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.
“reLOVEution (14:50:57) : wrote
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..”
Good thought out post.
May I just disagree with you on the Zeitgeist video to be aware. While I agree with the Ghost of Our Times premise, the conclusion is Gaia worship.
My I recommend these for those interested in a complete awakening.
Down load this video, as it is very difficult to find on the Internet.
The Calling – Full HD Version
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=55659929
KYMATICA, by Ben Stewart
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6736722752013377089#
Confirmation of this charge is needed from an official Russian government source, or at least an established Russian scientific society.
From the first page:
“It is easy to see that the meteorological stations located in the Russian territory is not entirely uniform and their concentration significantly higher in western and southern parts of the country, while in the north and east – notably less.
However, it should be noted that the total Meteorological measurements are carried out in 152 cells grid in the Russian territory. In other words, the existing meteorological network infrastructure provides a good opportunity to reach observations in the vast majority of the country. For inclusion in the calculation Global temperature data from all cells in the Russian territory, the share of Russia’s participation should constitute approximately 10% (152 cells of 1500 cells of world grid). However, it turns out that this is not so. “
Jakers (12:33:58) :
>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf
This seems suspicious. An increased number of stations should give less variation, not more.
With lots of stations to average, the IPCC/CRU claims an amazing accuracy of +/- 0.05°C which only grows to +/- 0.15°C back in 1880 (long before Stevenson screens and with recording to the nearest 1 degree). The measurement error is supposed to be 0.04C on monthly average temperatures (Phil Jones et al, 2004).
Roger Knights (15:16:31) : Confirmation of this charge is needed from an official Russian government source, or at least an established Russian scientific society
Dont be daft. The Russians want to be paid for their oil and then again in cap n trade from the guys they sell it to using the oil. And Gordon Brown and his stupid glum men are stupid enough to want to do so and urge others to follow his example.
Just a smallish point: I haven’t checked all the posts, but would point out that McIntyre said that the email cited was from Jones, not from Mann. Check http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/16/iearussia-hadley-center-probably-tampered-with-russian-climate-data/
“From the first page:
“It is easy to see that the meteorological stations located in the Russian territory is not entirely uniform and their concentration significantly higher in western and southern parts of the country, while in the north and east – notably less.”
EM Smith? – “The March of the Thermometers”? wow!
This is OT but I hadn’t heard it mentioned in the news yet.
Executive Order 13514 signed on 5 Oct applicable to all U.S. Federal Agencies requires agencies to establish reduction goals perform inventory, etc., etc. ……….
Not for this topic but can someone explain how one can infer temperatures from tree rings, especially to the degree of precision that seems to be claimed by Briffa et al.
When I was going through Pleistocene geology courses years ago, we learned about using tree rings to establish chronologies, but I don’t think anyone would have tried to correlate rings to temperature.
Can anyone help out.. or provide some links?
Thanks Michael, I see earth as a sentient being, more like a mother. I didn’t get the Gaia worship thing in ZEITGEIST at all, what made you feel that?
I have seen Kymatica & loved it, but am downloading the calling.
Isn’t this an amazing time to be alive!?
A RENAISSANCE OF HUMANITY!
X
My Grandfather told the story of how he lost his first job in 1904. He worked for a butcher who fired him for not being able to learn how to weigh his fingers along with the meat without getting caught by customers. Some at CRU should suffer the same fate.
John Mackie – I saw the same (Wednesday ;)) Newsnight, and had to turn over for the sake of the TV.
They weren’t even sceptics in the audience, but plants.
john mackie (15:12:52) :
“I have just watched BBC’s Tuesday night NEWSNIGHT.
I am lost for words. I was screaming at the TV.. YOU FRICKING LIAR…..”
Same here it was an absolute disgrace. Totally misleading and shallow. For others it was the experiment you may have seen with plastic bottles, temperature probes and CO2 introduced to one of the bottles. Claiming it proved Global warming.
Here’s how to complain
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/homepage/
James Randi appears to have broken ranks–
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
-as he’s a major pillar of the skeptical/science loyalist bloc, that’s significant. Being myself a former sketptic/loyalist forced into an evil denialist position on some scientific issues (AGW/greenism, passive smoking etc) I find it encouraging.
Not only the plastic bottle nonsense… but the ‘Scientist’ who snidely tried
a) to imply the emails were hacked over a long period… (because they covered a long period)…. and
b) some attempt to imply that cell phonese etc. were hacked.. (If I remember properly).. and only some kind of government secret services could do that. (I think he said that.. I was too busy shouting at the TV. I will rewatch on IPlayer and refresh my memory.
THEN… it moved on to…’now you have seen the plastic bottle thing’ are you still skeptical?
CUE… OBVIOUS plant… ‘NOW I AM A BELIEVER!’… he dutifully chirps. FFS!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want to know WhoTF they think they are kidding.
ARGHHH!!!
whoops, my mistake,
Both of my comments are posted on RC (on pages 2 & 3), the first one is snipped, the second one not yet…
ReLOVEution I agree with you to some extent. But I’m fussy about evidence.
I focussed on Climate Science because that was a clearly defined issue that had been corrupted, a whole order of magnitude bigger than the rest as regards immediate importance, and to me it could be fought and needed to be fought. The Second World War was able to define the evil of Nazi Germany territorially. But it doesn’t work like that now. The battleground has shifted. Almost all the malfeasance is from positions of power, globally: media, politics, and the faux front of the Science that had been usurped from within. It is just like Hamlet’s uncle, murdering Hamlet’s father the true king, by pouring poison in his ear while he slept, and then marrying Hamlet’s mother, Lady Science.
Then I found these wonderful blogs that actually work by the values and integrity I also support, that could give me the leads to discover and understand the true science. Like many I got hooked!
But Climate Science is only the beginning. There is more, as you note. Yet also, IMHO, ClimateGate could not have happened earlier. I am aware it could have been an act of divine intervention, not even a whistleblower. To those who discount the possibility of miracles, I say:
Go check the evidence. The data. The facts. Dig deeper than CSICOP or Sagan.
And BTW, read the older story of Hamlet written by the Danish Saxo Grammaticus, quoted at length in the classic Hamlet’s Mill. It is an even truer analogy of the climate scam than Shakespeare, and it is earthier and full of life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00pfk53/Newsnight_16_12_2009/
not up yet….
In it’s Google translation, the report seems legitimate. It’s title page cites author and collaborator,
Author: NA Pivovarova Редакция: А.Н.Илларионов Revision: AN Illarionov
and from what I can gather of the main text, makes a fair case for re-examining the Russian temperature record using different criteria. For example, the authors don’t think a sufficiently large sampling of stations was used to represent the large land mass involved.
I look forward to reading a good translation, which some of you may provide.
Link to E.O. 13514: http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2009/pdf/E9-24518.pdf
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
Jakers, thanks for the links. In the 2nd PDF contained a reference to Boice (1996), “UHI in San Antonio, TX”. The conclusion of that paper: “Despite many mitigating influences (much vegetation, little polluting industry) San Antonio has an increasing UHI”, which elsewhere in the abstract was estimated to be 5.4°F / Century. (The SA temperature data was compared to 3 rural surrounding towns).
I guess Peterson didn’t bother reading the Boice abstract before referencing it in his paper.
Finally! The Russians cooperate with Obama! Diplomaceh-by-weakness pays off bigtime!
Must get to the TV stat before he starts his triumphant tout.
Important caveat – their analysis rests on assumption that all of the Russian station data used has already been released (my translation):
“ГУ «ВНИИГМИ— МЦД» currently maintains open access to a database that includes temperature changes of 476 Russian surface meteorological stations up to year 2006 http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php.
Out of approximately 1500 meteorological stations for which Hadley Center released the data, 121 station is located in the territory of Russia. They comprise approximately 8,1% of the total number of stations for which data was released and 2,4% of the total number of stations whose measurements were used to calculate global temperature. Since the accompanying note states that the data of of approximately 3500 other stations is to be released pending permission from national authorities, it can be assumed that there will be no more data from Russian stations among them
In other words, to calculate global surface temperatures (land temperature) Hadley Center, apparently, used the data of only quarter (121 of 476) of Russian stations, for which it either did not need or already received permission from Russian authorities.”
If I understand correctly, the authors are a bit sloppy with identifying who calculates what and who releases the data. Other than that the analysis looks impressive to this nonscientist.
Appeals to a person of Mr. Illarionov or his advisory role to president Putin is nonsensical. Yes, Illarion is indeed a liberal, has been adviser, but he also has been one of the most outspoken Putin’s critics. What the authors say should stand or fall on merits.
David King talks of CRU phone records on BBC Newsnight?
http://blackswhitewash.com/2009/12/16/the-ethical-man-preaches-to-sheeple-on-newsnight/
The beautiful irony is in the so-called divergence problem. If Briffa compared his tree rings to doctored temperature data, they would show a divergence in the exact direction as he found. On the other hand if he used non-value-added data perhaps the divergence would not exist or at least be attenuated.
You gotta love it.