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.
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.
Dr. Tim Ball’s latest article for Canada Free Press at
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18058
examines this in the light of one of the CRU emails:
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=538&filename=1119957715.txt
Sorry if this is old news.
Hah, sorry, it’s Siberian data from a different century, the more things change the more they stay the same I guess 😉
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.
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.
@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
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.
🙂 Check out what really happened @ur momisugly the copenhagen climate-summit 2009!! 🙂
http://cvs26.wordpress.com/2009/12/12/the-copenhagen-summit/
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.
NickStokes.
“Global warming from 1860-1900 is not a big AGW issue”
Can you explain then what caused it???
regards
janama
Good catch with this. If the Russian data is bad what does this graph look like?
http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR%202007%2001%20vs%201998-2006.gif
…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.
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?
How long have the Russians been sitting on this knowledge?
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/12/another-way-to-hide-decline.html
Secret agreements about secret data? Or just another way to Heidi D. Cline.
So is this counter-argument right or not?
http://greenerblog.blogspot.com/2009/12/todays-buzz-is-about-moscow-based-free.html
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?
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).
Permalink:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/#comment-209822
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.
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!
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.