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.
Not sure if anyone already posted this… I am pretty sure the new story originated from Kommersant – Notice that is the name above the story on RIA Novosti. Here’s the Google translated page of the story on Kommersant:
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.kommersant.ru/&ei=GZcpS8SkCJKYtgen1fCACQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBMQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKommersant%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu%26rlz%3D1I7GGIH_en
REPLY: There are several stories on that page, none of which seem relevant. Please provide more info. -Anthony
Has anyone tried to overlay CO2 concentrations (e.g., from GOSAT) with temperature anomaly map? It would be interesting… I expect that there would be a big discrepancy between the purported warming of Siberia and CO2.
Some commenters have raised questions about Dr. Andrei Illarionov.
I have had the honor and privilege of having spent some time with him. He’s not only an excellent analyst, more importantly, he is a person of the highest integrity, principles, and courage. But for these attributes, he might have been as wealthy as any oligarch – something many pushing cap-and-trade would love to be. He stood up to Putin and, in my opinion, is fortunate he’s still a free man and to have survived. Read the Washington Post here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/27/AR2005122700456.html
Yes, he’s a skeptic, as all thinking men ought to be.
In my book, he’s right up there with Professor Vaclav Klaus. Yes, I’m biased.
[REPLY – Well said! ~ Evan]
Since Real Climate won’t post my comments anyway, I speak directly to the moderators. Something like, “I hope they bury the hockey stick with your career” or “Why are you still here? – no one believes a word you say.”
Anthony – Sorry, first time using Google Translate. 🙂 This is the right link (I hope):
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.kommersant.ru/doc.aspx%3FDocsID%3D1293467%26ThemesID%3D1189&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKommersant%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us:IE-ContextMenu%26rlz%3D1I7GGIH_en&rurl=translate.google.com&twu=1&usg=ALkJrhhLDXDrnx66gIOHknmsRYMPx5ibtA
Here is the answer of International Civil Coalition on Climate Change
Source: http://www.iea.ru/kioto_order.php?id=8
Scientific consensus on climate issues do not exist …
Message of 56 newspapers, including the “Novaya Gazeta” to the world community about the dangers of global warming met with a ambiguous assessment of the experts.
December 7, 2009 “Novaya Gazeta”, along with another 55 editions in 44 countries issued a common column editor, prepared by the editors of The Guardian. In it readers appealed step forth with the “united front” against what the authors call “a real threat to mankind”.
The International Civilian Coalition on Climate Change (GKIK) disagreed with this treatment and prepared its response to it, published to date in 14 countries. GKIK believes that “the treatment of 56-ty” significantly distorts the actual picture of climate change. Moreover, instead of help in solving the real problems facing humanity, it urged the international community to implement a policy that threatens mankind in incomparably greater degree than actual and quite modest (in a historical perspective) of climate change on the planet.
The appeal, issued on December 7, argues that “global warming will cause irreparable damage to our planet, and with it, and our well-being and security.” In fact, raising global temperatures, recorded in the twentieth century, does not go beyond the more unusual and extreme fluctuations of the thermal regime, repeatedly observed in Earth’s history. On the other hand, the suppression of economic growth and slowing down (if not a halt) standards of living as a result of the recommended treatment policy is a real problem for billions of people around the world, including the citizens of our country.
Adoption of the “11 of the last 14 years were the warmest in the history of observations is not entirely correct, since the period of instrumental observations is too short, so on that basis make such arrogant statements about the long-term climate changes. The global climate during the repeated warming of the past – the medieval climatic optimum, the ancient climatic optimum, the Holocene Optimum – was warmer than the present climate at 1-3 ° C. Moreover, in the last 10 years is not observed increase in global temperature, and satellite data indicated even a slight cooling.
Adoption of the “Arctic ice melt” is outdated. Instead of reducing the area of ice cover in the Arctic is actually observed in 1979-2007 yy. In recent years its growth has come. In those same years an increase in the Antarctic ice sheet was observed.
“Excessive prices for oil and food” to a certain extent are the result of policy restrictions on the use of hydrocarbons, the effect of extrusion from the structure of arable food crops through improved crop plants from which ethanol is produced to replace hydrocarbons as fuel. In other words, the very recommended treatment policy ensures “high prices for oil and food, leading to chaos awaiting us in the future.”
It is not true assertion that “in scientific journals will no longer raises the question of whether to blame the warming of humanity. There is still vibrant discussion in the scientific community on climate change issue, its direction, magnitude, speed, impact, possible, permissible and optimal actions of mankind in this regard.
Perhaps the only thing you can agree to some extent in a published appeal, it is the fact that the currently available scientific evidence is confusing. In other words, this appeal confirms that nothing like this so-called “scientific consensus” about climate change on the planet does not exist. The degree of uncertainty in understanding the nature of climate change is such that it does not allow any responsible governments to take costly solutions on the shaky and even more lack of scientific basis.
The forecast of the extents of warming and its effects, made in the appeal: “At 3-4 ° C – the very small increase, which can be expected in the case of inaction – will dry whole continents, turning grasslands into desert. Half of the species will become extinct, millions of people will be forced to leave the place of residence, the whole country will go under the water” is based on no serious scientific research and is a pure fantasy of its authors.
It is unfortunate that the letter, published in the pages of “Novaya Gazeta”, contains a statement about “the guilt of humanity, reflecting an anti-human views of the authors of this text.
Andrei Illarionov,
President of the Institute of Economic Analysis, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute
GKIK’s answer
Poverty, which supposedly take care of the initiators of the treatment 56-tees, is a consequence of state policy that prevents people to create wealth and provide decent living for themselves and their loved ones. It is unfortunate that some leaders of developing countries attending the summit in Copenhagen, trying to explain the hunger and disease in their countries only references to climate change.
Under the guise of concern for the poorer countries, the leaders of the Copenhagen Conference in fact, seems more interested in ensuring the financial interests of companies such as, for example, ArcelorMittal, fearful of losing 1 billion pounds of carbon credits in 2012, whith the expiration of the Kyoto Protocol.
Instead of articulating and prosecution of false targets, political leaders gathered in Copenhagen, should concentrate on the other – to develop policies that promote more effective human adaptation to climate change, economic growth, the development of free trade, protection of property rights, strengthen democracy.
Sincerely, members of the International Civil Coalition on Climate Change (GKIK):
Eustace Davie, FMF, South Africa, Julian Morris, IPN, United Kingdom; Franklin Cujo, Imani, Ghana; Obianva Ekenedilichukvu, CETD, Nigeria; Nonoy Oplas, MGT, Philippines; Singyan Feng, Xia Yelyang, CIPA, China; Naydzher Innis, CORE, U.S. Barun Mitra, Liberty Institute, India; Martin Krause, CIIMA-ESEADE, Argentina; Pierre Bessar, Institut Constant de Rebecque, Switzerland; Rokio Guydzharro, CEDICE, Venezuela; Wolfgang Müller, Oliver Knipping, IUF, Germany, Andrei Illarionov, IEA , Russia; Carlo Stagnaro, IBL, Italy, Jose Luis Tapia Rocha, ILE, Peru; Vae Sayful Wang Yan, MTT, Malaysia; Krasen Stanchev, IME, Bulgaria.
[REPLY – Very well. But PLEASE CHANGE YOUR TAG. Or I shall be obliged to start deleting your posts. ~ Evan]
Yes, well said Mr./Dr. Goklany!
But now onto more serious matters/not.
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.”
My contribution, I’m suggesting the “Ward Churchill + Judith Curry” defense strategy: the rights of genuine fakes [Indian and Scientist] and “tribes” [both, again] to have equal standing with other tribes in this great country; and, regardless, as justifying almost anything Climate Scientists might do as fitting the Tribal Standard of Practice in Climate Science. I will not elaborate further as to the secret weapons in my medicine pouch, except you can be sure it counts a coup de grace or two. And I do expect to be paid if this defense is used, because it’s “proprietary” – it’s mine, bitches! Not just anyone can use it.
I wrote today in a comment on RealClimate (not published) re: their “cherry picking” defense: How large must the sample size of picked cherries be before it ceases to be “cherry picking?”
Ian B (15:41:35) :
James Randi appears to have broken ranks–
http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/805-agw-revisited.html
That link doesn’t work.
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. You gotta love it.”
Wow. “Getting warmer” (closer to the truth)?
“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.”
Maybe there’ll be a congressional investigation (of NASA, etc.)
I thought there were about 1200 official temperature stations in the USA, and most of them were visited by Anthony’s volunteers. Tonight I see there are only 134. What gives?
That link doesn’t work.
Works for me. Does your computer have an internet?
With respect, Dr. Goklany appears not to have read the front page of his own website lately, in which he claims to be the originator of the following policy: “Sustainable development will make developing countries less vulnerable to future climate change while helping solve today’s urgent climate-related problems such as malaria, hunger and threats to species and ecosystems.”
It is hard for me, so far, to reconcile such claims with his statement earlier in this thread that all thinking men should be skeptics.
Perhaps, at a minimum, he would like to disavow any connection between malaria and “climate change”?
The Institute of Economic Analysis is a private, free-market “think tank” that is based in Moscow. Similar to the Cato Institute in the US.
http://www.iea.ru
This is now being discussed on Slashdot. I guess the politically correct sites can no longer ignore climategate without risking their popularity:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/12/16/2336239
Go over there and give them hell.
RE:
Lucy Skywalker (13:24:10) :
**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.**
Have you checked which stations RC used in their “verification” of “no problem”?
To hro001: Who do you think would be funded to check out that atmospheric CO2 was decreasing as planned?
The more facts that come out the better. But if those in power in the US want to pass cap and tax they will – remember CO2 according to the EPA is a poison. Those with an agenda are not going to let facts get in the way, so don’t celebrate too soon. The MSM are still ignoring it or downplaying the facts… otherwise seemingly intelligent people are ignoring the facts because AGW is a religion for them, they automatically filter out the facts that don’t agree to their belief in AGW. We still need to inform as many people about this site and others that provide the facts. In the US, this is similar to the fact that over 60% don’t want Obamacare but they those in power are fighting to pass it. The fight is not over until every politician admits they were duped.
Russia is the topic of a lot of HARRY_READ_ME database headaches:
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11906
This is big, since now a major nation has publicly claimed CRU made a mess of things.
Justin (17:33:43) :
Fantastic ! Thank you.
I plotted the data in Excel and it shows a slight cooling ! How on earth can the CRU scammers change a cooling cell, surrounded by cells with no warming, to the greatest rate of warming on earth !?
Looks like another Darwin to me !!
It will be interesting to investigate some of the surrounding cells in detail.
reLOVEution (14:50:57) :
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 can attest that people have been attacked physically as well. The forces behind these cover ups are devoid of moral or ethical standards. They have been motivated by the worst kind of greed – denial of knowledge. That is changing now. It has changed. And those of us who love mankind rejoice.
Lucy: yes the battleground has shifted. And these blogs are in the theatre. This was an instinctual battle – with empirical data the weapon. I look forward to reading the origins of Hamlet. Thanks to all.
Retired BChE (20:11:49) :
I thought there were about 1200 official temperature stations in the USA, and most of them were visited by Anthony’s volunteers. Tonight I see there are only 134. What gives?
Good question. I took a look at what stations are in the recently released HadCRUT3 “subset” for the state of Arkansas (where I live). Just two: Fort Smith, and Little Rock (the airport, and only back to 1937). But there are a half a dozen or more CRN sites in Arkansas. Why aren’t any of those in there?
Why the Russian Meteorological Record was tampered with by GISTEMP and USHCN?
Both GISTEMP – the NASA Goddard center data and USHCN make important corrections to the raw temperature data, available at http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/climate.aspx
The raw data shows no unusual recent warming tendencies at all; most sites are cooling – check for yourselves above.
The two sites GISTEMP and USHCN reference some papers on corrections which I took care to read – I am a mathematical physicist.
What these sites do not tell is the MAGNITUDE of the corrections they use, which is hidden inside parameters of their programs and inaccessible on a case by case basis to the outside.
STATIONS WITH INTERRUPTIONS IN DATA, LIKE THE ONES THEY PICKED FROM RUSSIA, SIMPLY PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR LARGE AND UNCHECKED CORRECTIONS.
Since the warming arises out of corrections alone, you can start to see what is going on.
I think that as much as possible ideological differences need to be avoided. I absolutely don’t care whether people I deal with have opinions of one kind or another.
One should stick to the raw data, and its handling or mishandling – that does not include fudgeable models, but actual thermometer data.
If as becomes more and more clear the Earth is now not warming up any differently from the way it did in the last 120 years, in fact even less than before, while CO2 levels have measurably grown, you don’t need a PhD in meteorology to see the lack of connection.
So stick to the thermometers, which show no heating, and to the corrections which make it pop up.
The Russian data fudge is very important, since most warming was supposed to have happened in Siberia – we now start to understand the data tricks behind it.
Remember that Al Capone was brought down by a tax accountant. So if you have a colleague who is a professional statistician, please try to have him or her take a look at the data handling process – they can detect something off from five blocks away.
I find it strange for instance that correcting for lack of data or for unusual data jumps compared to neighboring stations produces a huge one-sided warming up effect from the data, rather than corrections going both ways. If you toss a coin and get 90 to 10 instead of 50 – 50, you start to have doubts. And of course today we know the trick played on the Russian data – which simply magnifies the opportunity for unchecked data fudge.
For me, in a concrete case, Hokitika in New Zealand, a rural station with no data interruption for 120 years, I tried to find the exact reason and magnitude for corrections as large as 2 degrees, far outside the range suggested by the scientific papers I read. It turns out that nobody involved can answer that question.
Just quoting some papers about adjustments and then having the actual magnitude and motive of each adjustment in each case is not transparency, and not clean science. Making that data available in clickable form, for an issue which affects each of us, if not through climate at least through massive economic impact, is a must, and is extremely feasible if there is nothing to hide.
Remember that the raw data shows no human generated recent global warming whatsoever; it all comes from the corrections.
If they decided for instance to make the corrections twice as big – or ten times as big for that matter – which GISS did, between 2000 and 2008 – under the current system nobody could check it. I asked a specific question about a specific station, and no one could tell me the reason for the unusually high correction. That’s because only the people who tweak the program know the actual parameters, and even they cannot discuss an individual case.
Any individual case should have the full correction data available. Just posting references to papers on corrections is by no means a substitute. I read those papers and I realized that the source and magnitude of each correction can vary, and under the current system is opaque to the public.
I wish I could play with such a program and produce twice as much global warming by doubling the magnitude of the corrections – that’s what GISS did. Under the current system – post references to papers about corrections and then do what you want to the data – this is very possible.
In a shipment, the customs service is cutting open and checking a random case of oranges, and then a few oranges in it.
Until the analog of that is possible with processed meteorological data, the unusual warming up theory produced by unchecked corrections is highly suspicious.
I don’t think that a good solid scientific argument should be underestimated. It does filter to the mass media – which is in fact happening these days. If a good reporter feels backed by data and by scientifically competent people, he or she will have a field day setting the record straight.
Then the general public, which is asked to make serious personal economic sacrifice for a theory contradicted by measured raw data, will make up their minds in an informed way.
I wonder if Hadley CRU or NASA GISS ever signed any agreements with the Russian Federal government? I wonder if falsifying Russian government federal records carries any penalty?
Maybe some researchers will get to discover if Siberia really is melting as they claim. I mean, at this point, who would believe CRU?
So weird to think. If there was no internet this whole thing would have never even seen the light of day. The MSM was so used to being able to control the message… but that ship has sailed (and crashed into an iceberg.)
And here I thought the internet was just for lookin’ at boobies. ^___^