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.
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”.
On RT.com (Russian News Station) is discussing Climategate at the moment.
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.
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.
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?
Alexander Gurnov on http://www.russiatoday.ru, interviewing Piers Corbyn (Weather Action), Michael McCracken, and Bjorn Lomborg
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.”
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.
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.
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!
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.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/EQUATOR%202007%2001%20vs%201998-2006.gif
Has anyone investigated Canada’s temperature record??
In a earlier post it was stated that Scandinavia, execpt Denmark, was not showing a warming trend…
The leverage this document might have at COP15 likely depends on how the Russian delegation wants to use it.
“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.
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.
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.
Les (12:32:26) :
Interesting challenge.
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2006/10/kramniktopalov-g10.htm#comment-25753
evanmjones (11:54:40) :
Holy HadCRU, Batman!
That should be:
Hole-y HadCRU, Batman!
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.
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.
vboring (12:51:15) :
Are they saying CRU? Or Hadley?
Jakers (12:33:58) : 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
Thanks. What about this result?
OT but amusing.
There is a blizzard in Copenhagen.
Watch the Gore effect in real time::
http://www.cph.dk/CPH/UK/MAIN/Virtual+Airport/Web+cameras/Web+camera+1.htm
“see whether the present solar minimum really is grand and might bring about some global cooling”
Some nice activity today…
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!