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.
Al Gore tries to cool ‘climate spin’ by correcting claims of North pole thaw
The real crime is that it takes the Russians to “discover” that the books have been cooked in the Russian data set. Where is the U.S. government? Where is Obama, Holdren, Hansen and the agencies on this. The crime is that they are part of the coverup. At the moment they are all still shouting fire in the movie theater. What other datasets have been cooked?
One could take a rather (you should pardon the expression!) “skeptical” view of the Russians’ claim that:
“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.”
I do not subscribe to the “conspiracy theory of history”. But, it seems to me that if the CRU crew and their buddies around the world (who together succeeded in getting the “CO2 causes global warming” bandwagon rolling) expected the high level of funding for their “research” to continue after Copenhagen, the very last thing they should have been touting is that “the science is settled” (or too often heard words to that effect).
You see, if the outcome of the Copenhagen CarbonFest were to meet their wildest dreams, it would be “irresponsible” of the nations of the world to continue funding the CRUdites, wouldn’t it? More likely the response would be “thank you very much, your work is done here”.
So, with the CarbonFest in chaos – and the “real” agenda finally forging its way to the fore – a presumably non-binding “agreement” , rather than a binding “treaty”, appears to be in the works. This could keep the door open for continued funding of “climate science” research.
Perhaps in anticipation of this newly opened door, we now have the Russians stepping up to the (funding?!) plate, since it increasingly appears that the Hockey-stick Team has at least three strikes against them (and we’re still counting those strikes!)
http://hro001.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/chaotic-copenhagen-a-truth-slips-out/
why do we trust any single organization to provide the global temperature record? Would it not close the door on manipulation if each country created their own temperature record instead of submitting raw data to a handful of organizations who may or may not have an agenda?
“Dr.T G Watkins (12:02:43) :
If this is shown to be true,then the senior scientists at CRU and probably NOAA need the names of defense lawyers. I’m sure readers of WUWT will be happy to supply a list.”
*****************************
I know an alcoholic lawyer with dementia who flunked the bar and really needs some work. He would work REAL hard and he’s cheap.
It is interesting to examine one of the Siberian cells the IPCC shows as having the strongest warming on earth : – 65 to 70 N; by 115 to 120 E.
Despite claiming the strongest warming, the IPCC has no data for this cell at all and none appear on the GISS list. It shows all surrounding cells (except the one above which is blank) as warming but to a lesser degree.
Surrounding cells are as follows (from GISS data):
Left:
Olenek (slight warming)
Selagoncy (no change)
Right:
Dzardzan (no change)
Zhigansk (no change)
Below:
Suntar (slight warming)
The Russian paper claims this this cell does have a weather station that is not used by CRU/IPCC.
Does anyone have information on this station please ?
Big Al’s Sub Shop.
Big Al’s Motto: I am a liar.
…-
“The clarification said that Mr Gore “misspoke” on the polar ice prediction and that he meant that the cap would be nearly ice-free.”
“Al Gore tries to cool ‘climate spin’ by correcting claims of North pole thaw”
“Mr Gore’s office, however, stood by the choice of data. It said that the US Navy research unit was in a stronger position to give predictions as it had unique access to measurements of ice volume by submarines.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6959509.ece
http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.iea.ru/&ei=uoIpS92TCMyrjAflx6iaBw&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CBcQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3DInstitute%2Bof%2BEconomic%2BAnalysis%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DG
Translated page, with some graphs I cant read!
Leon Palmer (15:09:44) :
Leon – sadly, you experience is not unique. The people who run RC have no respect for you ir your opinions unless you think like them. It’s the same with the MSM and conservatives – somehow people think that if they are nice enough, their opinions will be aired objectively, when, in fact, they will be ridiculed unless they are in line with the MSM journalists.
The response to RC is the same as my response to the MSM. Don’t patronize their site, and don’t try to win their respect – it’s a losing cause. They simply don’t care about what you or anyone else thinks. It’s their sandbox – let them have it and ignore them.
Well, we now know why there is a decline in the tree-rings starting in about 1950-60.
Temperatures were actually falling in the northern areas where most of the tree-rings come from.
We used to understand there was a general decline in temperatures from 1940 to about 1979, especially in the more northern areas. The tree-rings picked this up (and there are not many tree-ring samples dated to the post-1979 period when it started to warm up a little again).
But the actual temperatures were adjusted upward which created a “divergence”.
So, Jones and Mann were not only “hiding the decline” in tree-rings, they were also hiding the decline in temperatures.
I don’t wish to dampen the spirits of fellow sceptics at this apparent revelation but I would suggest a possible alternate take. It appears to me that the Russian authors are suggesting that the subset of temperature records recently posted December 08, 2009 by the MET at
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climatechange/science/monitoring/hadcrut3.html
are not representative of Russian stations. This is very likely true based on my reading of their report. They may not be saying that HadCRUT does this with official temperature determinations.
Hello, My name is Al and I am an alco…, a compulsive liar.
I really think it is very important to continually mention and remind everyone of the people behind this activity.
The Hadley Climate Research Unit consists of people.
People with names.
People with names, who in their positions made decisions and directed others..
Deliberate and unethical decisions and directions.
It wasn’t a Center or a system that did this. It was people.
These people, with names, must be held accountable and face severe consequences in order to preserve the “Center” and institutions human progress relies upon.
Way too often individuals escape consequences when Mr. Nobody “The system” takes all the blame.
All that does is make sure the problem will happen again and again.
Name them.
Unrelated post.
I have just watched the most excruciatingly absurd ‘experiment’ to prove CO2 causes global warming on BBC’s Newsnight (a nightly, highly regarded’ authoritative source of information). I am lost for words. Watch it on BBC i-player and particularly keep a close eye on the temp. readouts. Even I, a senior retired establishment chap, wonders if there is a conspiracy against science or are just reaping the demise of science teaching in schools so that all our journalists and politicians are, in the nicest possible sense, ignorant (not unintelligent) of science.
Frank K. (17:07:52) :
I believe that have a good idea for an objective analysis, that done objectively might confirm the CRU results. If so that would be a real contribution to the science, since most of the scepticism revolves around the “anthropogenic” corrections, more than around the raw data (which has it’s own set of problems).
However, I don’t believe they will, and if even if they did and it falsified CRU, would they publish it? So I still think it is incumbent upon skeptics, lukewarmers, alarmist to stimulate them with a stick every now again to measure their response 🙂
Soon enough “Climate change” – formerly known as “Global Warming” will join the ranks of bad predictions.
And it will yet again confound “scientists” (SIC) how so many could be so easily led astray by so few. (Until they remember a man in Germany some 64 years ago.
A man with brown trousers and a dodgy preussian moustache.)
Dr A Burns (17:00:14) :
It is interesting to examine one of the Siberian cells the IPCC shows as having the strongest warming on earth : – 65 to 70 N; by 115 to 120 E.
Despite claiming the strongest warming, the IPCC has no data for this cell at all and none appear on the GISS list. It shows all surrounding cells (except the one above which is blank) as warming but to a lesser degree.
Surrounding cells are as follows (from GISS data):
Left:
Olenek (slight warming)
Selagoncy (no change)
Right:
Dzardzan (no change)
Zhigansk (no change)
Below:
Suntar (slight warming)
—–
Interestingly, when you go to the VNIIGMI-MTsD website (http://meteo.ru/), they show the following on their stations list (http://meteo.ru/climate/katalog2.htm):
Station Sukhana, ID 24136, running since 1938 with no recorded moves. Lat 68deg37′ N, Lon 118deg20’E. That’d be the one right in the square you are looking at. Smack in the middle of the square, even.
The raw Russian data is available via an app at http://aisori.meteo.ru/climate
AdderW (16:36:15) :
maz2 (17:00:55) :
“al gore’s office”
“mr. gore’s office”
what, his office at google?
even i have what can be called an “office”
MSM still sucking up, imho
Dr.T G Watkins(Wales) (17:20:21) :
Unrelated post.
I have just watched the most excruciatingly absurd ‘experiment’ to prove CO2 causes global warming on BBC’s Newsnight (a nightly, highly regarded’ authoritative source of information). I am lost for words. Watch it on BBC i-player and particularly keep a close eye on the temp. readouts. Even I, a senior retired establishment chap, wonders if there is a conspiracy against science or are just reaping the demise of science teaching in schools so that all our journalists and politicians are, in the nicest possible sense, ignorant (not unintelligent) of science.
What gets me, and leaves me dumbfounded, is how “not actually understanding anything” seems to have become a virtue in our western-anglo society.
Being in agreement with others trumps demonstable knowledge of a thing.
Groupthink in action.
Just to push back a little, I remember reading that during the Soviet Union days, sites in Siberia got extra support( fuel etc) in colder weather. So there may well have been a bias to report colder temperatures then, with a more recent catchup.
In any case, clearly the quality of the recorded data has to be vetted more intensely than has been done to date.
For unbiased sources, it appears that Dr Briffa’s tree cores are probably more correct overall ( adjusting for outlier instances such as Yamal trees) than the mass of the CRu’s thermometers. Shipboard readings from old log books may be the most reliable human record that we have, free from UHI distortions or economic incentives for adjustment.
Jerry (16:27:32) :
“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.”
It’d be amusing to find out that, taking into account the “human factor” that tree rings are a better means of measuring temperature than thermometers and satellites!
Chiefio has done a credible job of looking at station dropout and relocation statistics around the world. In his words, “the only warming I see is from Thermometer Change.”
If rural stations are shut down, the average temperature will rise. If high altitude stations are shut down, the average temperature will rise. If mercury thermometers are replaced with electronic substitutes, the continuous record is interrupted and naturally things must now be ‘adjusted’ to conform. All of these changes have happened, and if you rely on GHCN statistics taken at face value, the latest decade IS the hottest. But this is indeed “man-made warming” because it occurs only in the statistics, not in the, you know, actual atmosphere, which has inconveniently refused to warm.
Spend some time at his site…start at this link. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/11/03/ghcn-the-global-analysis/
RE: Bill Parsons (12:37:28)
“Lack of attribution and authorship leave one wondering.”
Don’t bother wondering. Just take a leaf out of the warmist bible. Lets say that this report was authord by, I don’t know, over 4000 expert climate scientists from 5000 of the worlds top research institutions across over say 500 countries and is based on over 100 000 peer-reviewed articles. No repeat that 1 million times to yourself until you believe it, then repeat it 1 million times to all your friends until they believe it, pretty soon it will become fact.
Albert Einstein: If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.
Why yes, I can translate:
Ze Mann iz, how to say, much stupid! Ze global warming? Nyet!
That about covers the article I think.