I wonder if they used this station, which is famous in Russia? See details here
Steve McIntyre reports on Climate Audit that there’s an email from Michael Mann that is relevant:
Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
More bullying from the team.
=============================
Guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent
It’s true, and it’s huge. Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, Russian papers are reporting that the Russian surface station data was sorted by CRU to use the highest warming stations only.
Russia affected by Climategate
A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.
The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.
Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.
Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.
The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.
Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.
Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.
The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.
The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.
On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.
They specifically state that lack of measurement is not the cause. If they claim the full set of Russian data does NOT support global warming, imagine how different the bright red dot over Russia would look. Again the accusation is completely believable, yet is completely unverifiable because CRU has refused to release the data. This data and code release is the subject of illegal blocking of FOIA’s is one of the keys in the Climategate emials. We need to know the list of stations used and we must have copies of the raw data.
This is a very powerful accusation, which if true could change much about the climate science debate. Many papers are based on this dataset which has the highest trend of the major ground datasets.
Here is a PDF (in Russian) can anyone provide a translation?
http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf
Sponsored IT training links:
Download the latest 70-450 dumps and JN0-522 study guide to guaranteed pass 1z0-042 exam.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
See the following for an examination of central Siberian temperature data comparing CRU stations / CRU cridded data / NOAA GHCN station data. Warming is not significant as IPCC / CRU claim.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CRUSiberia.htm
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.
“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.
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.
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.
Because the Institute for Economic Analysis is known for their thorough scientific work on global climate issues.
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.
At least some Russian data are free. Just visit
http://meteo.infospace.ru/wcarch/html/e_sel_admin.sht?country=176
and you may browse the regions and download daily station data. The problem is, that many of them have data starting around 1997-2000.
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/
🙂 Check out what really happened @ur momisugly the copenhagen climate-summit 2009!! 🙂
http://cvs26.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/the-copenhagen-summit/
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:
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:
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:
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.
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
Russian/English translation now available at Cato Institute:
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/12/17/new-study-hadley-center-and-cru-apparently-cherry-picked-russias-climate-data/
How do you say schadenfreude in Russian?
“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.
http://www.surfacestations.org/ to open a russian branch soon!
Do you want a forecast?, here you are:
Something is rotting in Denmark…
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:
Any conclusions in this Russian IEA document do not refer to the HadCRUT temperature series.
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.
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?
JohnV, I believe Climate Audit destroyed the ” non-disclosure agreements” excuse.
And how do know what is in HADCRU? Do you have a copy?