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.
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?
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.
If I were Mann, Jones and the rest of the CRU I’d lawyer up pretty fast.
The Had-beens.
Even the Criminals of Climategate Avoid Gore
By Dr. Tim Ball Wednesday, December 16, 2009
“It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.”—Mark Twain.
No wonder the CRU gang ignored Gore. He took their false work and falsified it some more.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/18005
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….
Jeff,
For what it’s worth, try putting the pdf file thru Google Translate.
http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iea.ru%2Farticle%2Fkioto_order%2F15.12.2009.pdf&sl=ru&tl=en
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Any of the MSM showing any interest in this?
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)
some info at: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1056
No US rural temperature increase?
No NZ temperature increase?
No Russian temperature increase?
Which regions of the world show temperature increase?
Central Europe? http://members.casema.nl/errenwijlens/co2/europe.htm
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.
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.
This is like reading a thriller … don’t just keep us in suspense, give us the data !
I’d love to see how it compares with the Siberia analysis here:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part2_GlobalTempMeasure.htm
(2/3 of the way down)
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?
@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.
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
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.
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
Oh the weather outside is frightful,
But the fire is so delightful,
And since we’ve no place to go,
Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!
http://www.yr.no/place/Denmark/Capital/Copenhagen/hour_by_hour.html
[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.
“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.