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.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly 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.
“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…
At least some of the omitted Siberian records are flat. Seriously, go use the google translator.
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.iea.ru%2F
Read it alongside the original so you can see the graphs:
http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf
Jeff in Ctown (Canada) (12:08:56) :
And weren’t they calibrated against surface temps?
Invariant (13:01:08) :
Well, yeah, a kid on YouTube, that is about tops, scientifically speaking.
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?
The quote about rejecting two papers on Siberia is from Jones, not Mann.
Speer: If Greenpeace don’t like him, he must be OK then.
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.
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?
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.
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.”
@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
Jakers (13:10:15) :
Which part of Peter’s analysis is erroneous?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/picking-out-the-uhi-in-global-temperature-records-so-easy-a-6th-grader-can-do-it/
I’m having a problem with the big red spot over North Dakota.
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.
Please… It’s the Hadley Centre, not the Hadley Center.
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
They are saying Centre Hadley …
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.
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.
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?
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