This digest of Russian media carries a story that 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.
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.
My report “USSR High Magnitude Climate Warming Anomalies 1901-1996” – shows example after example of what the Russians are talking about.
Climategate is indeed changing our world.
Also Bloomberg article with some UKMO response.
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.
It is harldy a surprise that economists and others, who are familiar with statistical analyses, can clearly see what the CRU has been doing. Dr. Wegman pointed out statistical issues with Mann’s 1998 paper. Statistical problems were the basis for M&M’s critique of papers used as underpinning for the IPCC.
I am also glad that the Russians are speaking out.
When Phil Jones sent you his famous refusal email, many of us suspected that he was hiding data because it did not support his conclusions. Now the leaked emails show that this sort of behavoir was SOP for many in the climate science community (tribe?)
I just watched Bill Bennett discussing the impact of the Russian report.
One has to wonder how far this goes. Was this a co-operative effort? The reason I ask is because the other major data sets agree with the Hadley Set. If it turns out that the other institutions used the same cherry-picking of data that seems to support a conspiracy theory. I am always reluctant to believe anything when a conspiracy is needed in order for it to be true but in this case more and more evidence is coming to light that such a conspiracy exists. If Climate Science wants to be ever taken seriously they need to clean house and fast. They also need to have an independent review of the questionable data and the methods used to generate the temperature records. Since these are basically math and statistics problems it would be good PR to have these disciplines review and critique thier work. If there is no wrong doing then such a review should not be objected to but actually welcome.
I would like to see a graph of world temperatures using only rural sites.
This would be a good start on eliminating the urban warming bias.
Less data, but accurate data is preferred to more inaccurate data.
Rich,
I agree with you that climate science needs to fix its problems. The Universities where the books were cooked also need to crack down on the cooks. If they do not take strong action, then we run the risk of seeing all scientists viewed with suspicion because of the actions of some in climate science.
Gidday richb313 and other readers, the Jones et al authors plus CRU birthed IPCC GW as we know it. The GHCN was published in the early 90’s and IMHO tackled too many stations so that it has been error ridden from day one. For some examples scroll down 2/3 at this page to the text Errant Warming Trends in Rural USSR Stations.
IMHO both GHCN and GISS have been carefull not to disagree globally with CRU. Of course on a grid point level there are big disagreements.
This 2007 article of mine demonstrates that any agreement is just due to the sum of all errors agreeing for GHCN and CRU. Re the word “conspiracy” – the tone of so many of the ClimateGate emails suggests to me that there was/is such a group imperative.
We are starting a re-invigorated review of Jones et al 1986 because;
(a) those data were key to the birth of IPCC GW.
(b) station data are available. (unavailable post 1995)
(c) the documentary books describing methods are available. (nothing like the two books TR022 and TR027 was ever published again)
As a first step all Jones 1986 stations can be graphed online here.
You will see the software also pulls up graphs for near neighbours.
If anybody with the time, skills and a special interest in any country or region wants to assist the project, please get in touch.
What does this entail Warwick?
Do you want to compare the neighbours with existing BOM stations?
If so I have a 123 workbook with most of the inland Western Australian stations I am working on to try and make some sense of but it is slow going.
Thanks Ripper for responding so quickly. I have just smartened up the brief explanatory text at the header here. I maybe should do more to sketch out a guide. It is always good to compare stations. You could find what WA stations Jones considered by reading Appendix A in the TR027 book – this also might give you their comments on this or that station – explain why they did or did not use it. Appendix B lists the stations used, the time period and the 2 digit Quality Control code at the end tells you something about the homogenization process – the QC code is explained on the first page of Appendix A. A quick look through the WA stations in Appendix A shows that only Forrest needs a Jones correction. So all the other WA stations you can compare as they are in the Jones SH station file. Use the most nearby BoM data you can locate. If you want to send me data, I assume your 123 will save as a csv file. Good luck.
Thanks Warwick.
I notice that most of the Australian stations used do not go back before 1950 odd when many nearby long records did.
I.E. Marble bar instead of Port Hedland or Nullagine
Southern Cross instead of Kalgoorlie.
How did they calculate the temperature before then?
Halls Creek is a funny one I have been trying to get my head around for a week.
The town was moved in the 1940’s 12 km west and 62 mts uphill.
from Old Halls Creek (which you can see is in a depression) to new halls Creek
That’s how come the homogenised version ended up like this
Yet Jones compares it to Broome?
In fact He compares Kalgoorlie to Perth as well.
Crikey! Anyone that lives out here knows that the climate changes rapidly once you leave the coast. Indded Mullewa has more in common climate wise with Meekatharra (450km away)then Geraldton (100km away)
I would not have thought Port Hedland was “reliable” given the steady encroachment of salt ponds since starting off in 1967 either.
Sorry wrong link for the Halls creek homoginisation.
Here is the correct one.
Also in Finland, ice breaks earlier says “ilmatieteenlaitos”.
violetit.tripod.com/id34.html
Warwick, Here is a bit more on Halls Creek.
I compared both sites by month and the old site gets much colder in the winter
I compared the old station which Phil Jones said was unreliable to ones not on the coast (Wave Hill , Tennant Creek , Barrow Creek and Alice Springs PO)
Max Comparison
Min Comparison
Mean Comparison
Does there seem to be quite good correlation there?
Ilkka; your link to the Finnish Govt site is not working – any chance of a new one ?
Ripper; There seems little reason the early Halls Creek could not have been used except the trend was not what they were after. I notice Jones 94 and now the new UKMO download has data from 1898 but most of pre 1951 is missing.
Hi Warwick
Can you confirm that Phil Jones definitely made that famous comment to you (alluded to by Brooks Hurd in #1 above) :
“We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it”.
If so, are you able to supply the actual email (with bits like email addresses blanked out, obviously) ?
Thanks.
Punksta; yes he did. Because of the difficulties keeping voluminous email correspondence for years and years and need to delete junk efficiently which I can be lazy about, I have long had the habit of pasting important mails (in or out) into a text editor – and that is how that particular email is preserved. So I probably do not have all header info there. But my Outlook Express which is bulging with years of emails might go back four years, it is on another PC and I will check. Nowdays I tend to work out of webmail which creates problems of its own – but would appreciate email software where I could periodically archive parts of the Inbox for safe keeping and know they could be read later.
I would be amazed if somebody is casting doubt on the fact that I got the famously worded email – that has been so widely reported – from Prof Phil Jones at CRU in Feb 2005. (Date of e4mail corr 23 Dec)
Here’s an interesting exercise which I think proves your point.
Go to
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
and scroll down to:-
Special Topics
Annual Summations
Then click on the each year shown in the section that reads:-
‘We also provide here more detailed discussions of global surface temperature trends for 2008, 2007, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, and 2001.’ 2006 can be seen in the sentence above.
Doesn’t Russia (and the Arctic regions) appear much hotter each year than the rest of the world?
It is right Ian that the surface datasets have the high northern latitudes warming more than the rest of the globe. But their trends are exaggerated by poor methods, as the Russians are now speaking out about. I hope that 2010 sees the Russians release their research.
A simple test at the KNMI Climate Explorer (take Monthly observations) getting the CRUT3 trend for the last 30 years 1979-2008 for the giant grid box, 40-70North and 60-130East – and comparing it to that for the Spencer & Christy MSU for the same period – shows CRUT3 warming in excess of MSU by 0.126 degrees per decade over that 30 year span. That is a measure of the sort of exaggeration I think the Russians have been nailing down by their detailed studies. The poor Hadley CRU methods go right back two decades to the birth of IPCC GW in the 1986 Jones et al papers and books. But thankfully – the tissue of bad science is falling apart now.