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.
I don’t know how the surface station data are weighted together to arrive at a global statistic, but with the cherry picking of just Russia and Antarctica together, we’re talking about a lot of land surface area of the globe. And aren’t there problems with China as well? Oh my!
Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global Warming
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/
Jakers
Why would Gazprom want to get this information out years ago? They have sold vastly more gas, at high-demand driven prices, to replace coal-fired generation. I saw an estimate yesterday that replacing US coal fired generation would result in a 50% increase in US electricity prices because of the effect it will have on natural gas prices. Those who live in states without much coal fired generation won’t be immune to the higher gas prices (quite the contrary since they’re already gas dependent).
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?” … It would be nice to see someone in Russia with a solid science/climate background back this up.
And who would that be? Does it take someone with “a solid science/climate background” to observe that big chunks of data are missing?
I realize that no matter who speaks out on the issue, there will always be those who shoot ad homs at the speaker. What are your CREDENTIALS?????? Russians can’t be trusted, not like the British, etc.
But the nub of the issue is whether the IEA assertions are correct or not, not whether the IEA are running dogs of capitalism, Putin’s whelps, or whatever. It’s the assertions that are true or not, regardless of the splotches on the asserter.
Martin B (12:49:48) :
“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.
Does it matter, just check the data and position of the 476 stations mentioned, then check cru`s choice of 121, if they are mainy urban it`s cherry picking, same as the tree rings. Russia is twice the size of the US why are less atations used,134 in US.
Might be wrong but I seem to remember something the “Sceptical Environmentalist” about Siberia during the Soviet empire days being given more resources if it was colder so they tended to report colder temperatures for finantial gain.
Once the USSR collapsed there was no need to do this so they reported the actual temperatures and so it immediately looked like significant warming in Siberia from about 1990 onwards.
Greatest Story Ever Told: Climategate.
Can’t wait for the movie.
I’ve just discovered a neat little feature on the BBC website. One can suggest search terms for their stories! In the heat of the moment I inserted “Climategate”, “Warmergate” and “BBC bias”. Sadly I forgot “Wattsupwiththat?”. You, dear colleagues, will not make the same mistake.
Jakers (12:33:58) :
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
Sir, I read the first item above – …/response-v2.pdf. At the bottom of page 2, in the response to the fifth question, I read: “Two national time series were made using the same homogeneity adjusted data set and the same gridding and area averaging technique used by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center…”. (italics mine)
I don’t claim to have a handle on much of what is going on here, but I suspect their method of homogeneity adjustment is part of the problem, and any analysis using that data will be useless. If they homogenize the good data with bad data from surrounding stations, just what difference would you expect to see?
Sorry about the links, I don’t know how to make them work.
Ben
PJB (13:54:29)
Very nice. Now who can organize a professional rap group to produce a cool YouTube video with it? We need some sort of supercool viral publicity. It would be good for the cause and attract a younger following.
Even the countries that repress freedom of the press and citizen-journalism appear to be reading these blogs and using this information to inform their position at the conference.
In the lead piece it says “Steve McIntyre reports on Climate Audit that there’s an email from Michael Mann that is relevant:” If you double check the linked email It was an email written to Michael Mann, the quoted comment was from Phil Jones.
I wonder if this is information that Russian FSB had promised to release in response to claims that it’s behind Climategate hacking…
I am native russian speaker. Unfortunately this document is 21 pages long and I really have no time to translate it all.
It looks that google did a fairly good job of translating though. It failed miserable on translating the title – it should be “How warming is made” (google turned it into “How is warming” 🙂
It makes you think about how this will and should play out in the courts in regards to the EPA. The EPA has just issued an endangerment finding on CO2, now post climategate we discover all kinds of questionable behavior on the part of scientists (some out of country) who did the science EPA relied on. It’s doubtful Lisa Jackson (head of EPA) is going to back down from her endangerment finding. It seems like what is needed is a trial at which scientists can be sworn and questioned. I don’t see how this plays out.
The Russians ARE big oil. It doesn’t mean they are lying. It just means the Warmers will use it.
I must confess now to cherrypicking.
Wilfully and blatantly, I am addicted. I am typing now with red stained fingers.
Each year at this time the cherries come in, some from my backyard but most commercially from the nearby Young and Coootamundra region. They start small firm and red, firm enough to travel interstate and overseas and move on to large deep,deep, red almost plum sized beauties that can only travel well from the tree to your mouth. The rest ? cooked with brown and palm sugar and frozen to last throughout the summer.
In our off season we go get Californian cherries and they are welcome, wish we had more trade like this with the US.
36 degrees C here today, with welcome storms predicted tonight.
Russian weather data including climatic data is available here:
http://meteo.infospace.ru/
Click on English at upper left of page, then page down to temperature history data.
I can provide at least the legend to the graphics …
Schema 1 – geographic distribution of stations in Russia, blue are NOT used by HadCRUT
Schema 2 – distibution of stations into grid 5° lon x 5°lat – blue are not used. longitude is horizontal
Graphic 1 – Temperature records of some stations above 70° N latitude, not used in the HadCRUT
stations: terpaj-Tumsa?
Salaruova (NOAA RA21647)
Saskyalh (218020)
Dzalynda
Kjusjur (21921)
Jubilejnaja – probably airport (per google)
There is a not also that although there are 16 stations between 50-55°N and 70-90°E, not one station is part of the dataset.
Graphic 2 – Temp. records of stations of cell 65-70°N 35-40°E not used in HadCRUT
Teriberka(22028)
Kanevka (22249)
Zizgin(22438)
Graphic 3 – Temp records of stations of cell 50-55°N 35-40°E used in HadCRUT
Pavelec
Kursk
Voronez
all of them are showing warming…
Graphic 4 – number of measurements available – HadCRUT uses station Toko (yellow one)
Graphic 5 – dataset of stations Sortavala and Petrozavodsk as reported by Russian Weather Service
Graphic 6 – same as above, but as reported by HadCRUT
Graphic 7 – temp. data of stations Buinaksk and Machackala. Used is Machackala, although the station was moved 3 times in the past
Graphic 8 – mean temp. difference of all stations (blue) and hadcrut (red), baseline 1961-1990, 11 year smoothing (hope it makes sense)
Graphic 9 – Temperature anomaly Difference between all and hadcrut, 11 year smoothing
Note – the NOAA station numbers are without any guarantee
Kitefreak
“As I’ve said before: what else have we been lied to about, by those we thought were beyond reproach? “The government wouldn’t do that!”, “All the scientists say so”, “I saw it on the telly”. Regarding conspiracy – “thousands of people would have to be in on it”, etc., etc..”
I’d like to suggest some! After growing up trusting global warming was man made, I looked again at the way it was being ‘managed’ & the similarities are marked.
In particular, the orchestration of media, science & politicians to limit the agenda & the use of ridicule to marginalise dissent.
I ask people to look again at the evidence that has been gathered by people regarding 9/11, 7/7, vaccinations being used to spread illness & cause the pandemics of autism & autoimmune diseases, bioweapons being released into populations, chemtrails, suppression of zero point ‘free’ energy devices & the truth embargo on the ET/UFO presence.
Just as people here have relentlessly pursued the truth in the area of climate, others of integrity have been working hard despite being attacked both personally & professionally.
I agree with you kitefreak, you can almost hear the masses waking up to realise the emperor has no clothes…
For me, it was
loose change:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598&ei=1FkpS5T5Hdii-AbNv6jcAw&q
& zeitgeist:
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-594683847743189197&ei=IVopS9WiBpfW-AaJ8rXXAw&q
& after seeing several UFO’s myself I watched Dr Steven Greer’s ‘disclosure project’
part 1
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6552475158249898710&ei=YlspS8OpBNyf-Aag_9XiAw&q
part 2
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-4694075066240662837&ei=61spS_buF8bC-Aar8L3lAw&q
since that time Dr Ed Mitchell, Apollo astronaut has also come forward
I think what we are witnessing is a global awakening to how we have been manipulated & controlled by those in power who have developed techniques & technologies secretly so as to consolidate their power & wealth over humanity.
When I first started to become aware of this, I was very sad & angry but as I learnt more I discovered that one of the areas of knowledge that had been studied & suppressed was the area of consciousness & how it interfaces with what we know as reality, & the power we have when we claim back our consciousness & learn how to use it…
‘what the bleep do we know’ started that all off for me.
http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/what_the_bleep_do_we_know.php
Hope someone finds the links useful.
Just want to thank everyone here for their integrity & commitment to the truth because by revealing the truth, you are actually preventing the imposition of a fascist tyranny on humanity, whether you know it or not.
Love to all.
The fat lady is on her second aria. Expect crashing cymbals and fireworks soon.
Latest news:
Another pledge came from a six-member group – Australia, France, Japan, Norway, the UK and US – which will collectively commit $3.5bn over three years to combating deforestation.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8417305.stm
Nothing is so bad but that good may come of it.
I’m glad to see that someone posted this news over at RC on their “Are the CRU data “suspect”? An objective assessment.” Thread. I’d like to relate my experience there, over the last two days.
I posted a comment yesterday suggesting that their “objective” assessment wasn’t terribly “objective”. Eric snipped my comment from three paragraphs to one paragraph and dismissed it with a curt “read it again, slowly….” In other words, the RC crew who claim the Climategate emails are “taken out of context” is perfectly fine with editing comments to the point where they are “out of context” so their snappy comebacks makes themselves themselves look good to the alarmist acolytes.
I posted a second comment today, reeinforicing the lack of “objectivity” in their thread, suggesting that if they were really trying to be objective, they would have selected the most “pristine” (least needing UHI and TOB and other “anthropogenic” fiddling) sites from the database, rather than a random selection, and would have used the pristine sites to confirm CRU’s results as well as the validity of the “concensus” anthropogenic corrections they and CRU apply to the raw data. Otherwise their objective analysis has only confirmed Pielke’s opinion of CRU and GISS et all as not being independent.
I also pointed out that although the means matched in their figures, the variances don’t, so why not? That is the kind of question they that a peer reviewer would key on, and unless they can explain why not, it further discredits the “objectivity” of their analysis.
I now note my second comment AND THE FIRST have been deleted.
So once again we see their hypocrisy — after railing against skeptic web studies that haven’t gone through rigourous “peer review”, they do the same things themselves and post an “objective” study on RC for the alarmist acolytes to propagate — without “peer review” — then suppress critical comments that point out faults — known in some scientific circles as “peer review”.
So, all in all, my objective opinion of their use of “objective” is summarized in the quote from the Red Queen “Words mean what I say they mean”
Ah here it is: The Environment Debate. BBC feature/discussion on the movie “The Age Of Stupid” (ironic title, that), with Lindzen, Watson and Lombourg. I thought it was well balanced, although they didn’t discuss the CRU emails (it seems they weren’t allowed to because they’re the subject of an enquiry – LOL).
I have just watched BBC’s Tuesday night NEWSNIGHT.
I am lost for words. I was screaming at the TV.. YOU FRICKING LIAR…..
It was the most shameless attempt at Primary School Level opinion forming + an appeal to authority featuring the most deceitful SCIENTIST I have ever heard.
I must go now… and smash something to pieces.. or punch the wall. Or something. This package needs recording and posting on Youtube…. It was pure evil.