclosure agreements.

    Um. As they point out very clearly in the IEA document, the data from Russian stations is publicly-available:

    “В настоящее время ГУ «ВНИИГМИ— МЦД» поддерживает в открытом доступе базу данных, включающую в себя измерения температуры по 476 наземным метеостанциям России вплоть до 2006 года”
    [“At the present time, the ‘VNIIGMI-MTsD’ State Institute maintains an openly-accessible database which includes temperature measurements from Russia’s 476 land meteorological stations going up to 2006″]

    So the non-disclosure dodge just doesn’t hold for this one.

  175. Hah, sorry, it’s Siberian data from a different century, the more things change the more they stay the same I guess ;)

  176. Gavin at RC has noted this plot, from p 20 of the IEA report, showing how the temperatures from the IEA group of stations compared with the group they say CRU selected. Since 1960 there’s virtually no difference, and not much going back to 1900. It looks like, not cherry-picking, but a very representative selection.

  177. JohnV and Nick Stokes, the translated article says the CRU overestimated warming in Russia by .64C and they used urban sites with ZERO corrections for UHI.

    They also said this was a conservative estimate of the difference.

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.iea.ru/&ei=QiYpS9a1IY-mswO81bjHDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.iea.ru/%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26ie%3DUTF-8

    .64C is not trivial. Not correcting for UHI is also a huge flaw.

  178. @Nick Stokes

    Oh, c’mon Nick, the IEA graph from 2000-2005 trends in exactly the opposite way to Gavin baby’s – that is, DOWN not UP

    And there are significant differences from 1900 back (irrespective of which way, these differences are there, despite your cherry-picking of time grabs. This disingenuousness is truly tedious)

    Pathetic

  179. Wow this just doesn’t look good.

    Scientists in a bitter fight to protect their ideas, not with science but with collusion and intimidation. These same people seem to have access to setting the temperature record.

    Given how far they seem willing to go to stamp out criticism, can we really believe they wouldn’t put their thumb on the temperature scale? Especially if they thought no one could check up on them?

    Not hard for me to imagine. These guys need to be 100% forthright with the data and methods, and they need to do it pronto.

  180. Bruce (20:06:10) :
    The plot does show the selected set showing more warming between 1860-1900, and a small further increase between 1900 to 1960. But from then on it is virtually identical.

    Global warming from 1860-1900 is not a big AGW issue, and it’s hard to see CRU cherry-picking to modify that. It’s much more likely that they had genuine reasons for doubting the quality of some of those old records.

    And Ianl, if you magnify the IEA pdf, it’s clear that the red simply overlays the blue in that post-2000 period. No difference at all.

  181. NickStokes.
    “Global warming from 1860-1900 is not a big AGW issue”
    Can you explain then what caused it???
    regards

  182. …Gavin at RC has noted this plot, from p 20 of the IEA report, showing how the temperatures from the IEA group of stations compared with the group they say CRU selected. Since 1960 there’s virtually no difference, and not much going back to 1900. It looks like, not cherry-picking, but a very representative selection…

    Yup, after digging through this mess all afternoon, it looks to me like Gavin at RC nailed it. There are some older temperature differences, yes, for whatever reason, but the Russian stuff since 1960 seems to generally agree with CRU work.

  183. Marlys

    Are you being sarcastic or are you actually proudly pointing out that the cherry picked data from one group of stations matches well with the cherry picked data from what IEA thinks are the identical group of stations? Both ignoring all the (about 3/4) of stations available that don’t match?

    Wasn’t that IEA’s entire point, that CRU stations looked like the graph on page 20 but the original data as a whole does not?

  184. Looking at the graph I do not understand why they normalized the data sets to the period 1961 to 1990. They could have normalized it to 1860 to 1900 and then the the blue graph (all the russian data) would be much less than the ‘pruned’ data for the twentieth century, the divergence increasing with time towards today as one would expect from the pruned data being infiltrated with UHI. Also why does the graph stop at 1990 when the data continues until recently? The blog mentions that after 1990 the pruned set is warmer slightly but that both sets are less than the best estimate line. Then how is the best estimate line higher than both data sets?

  185. E.M.Smith (02:25:01) :
    WAG (12:29:26) : Why would you trust the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis when it was a Russian server which housed the hacked CRU emails? Does THAT not seem suspicious?

    Not suspicious at all. You wash the release by bouncing off as many places as reasonably possible and try to land on a server with poor mutual disclosure treaties. I.e. a US hack would never land on a UK server, given a choice of any non-EU non-extradition alternative country. Also, USSR / Russia has a long history of such open boxes being ‘available’. It’s a good choice from a hacker point of view; nothing more.

    Now what would have been suspicious is if the release had been to a UK server. I’d be very suspicious that it was NOT a UK source and they were just doing a wrap around… You never put your stuff on a machine where you are. You want that physical separation and you want the legal hurdles. If you can toss in a language problem too, well, hey, sweet as honey…

    The first attempt was to release it to RC ( a US server), from where it was removed in short order (although it did lead to a shutdown for a few hours).

  186. Just for fun, and just because Im interested in this issue, I started wondering …..were can I find norwegian station data?

    I found one report, but unfortunately these people write in Norwegian….

    Anyway, at page 18 here there are some stations showing data all the way back to 1860;

    http://met.no/Forskning/Publikasjoner/metno_info/2006/filestore/2006-13.pdf

    Its been increasing from all the way back in 1860, although one must admit the increase lately is pretty steep.

  187. Interesting:

    Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures

    Posted on: December 17, 2009 9:14 AM, by Tim Lambert

    The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by novelist James Delingpole and is based on an analysis (translated here) by a right-wing Russian think tank. Delingpole quotes from a news story:

    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.

    Delingpole adds:

    What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

    The problem here is the IEA report does not support the claims made in the news story. I’ve reproduced the final graph from the report below. The red curve is the temperature trend using the 121 Russian stations that CRU has released data for, while the blue hockey stick is from a larger set of 476 stations. I’ve put them on top of the CRU temperatures for northern extratropics. The red and blue curves agree very well in the period after 1950, thus confirming the CRU temperatures. Well done, IEA!

  188. After a completely mis-leading post and 270 comments, most off the mark, the truth is finally revealed in Tim Lambert’s repost here from Deltoid. The correct analysis essentially confirms the CRU temperature record information that was questioned in the original post.

    But the crowd has moved on, and no one is left to hear the truth.

Comments are closed.