Global Cooling – Climate and Weather Forecasting.
Guest post by Dr. Norman Page
Introduction.
Over the last 10 years or so as new data have accumulated the general trend and likely future course of climate change has become reasonably clear. The earth is entering a cooling phase which is likely to last about 30 years and possibly longer. The major natural factors controlling climate change have also become obvious.Unfortunately the general public has been bombarded by the scientific and media and political establishments with anthropogenic global warming – anti CO2 propaganda based on the misuse and misrepresentation of already shoddy IPCC “science” for political ,commercial and personal ends.
The IPCC climate science community largely abandoned empirical Baconian inductive scientific principles and built worthless climate models based on unfounded assumptions designed to show that anthropogenic CO2 was the driving force behind changing climate. Most of the IPCC output is useless as a tool for predicting future climate trends and their impacts and in particular the IPCC Summaries for Policymakers can be safely ignored for practical purposes. The divergence between the IPCC Hansen projections and the observed trends is shown below.
Fig 1 ( From Prof. Jan-Erik Solheim (Oslo) )
Fortunately, however , the basic data is now easily available so that any reasonably intelligent person can check on line daily or monthly to see what the incoming empirical data actually is and draw ones own conclusions.
Here’s how to do it in a few simple steps. I have put in CAPITALS the main empirical observations on which one can draw conclusions re climate change ,its causes and future trends and also get a good idea of weather patterns and trends for the next year or so.
1. Check the Temperature Trends and Data.
Because of the Urban Heat Island effect ,the built in local variability of the NH land data and the thermal inertia of the oceans, Sea Surface Temperatures are the best measure of global temperature trends. These show that the global warming trend ended in about 2003. THERE HAS NOW BEEN NO NET WARMING SINCE 1997 -15 YEARS WITH CO2 RISING 8.5% WITH NO GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE. SINCE 2003 THE TREND IS NEGATIVE.
To check the past years go to
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
and for monthly updates go to.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
The 2012 average NCDC SST anomaly thru Sept was .4438 versus the 1997 annual anomaly of .4575.
The peak anomaly was .5207 in 2003.
An excellent site for reviewing all the basic temperature data is http://www.climate4you.com/
2. Check the current phase of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.
Here is a plot and suggested projection based on the Hadley SST3 from Tallbloke.
(See: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/the-carbon-flame-war-final-comment/) He says “I have put together a simple model which replicates sea surface temperature (which drives global lower troposphere temperature and surface temperatures a few months later). The correlation between my model and the SST is R^2=0.874 from 1876 FOR MONTHLY DATA.” The model is shown with predictions to 2050 (blue) along with the HADsst3 (red).
I included Fig 2 because an approximate 60 year cycle is obvious by inspection and this coincides well with the 30 year +/- positive (warm) and 30year +/ negative (cold) phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Figure 2 shows warming from about 1910 – 1940-45 , cooling from then to about 1975 -.warming to about 2003-5 and cooling since then. Total warming during the 20th century was about 0.8 degrees C. For a complete discussion and review of the data relating the PDO to the other oceanic cycles and temperatures see
For latest PDO data see http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/PDO.latest
IT IS CLEAR THAT WE ARE IN THE EARLY STAGES OF A THIRTY YEAR NEGATIVE (COOLING ) PDO CYCLE.
3. Check Solar Activity – where are we at?
The major ice age climate cycles are controlled by the sun – earth orbital eccentricity,and the earth’s obliquity and precession. These cycles are approximately 100,000, 41,000 and 21000 years in length respectively and are well documented in the ice core and geological record. It is useful to keep in mind that the warmest temperatures in the current interglacial occurred about 7500+/- years ago and the GENERAL TREND IS NOW A COOLING TOWARDS THE NEXT ICE AGE.
Fig 4 http://colli239.fts.educ.msu.edu/1999/07/11/vostok-1999/
These long term cycles are modulated by quasi cyclic trends in solar activity which may be decadal ,centennial or millennial in length.Of particular interest in deciding where we are with regard to the solar cycles is the approximately 1000 +/- year cycle which produced succesively the Roman Warm Period, the Dark Ages,the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the recent 20th century warming.
Fig 5 (From http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/ )
The red line shows the continuing cooling trend from the Holocene optimum and the 1000yr +/- solar cycle is clearly seen.
NOTE – A REASONABLE CASE CAN BE MADE THAT THE WARMING PEAKS OF A 60 YEAR PDO CYCLE AND THE 1000 YEAR SOLAR CYCLE COINCIDED AT 2000 +/- AND WE ARE LIKELY ON THE COOLING SLOPE OF BOTH.
The clearest empirical measure of solar activity is the solar magnetic field strength. On an empirical basis Livingston and Penn have shown that the decline in solar magnetic field strength suggests that sunspots could disappear by about 2015 signalling THE START OF A NEW MAUNDER MINIMUM WITH SIGNIFICANT COOLING.
For a semi-empirical estimate of the possible cooling if a Maunder Minimum does develop see http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Shindell_etal_1.pdf
Note the abstract of the Shindell paper (Mann is one of the et als) says “THIS LEADS TO COLDER TEMPERATURES OVER THE NORTHERN HEMISPHERE CONTINENTS ESPECIALLY IN WINTER (1 to 2 C), IN AGREEMENT WITH HISTORICAL RECORDS AND PROXY DATA FOR SURFACE TEMPEERATURES
“For a good review of the latest sunspot and magnetic data see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/03/the-sun-still-slumping/ and to keep with the decline in solar magnetic field strength and the liklihood of a Maunder Minimum check monthly the Livingston and Penn thread at
http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=855
Perhaps the best indicator of the effect of the declining solar magnetic field can be seen in the Galactic Cosmic Ray flux.
This can be checked on a daily basis at http://cosmicrays.oulu.fi/#database
Fig 6 Neutron count since 1964 from the Oulu data base.
The Dec 2009 neutron maximum ( solar cycle 23 -24 minimum) is greater than anything seen previously and the neutron count is now (Nov 2012) higher than at any comparable time in previous cycles since we are only 12 -18 months away from the cycle 24 solar maximum.There was a secular change in solar magnetism in 2005 – check the WUWT link posted earlier. The neutron count ties to earths climate via cloud cover and albedo. Simply put – the lower the neutron count the lower the cloud cover and the warmer the temperature. Because of the enthalpy and thermal inertia of the oceans there is a 10 – 12 year lag between the neutron troughs and global SSTs. The short term temperature record is variable over shorter times than 12 years because of El Ninos and La Ninas and volcanic and lunar effects but the increasingly lower counts on the three troughs from 1970 – 1991 are well matched by the temperature rise from 1981 – 2003. THE RELATIVELY HIGH NEUTRON COUNT IN 2012 COMPARED WITH 1970 SUGGESTS THAT BY 2024 GLOBAL TEMPERATURES WILL BE BELOW THOSE OF 1970 WHICH WERE ALREADY BELOW 2012 BY ABOUT 0.36 C.
4. Check the Southern Oscillation Index.
Fig 7 http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
In Fig 7 values above +8 indicate La Ninas, values below -8 are El Ninos and values in betwen are neutral or La Nadas.
Figure 7 also has some predictive value relative to global temperatures. ( Mclean et al JGR 2009) Global temperatures appear to lag the SOI by about 7 months.
5. Climate , Weather and Extreme Events.
Sections 1 – 4 above show that the earth has entered a cooling trend which will continue for at least 30 years and perhaps longer. To get some idea of possible extreme weather events we might look at extremes found between the MWP and the Little Ice Age. It is unlikely however that any future extremes will be “unprecedented”.There is a large literature on this topic which interested parties can consult.Some general empirical observations can be made.
On a cooling earth there is a steeper temperature gradient from the Tropics to the Poles. This produces instabilities with the jet stream swinging meridionally further south and north. Thus blocking high pressure systems develop with extremes of cold and heat and sharp temperature gradients between air masses with for example Sandy type blizzards or tornado swarms. A cooler world will be a generally drier world with increasing droughts globally and in e.g the USA corn belt and in the USA in general When combined with shorter growing seasons and possible early and late frosts this is likely to threaten world food production as population increases.
The PDO and SOI indices are the main ocean climate and weather indicators.Obviously ,for regional analyses at particular times, the phases of other ocean systems relative to the first two – for the U.S for example the AMO and NAO need to be considered. These are easily checked by looking from time to time at the work of the best climate and weather interpreters Joe D’Aleo and Joe Bastardi on http://www.icecap.us/
6.Summary of some Future Trends and Policy Suggestions.
The empirical observations highlighted in CAPITALS above indicate that the global warming temperature trend has peaked .The peak is broad with only a little cooling to date but this will likely accelerate from 2015 or 2016 on reflecting the beginning of the increase in the cosmic ray count already seen from 2004 – 2009 in Fig 6. The cooling will last until 2030- 2040. Often the signal for a climate direction change is a see saw effect between Arctic and Antarctic sea ice. The Arctic is still reflecting the peak in the warming trend with low summer ice values.
The first indication of a cooling event is however the increase in Antarctic sea ice which has already occurred.
This alters the oceanic deep water circulation patterns and spreads the cooling world wide. The Arctic ice will begin to catch up in a five years or so.
With a cooling world sea levels will stop rising and begin to fall as glaciers and ice caps begin to increase and the oceans compress with cooling.Eventually the rate of CO2 increase will slow and may even reverse even if human emissions continue to rise .
Because the error bars in our rough estimates of natural temperature variations are larger than any possible
Ron Manley says:
November 19, 2012 at 6:20 pm
There seems to be a growing understanding in the wider climate science community that temperature increases have been driven mainly by CO2 and natural cycles with volcanoes and sun spots playing a lesser role. Examples are:
– The posting by Tallbloke mentioned above,
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/10/23/the-carbon-flame-war-final-comment/
My simple model gives around a third of the warming to each of;
Natural internal oscillation (ocean cycles)
Solar effect on ocean heat content (via Nir Shviv’s terrestrial amplification)
A mostly natural increase in co2 (See Bart’s plot above demonstrating partial temperature dependency of co2)
The co2 component may easily be something else like ozone changes due to solar EUV.
As the IPCC points out (reluctantly), there is a low level of understanding of 11 out of the 16 drivers they identify.
Who am I to disagree?
I predicted Global Cooling a couple of years ago….will be nice to be proven right
Don’t worry though warm-mongers and Climate “Scientists”. Whatever the weather does – warmer or colder – it is still “Climate Change” and you can blame it on CO2 from us rich white guy’s SUV’s. Your funding is safe.
Manfred says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:22 pm
What is, in your opinion, wrong with the latter ?
It is calibrated using the Group Sunspot Number, which is wrong http://www.leif.org/research/What-is-Wrong-with-GSN.pdf
ed says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:57 pm
looks like 3 of 5 of your cosmic ray plots look surprisingly similar to Oulu…you should have stuck with the top one. Biased?
On the plots one of the curves is Oulu, the other ones is not. It is not surprising that the one that is Oulu looks like Oulu, and, no, the other stations are not biased.
Roger Sowell says:
November 19, 2012 at 6:25 pm
Have a look at Roger’s presentation – excellent.
@RockyRoad
“So what?
No, no, no!
Can’t believe that, here in Italy this night the news just told me that in 2060 there will be no difference between winters and summers!
Personally, I have a hard time believing the summers will be quite that cold.”
Maybe I was not clear, the TV News suggested us that we are facing summer-like winters in next years not vice versa.
It was a silly statement of course, I was ironic writing that post.
You must see the weather forecasters here in Italy in these days.
This summer they counted the so called “heat waves” stating that we got a new record of 7 waves in August, and now they are counting the “cyclones” per month arguing that we are facing an extreme climate pattern never been before.
Somebutnotall, as R.A. Wilson used to say. Many borderline believers will peel off and many outspoken alarmists will tone down their rhetoric.
Pochas asked:
“On the jet stream business, wouldn’t a quiet sun mean less UV heating of the stratosphere and therefore less poleward movement in the stratosphere”
In fact a quiet sun means less ozone destruction in stratosphere and mesosphere which both then warm (contrary to established climatology).
The warming is greatest aound the poles which pushes the tropopause height down at the poles relative to the height at the equator.
That causes the jets and climate zones to shift towards the equator.
Some recent evidence in support of that is the observation that from 2004 to 2007 ozone amounts increased above 45km despite the quieter sun.
It’s good to see mention of the 60 year cycle in this article, for when that cycle was rising in the 30 years before 1998-99 it was the cause of all the alarm. As a co-author of this article published today you will see that I believe all climate change can be explained by natural cycles. Apart from the superimposed 60 year cycle, there is evidence of a cycle of about 1,000 years which is approaching its next maximum since the MWP. So clearly the world can expect about 500 years of cooling starting perhaps within the next 50 to 200 years.
The real “big picture” referred to is the fact that nothing unnatural is going to make a dent on the massive amount of energy stored not only in the oceans and crust, but all the way down to the core. To bring about a significant, long-term warming (or cooling) in surface temperatures (even within a few thousand years) there would have to be an impossible flow of energy into or out of the whole Earth system.
The stabilising mechanism has nothing to do with the very low terrestrial heat flow: rather it has to do with the temperature which has been established over a billion years or more. So, if you question the brief mention of such in the above article, this page of explanation may help you follow the argument.
this is unprecedented. no wonder we are cooling. the Govenment is spending less money.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cia-has-closed-its-climate-change-research-office-2012-11
regards
Let’s assume Dr. Page is correct.
Let’s further assume that the Green/Left is successful in forcing through widespread ‘anti-carbon’ legislation — mainly making First World electricity prices many times higher and stifling Third World development.
The death toll from their actions would then dwarf anything that those other Comrades, Stalin and Mao, ever achieved. A Great Leap Forward, indeed!
And what will their excuse be? “We meant well.”
Unfortunately, the warmist tendency have spent the last decade getting people – mainly in school – to believe that ‘weird weather’ and more storms are a product of global warming. It should come as no surprise, when the storms and droughts which will naturally follow from global cooling, are also blamed on CO2 warming. People may start to freeze but they will be in the grip of the political hysteria that has built up over global warming. And the Gores and Manns of this world will continue to rip off the people.
ed says:
November 19, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Would love to see a plot of all cosmic ray monitoring stations and thier locations to see which locations are similar to oulu and which are not. Geomagnetic variability by location?
You sound somewhat desperate. There are not many stations with unbroken data going back many decades. The issue is not geomagnetic variability, but simply stability of the instruments over time.
Gee Norman is funny. I have just been reading the stuff he has written for Marc Morano. He has plagiarized all of the climate scientists predictions and current observations and presented them as HIS predictions. He has done no work of his own.
Consequently he is just as alarmist as the climate scientists in his so called “predictions”. The only difference is he attributes all this to solar cycles instead of increasing CO2.
I like the idea that the Pranksters on Olympus decided to send Sandy and a few extreme weather events in order to get the alarmists to go out on a limb again. I.e., I like the idea that they’ve been set up for a fall. That’s how the world works, according to Greek drama. It’s banana peels all the way down.
PS: The limb they’re on grows from the green bay tree.
Dr. Page
Cooling yes, but there are regional differences.
In the N. Hemisphere these are mainly due to the NAO (oscillating between two phases). Deflection of polar jet-stream causes different trends in Canada & Greenland to the W. Europe.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NAOn.htm
Global temperature may ‘iron out’ these differences (even without interference with the data, which has became a large industry) so to for a particular region may mean very little.
For the future, the best guide is the past. ‘Extrapolation into the future, based on past trends, is in fact highly reliable if you have strong reason to believe that the underlying physical drivers of the system under study are not going to change.’
I did an extrapolation the CET , the longest and possibly most scrutinized regional record, with assumption that two main ingredients
– 350 year long overall 0.25C/century up-trend and
– three main multi-decadal spectral components
will persist for at least next 30 years (10% of known records)..
Result indeed points to significant regional cooling to 2030s.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET-NV.htm
with further up/down oscillation
This is also supported by correlation to the geological records in the N. Atlantic (N. Atlantic precursor) and particularly ‘deep low’ shown by the solar activity’s extrapolation.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/LFC2.htm
Solar activity and geological events (volcanic eruptions and strong earthquakes combined) also appear to correlate
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SSN-NAP.htm
where the sunspots may only be an instrument of measure but not a direct cause.
The Ap index confirms the above
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/Ap-VI.htm
It could be speculated that the tectonic movements in the Atlantic and Pacific have an effect on the regional and finally global temperatures.
In the North Atlantic possible factor in the Atlantic-Arctic currents flows
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/SST-NAP.htm
In the Central Pacific possible factorin the behaviour of the South Equatorial current.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/ENSO.htm
In the North Pacific possible factor Kuroshio/Oyashio currents temperature balance (world’s third largest oceanic current system)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/NoaaD.htm
Number of climate commentators attempt to explain climate change in terms of the AMO, El Nino, La Nina, cloud coverage etc. All of these are elements of the climate change itself, so explaining the climate change in terms of the climate change appears to be a circular argument.
My effort is directed at non-climate forces as possible factors based on the data from world’s major data bases.
Svalgaard of Stanford will tell you all the above is ‘spurious’ and perhaps we live on a ‘spurious’ planet where nothing is related to anything else..
Some points on this. (1) It is obvious to those that bother to check that the predictions of the IPCC are just plain wrong. (2) The issues begin addressed in the public forum are all political. (3) These forums are strongly biased toward using global warming as a rationale to impose the will of those benefiting from the global warming disaster conjecture. (4) Governments acted on the conjecture and, in fact, have imposed all sorts of what our Brit friends would call nutter ideas.
Imho, it would seem better to begin papers like this with simple political statements in order to focus the public to the political argument. Namely, state
“there can be no IPCC consenus if the facts do not support the IPCC conjectures. This paper shows the IPCC conjecture based on (A) is wrong.”
then proceed in the usual manner. A lot more will read a sentence or two and might even remember some of the content but most will simply not wade through the detail. Even if carefully left throught by Lief or Anthony or Lort Monckton or ….
Oh, and use some slogans/bites/ad things. For instant article at the conclusion, something along the lines “Energy if life. Cheap energy is freedom for women”. And note: It’s not “ideological” or “partisan” since how energy is produced cheaper can be from state action, free market or simply by burning all the dollars Bernanke is printing.
Amazing to see the results of Kyoto, CO2-enrichment must have stopped according to the first graph. Surely, there cant be anything wrong with the models, can it?
logiclogiclogic … The theory of three theories.
I liked your post.
However, you miss the obvious theory: “we don’t know what caused it”. This is actually what “natural variation” means. It doesn’t mean we know it was the sun, it means “we don’t know”. That is a very different concept. But it is a theory that is useful because we can measure the size of that natural variation and we can to some extent predict how it will behave in the future from what it did in the past. Also, it is scientific because it is testable. Even if we don’t know what is causing “natural variation”, we can test to see whether the signal is consistent with this unknown variation or whether it is not (unlike manmade global warming which no test seems to disprove)
Under this “theory” (I think it’s more a tool), natural variation of around 0.1°C/decade is not uncommon. being 1/f^1.5 type noise, for short runs it’s near enough a random walk, so 3 decades of 0.1°C warming occurs about once a century. We had one 1910-1940 and we had the same scale 1970-2000. As such there is nothing at all unusual about these. We really needed to see at least 5 decades of continuous upward trend to even start suspecting it was not natural variation. However, since CO2 levels only started being measured in 1958 and it cooled in the 1960s, (when it should have warmed) and as it hasn’t warmed in the 2000s. and 1/3 of the 2010s We have had 2 1/3 decades of no warming compared to 3 decades of warming.
Some statistician could tell us how improbable that is. (1x cooling, 3x warming 1.3x pause), but I don’t need to work out the exact odds to know that’s far from exceptional.
Roger Knights says:
“I like the idea that the Pranksters on Olympus decided to send Sandy and a few extreme weather events in order to get the alarmists to go out on a limb again. I.e., I like the idea that they’ve been set up for a fall. That’s how the world works, according to Greek drama. It’s banana peels all the way down.”
You are a lot closer to the answer than you imagine. The old gods lived in an indeterministic world where they “just did”. If they felt bad, they took it out on humans, if they felt good, they likewise did good to humans. It was also a multi-faceted “god”, with many different characters.
In contrast, when Christianity came along, it introduced a deterministic god. God did good, (s)he therefore followed a series of rules and regulations so Christianity introduced this concept of a determinism.
One could argue that this was the essential change that led to modern science – the idea that things happen for a reason and not “the will of god”. In contrast, the old Norse and Greek gods fit much better with the vagaries of the weather.
So, when did Christianity begin? Roman warm period … a period when the climate no longer needed explaining by the old religion of chaotic gods.
When did the Norse gods get extinguished in North Europe? Medieval warm period! Again, not a time you needed the chaotic gods to explain the climate.
When did they burn the witches? Little ice-age! Was this a pagan revival?
However, the ultimate concept of Christianity is that “we are responsible for our sins … that our sins will receive punishment”. Give a culture like ours the concept that CO2 is a sin … and it is almost inescapable (cultural) logic that our sins of CO2 emission must lead to global warming hell. Likewise, the (punishment) of Sandy must be caused by our own sins. That is the cultural logic of a Christian society.
In contrast, a pagan society would look at Sandy … mutter “it’s just the gods doing what gods do” … and go back to our wooden huts to drink ale.
“Any reasonably intelligent person can check on line daily or monthly to see what the incoming empirical data actually is and draw ones (sic) own conclusions.” One would like to believe this to be true. My observation is that at least the current and perhaps the previous generation have been so poorly educated in the sciences, observation, and logic that 80%+ are incapable of drawing correct conclusions from the data and analyses; and of the other 20%, half are too lazy to do so. So, we end up being driven by politicians (of all stripes) with their more-government talking points and by popular pseudo-science as found in the execrable “The Day after Tomorrow.”
Good post, so many thanks.
The model used for the castigation of CO2, the two plate model, is good for two plates but not the reality that is earth. There is a good web site that explains a more realistic model which also negates the GHE as not workable or physically possible.
Try. http//www.climateofsophistry.com which is run by Joseph E. Postma an astronomer based in Canada.
ECO-GEEK and this article mentioned storing up food for lean years. Our previous PM and Chancellor, Gordon (Man of the manse [Church for our USA cousins]) had many good years in the UK economy – he spent spent spent like a demented alcoholic in an off-licence. He didn’t save, hence the UK’s economy is in s@ur momisugly@t state. Likewise, our food stocks are poor. Hence, the Arab spring – which started in Tunisia because of increased food prices (which hit the poor disproportionately harder) Lack of food is, of course, exascerbated by the need for bio-fuels – to combat Global Warming!!!!
If this article is accurate, we couldn’t have planned the demise of the human race better….. Or is this the Green Plan to reduce the numbers of humans….?
Sorry for the rant
OssQss says:
November 19, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Now my next question is do we have data as to sample rates over time with respect to global sites used for such Global Temp assessments ?
I seem to recall a time when we had many thousands more than we use now. A trend if you will?
______________________________
Yes the number of ‘official stations’ dropped drastically as is shown in this graph from the Judith Curry Blog.
Digging in the Clay blog did an interesting analysis on the effects of the The ‘Station drop out’ problem It was actually a series of posts such as Temperature stations : how many have data adjusted? and Adjustment Effects on Temperature Trends: Part 1 and they keep going.
Cheifio (E.M.Smith) did
GIStemp GHCN Selection Bias Measured 0.6 C
GIStemp “fixes” UHI using Airports as rural
More Airports Hotter Than ‘nearby’ Stations
And much more
WUWT did
GISS Swiss Cheese
On the “march of the thermometers”
And the response from the ‘Team’ on Station Drop out? There is no difference. (ROTFLMAO)
However despite that reassurance it seems the Russians weren’t too happy with how 75% of their station data was dropped. From WUWT (Do not miss the climategate e-mail where Michael Mann rejected two of the relevant papers submited to peer-reviewed journals that point out the problem with the Russian data )
Russian IEA claims CRU tampered with climate data – cherrypicked warmest stations
There is a lot more than the sampling I just listed but the conclusion I came to is the data set is essentially useless and has been tampered with over and over as this set of graphs show to make sure there is a warming trend to feed to the MSM.