the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Russia Accuses CRU of Tampering

Posted by Jeff Id on December 16, 2009

If this is true, 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.

The article is linked here:

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.

Global air temperature anomaly map for August 2003 showing hot European summer.

I would like to know if anyone can verify that Russia is making this  accusation as the papers report.

h/t Reader Boballab

UPDATE:  Reader Chirs D notes that the IEA is not a part of the Russian government.

79 Responses to “Russia Accuses CRU of Tampering”

  1. Wow, the day that a guy in Moscow fingers a Brit for larding up the data; this just gets better and better…
    TL

  2. Matt Pearson said

    If true, CRU has no choice but to throw Jones et al under the bus. This is a game changer.
    Matt Pearson

  3. telecorder said

    From the Russian IEA web site there is a linked article that appears to make the claim…

    new How is warming. Случай России The case of Russia
    15 декабря 2009 г. December 15, 2009
    – Если процедуры обработки климатических данных, обнаруженные на примере России, применялись также и по отношению к данным, относящимся к другим регионам мира, то неизбежная коррекция расчета глобальной температуры и ее изменений в 20 веке может оказаться весьма значительной. – If the procedure for processing of climate data found on the example of Russia also apply to data relating to other regions of the world, the inevitable correction of the calculation of global temperature and its changes in the 20 century, can be significant.

    From:

    http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&u=http://www.iea.ru/&ei=QiYpS9a1IY-mswO81bjHDA&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAoQ7gEwAA&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dhttp://www.iea.ru/%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DG%26ie%3DUTF-8

    The above paper, translated into English using Google, does reflect the claims of low % of Russian station data and selected data used…

    “…(land temperature) Hadley Center, obviously, can use the data only a quarter (121…”

    The Google Translate page apparently doesn’t allow one to copy/paste more than one sentence of English translation but one can read most of the translated text in English… Not sure of the English ‘Results” as it doesn’t translate that far into the report…

  4. Viv Evans said

    Blimey.
    Russia to the rescue – never thought I’d say that.
    Christopher Booker in his book described scenes where the Russian scientists were more than scathing about the Brit delegation. So they have known for some time that AGW was a con.

    It is interesting though that we’ve not had anything reported on what Russia has been saying at COP15.

    China – yes; Africa – yes; Al Gore – oh yes indeedy. Lots of reports.
    But nothing from Russia – now could this be the reason? No reports because they’ve turned into … deniers?

  5. Dave L. said

    Makes one think again about the original leaking of the EAU/CRU e-mail files and the location of the server. (Hint: Russia is a major exporter of oil.)

  6. Jeff Id said

    The full report released today is here:

    http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf

  7. [...] in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.” (h’t Jeff Id) There is an online technical report dated Dec 15, 2009, which states that it considered data [...]

  8. Arn Riewe said

    There has been general agreement between skeptics and warmers alike that there has been 0.6C warming during the during the 20th century. The attribution has been the sticking point.

    Is it just me,or is anyone else bothered with the “black box” adjustments of GISS and CRU? We get a little taste of what’s going on through USHCN where they publish their adjustments to show that 85% of the 20th century temperature rise is through man made adjustments to the raw temp data. Hmmm..

    Then comes New Zealand, Darwin and now this. The wounded climate science discipline could go a long way towards winning back some credibility by releasing the information and allowing others to verify or dispute the methodology and results. Maybe the CRU announcement for opening the data methods will be a start if they go open source and transparent.

    Open & transparent… Now where have I heard that before?

  9. mpaul said

    Its interesting, Gavin and Steeg have been really cocky because they think they’ve created a one-way cypher. They say: “look here’s all the data, the skeptics don’t know what they are talking about”, all the while feeling quite smug that no one would be able to work backwards to determine that data was excluded. Its what’s missing that’s important — not what’s available.

    But they weren’t counting on the Ruissians comming forward to say that data is missing.

  10. ChrisM said

    Is there any particular reason why the August 2009 anomaly map was used? New Zealand had a record warm August, but the July and September were near record cold ones.

  11. Skip said

    ok, scanning the google translation, the claim they’re making is a bit weaker than the headline. It seems that the claim they’re making is that the 1500 station subset released by CRU recently contains 121 stations in Russia, and those stations are very unrepresentative of the Russian data as a whole.

    Be interesting to see what the response is, here, of they even bother to make one.

  12. I have a Yahoo Babelfish translation in PDF format. It was done fast, so it’s not pretty, but you can get the gist of the text from it. Send me and email so I can email it over to you.

  13. telecorder said

    Jeff-

    Did a partial translation of the 12/25 paper’s “Results” section using http://translation2.paralink.com/ (Limited to 1,000 words per translation – No Charts/Figures)… Bolding my emphasis

    <blockquote cite="
    9. Results

    The analysis of use by employees of Center Хэдли and the Climatic center University of East Anglia, метеоданных, received at the Russian stations, Shows, that the sample lead by them has resulted in the following: Relative density of the Russian stations at calculation of global temperature It is underestimated in comparison with relative density of the area of Russia in a surface Terrestrial land; Selection of meteorological stations is lead in such a manner that as a result without a covering Data had appeared more than 40 % of territory of the country;

    Numbers with the longest periods of the supervision, representing Special value for an estimation полуторавековых temperature trends Are used far not completely; At realization of sample of data the preference is given to numbers with The passed measurements while fuller numbers have remained Not demanded;

    At realization of sample of data advantage is given to stations, Changed the site in comparison with stations, it Kept; At presence of a choice between nearby stations advantage is given To the stations located in more occupied districts, including in Cities with obviously expressed by ” thermal spots ».

    Differently, employees HadCRUT have carried out regular selection метеоданных, preferring less qualitative data in comparison with more Qualitative: to their shorter and less full numbers; to the data collected on Stations, more often transferred and located in more settlements. Except for That, they it is similar, have intentionally refused given, describing temperature Mode on approximately 40 % of territory of our country. For check of in what degree the applied approach could affect on Final results of calculations, it is necessary to lead comparison of results, Received on narrow sample, with the results received at the analysis general Sets.

    For calculation of anomalies приповерхностной temperatures of air above territory Russia in comparison with a level of 1961-1990 (accepted in modern климатологии For base) we had been made calculations as on all to 152 cells пятиградусной Coordinate grid (476 stations), and on those to 90 cells, data on which Are presented on 121 stations from sample of Center Хэдли. In both cases have been lead Averagings of all accessible annual data on a cell, are calculated deviations from Base level on each cell, calculation of average values of deviations is made on To all cells for every year.

    The results presented on schedule 8, show an essential divergence In the estimations, received in two ways. Scale of warming in territory of Russia for 130 years – since 1870th years till 2000th years, received as a result of calculation according to, Used Center Хэдли (90 cells, 121 station), is close to 2,0°С.

    However the calculation lead on fuller database (152 cells, 476 stations), Shows, that scales of warming for the same period were more modest – approximately 1,4°С.

    If for the period 1955-1995 are characteristic as a whole close values The temperature numbers, calculated by both in the ways, with promotion in the past, and As well in the latest decade appears, and then break quickly accrues Between both beside. And it is found out, that if for the periods up to the middle 1950 Years for temperature of some, Center Хэдли constructed on sample, it is characteristic Understating of temperature in comparison with the number received on all to 476 stations, for The period after 1995 for temperature of some, Center Хэдли constructed on sample, Overestimate of temperature is characteristic.

    If in second half 1940th years the temperature anomalies calculated on To sample HadCRUT, have appeared on 0,14 degrees With below the values received on all To sample on territory of Russia in 1910th years – they became already on 0,26 degrees below, and In 1870th years – already up to 0,56 degrees With – see schedule 9.

    In view of negative дивергенции temperature numbers up to the middle 1950 Years (up to 0,56°С) and positive дивергенции temperature numbers in the middle 1990 Years (up to 0,08°С) overestimate of scales of the warming, carried out by employees HadCRUT, for territory of Russia since 1870th years for 1990th years it is possible to estimate as Minimum in 0,64 degrees With. Such estimation is at the same time rather conservative, as for Calculations of temperature in territory of Russia have been used all available in base Federal Hydrometereology and Environmental Monitoring Service data without carrying out of their any substantial selection, and also without Their necessary correction, for example, on influence of effect of city heat.

    Distortions of temperature in such sizes for the country of such scale, as Russia (12,5 % of a world land), should affect overestimate of scales global The warming, represented HadCRUT and used in reports МГЭИК. For Findings-out of scales of such overestimate and specification of data about change global Temperatures it is necessary to lead recalculation of all global file temperature Data. If procedures of processing of the climatic data, found out on an example Russia, were applied as well in relation to the data concerning other regions The world, inevitable correction of calculation of global temperature and its changes in 20 century It can appear rather significant. “>

  14. [...] Re: clamoroso (craccato L'HC) Queste non sono mail ma accuse di "manomissioni". Staremo a vedere. Russia Accuses CRU of Tampering [...]

  15. Chris D. said

    The IEA appears to be an independent organization as opposed to a governmental institution. I think the post may leave readers with the impression that it is. Not to mean this isn’t a big deal, though. Just clarifying.

    http://www.icdt.hu/print.php?i=50

  16. Frank K. said

    “It seems that the claim they’re making is that the 1500 station subset released by CRU recently contains 121 stations in Russia, and those stations are very unrepresentative of the Russian data as a whole.”

    Of course, Russia represents a huge portion of the earths land area – 17 million sq. km (total land for the earth is 149 million sq. km). This compares with 9 million sq. km for the US.

    Also note that the USHCN consists of 1221 “high quality” (according to NOAA) stations – ten times the number of stations in Russian data set used by CRU, but covering about half the area!

    Thus, if in fact there is another “hide the decline” scandal here, it is HUGE!

  17. Build The Tower said

    Seems plausible to me. Every anomaly map I’ve seen in the last few years has a big red spot over Siberia, e.g. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

  18. Artifex said

    Not being the particularly trusting sort, I would like to see the raw myself.

    Does anyone speak/write Russian well enough to formulate a request for this raw info ? It would be delightfully ironic if the Russians end up being more open and responsive with their data than those “enlightened and open progressives in the West”.

  19. Jeff Id said

    #15, Thanks, I updated the post.

  20. #18 you can get a glimpse of desired evidence with my “Circling Yamal” page Facing the Thermometers using raw GISS. Stations are right in and above that dark red area on the world map here. Click on thumbnails to enlarge. Go to GISS to check more.

  21. Robert said

    The icing on the cake will be when mole comes out on TV and dumps the whole thing

  22. Peter said

    Cherry picking of the surface temperature monitors has been shown to occur over most areas of the world, not just Russia. See: http://chiefio.wordpress.com/gistemp/ and http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/agw-basics-of-whats-wrong/

    Note that the number of temperature monitoring stations has dropped significantly over the recent past – soemthing like 90% See this graph: http://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/thermometer-records-by-year.gif Such a crash in the number of stations must surely have some impact on the long term pattern, especially given it has been shown many times by the studies that can be found starting from the links above that the deletion has been very selective and biased. What is needed is a complete review of how the surface temperatures are monitored, measured, and processed and reported.

  23. mrpkw said

    I for one do not completely trust what the Russians say (Putin will always act in Russia’s best interest) but it does allow and provide for some serious ammo for continuing the demise of CRU

  24. sensit said

    Let’s wait for more factual data to come

    Everyone needs time now to investigate the data without rushing into conclusions

    http://sensit.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/science-is-a-business-for-profit/

  25. Douglas Hoyt said

    For what it is worth, back in 1999 I wrote to NOAA telling them that there was something wrong with the Russian stations and they should reply so we could discuss it. They never replied. Around 1990 or so, I believe many of the dirt roads surrounding cities in Siberia began to be paved outwards from the cities by about 20 kilometers or so. It could make things appear warmer if thermometers were nearby. It does need investigation. Without more knowledge of the siting of the staions, one doesn’t really know what is being measured.

  26. JohnRS said

    With every revelation of the depths to which the warmists have sunk to try to scam the world’s leaders I keep thinking to myself “surely this time the great and the good will wake up and realise what’s been done to them” but then the bandwagon/gravy train seems to just keep on rolling as before.

    Maybe this time……….

  27. WhyNot said

    #24

    The Mann hockey stick has been debunked.
    The Steig Paper has major flaws and over states Antarctic temperature trend by a factor of 2.
    I could continue but why?

    How much more time do you need to look at a black kettle to call it “Black”?

    It is no longer a “if” they hid the data, “if” they manipulated the data, “if” they released all the data, it is to what degree did this occur, how bad is it really? Every day, every week, more and more information is being released showing a concerted and organized effort to corrupt and manipulate the data for a political agenda and a predetermined conclusion. Can you say “Fradulent”? Hmmmmm, Enron leaders went to jail for “hiding the decline”, why shouldn’t they? Enron only cost the share holders 100B? (can’t remember the exact number). These fraudulent activities will and has cost the world economy how much, and how much in the future? Trillions?

  28. Jack said

    In the map, a big chunk of missing data in the heart of European Russia. No excuse for that.

  29. [...] The Air Vent: Russia Accuses CRU of Tampering [...]

  30. Douglas Hoyt said

    Is this correct?:

    CRU = 2.0 C

    (121*CRU + 355*Other)/476 = 1.4 C

    So warming by other stations = 1.2 C.

    Or, put another way, CRU overestimates the warming by 67%.

  31. twawki said

    OT but a bit of fun

    Nature denatured

    http://www.twawki.com

  32. Justin said

    #18

    I lived in Russia for a few years and have enough of an engineering/technical background that I could put together a request. What would you be looking for?

    The original paper (http://www.iea.ru/article/kioto_order/15.12.2009.pdf) gives their raw datasource as the All-Russian Scientific-Investigative Institute for Hydrometeorological Information (it sounds a lot better in russian) website: http://meteo.ru/climate/sp_clim.php

    That page has “Daily data from 223 meteorological stations on the territory of the former USSR” and “Monthly data from 476 Russian stations”. The english-language version of the page leaves a bit to be desired, but they’ve got an app that will give you daily or monthly station data at http://aisori.meteo.ru/climate

    Hope that helps. If not, I’d be happy to help further communication with these guys.

  33. J. Peden said

    WhyNot said
    December 16, 2009 at 7:10 pm

    How much more time do you need to look at a black kettle to call it “Black”?

    It is no longer a “if” they hid the data, “if” they manipulated the data, “if” they released all the data, it is to what degree did this occur, how bad is it really?

    I completely agree. It’s not unreasonable to expect that whatever Giss and Hadley provide will turn out to be corrupted and thus false. We’ve seen enough of it already to know they have not been proceeding Scientifically, probably right from the start.

    I still don’t know what they are measuring to begin with, except that it is the same as how they are doing it.

    So their relevance to whatever atmospheric temperatures have been doing at anytime whatsoever is nil, except for whatever roll they play in calibrating the Satellite data.

    I guess I’m trying to warn against anyone thinking that Hadley and Giss still control the game. They must be completely forthcoming to outside requests, period. As opposed to everyone waiting around for what they choose to do and show.

    They’ve been “calculating” for so long in such a high stakes game that there’s no reason to think they won’t continue.

  34. Jason said

    I’ve actually supported CATO financially, so I don’t have an axe to grind against it.

    But I don’t think you can look at a Russian affiliate of CATO and characterize them as truly independent.

    The absence of the Russian stations has been troubling for some time, as have the noticeable hot spots that resulted.

    But there is every reason to believe that this entity would find that the Russian data had been “Tampered” with whether there is a serious problem or not.

  35. Nanonymous said

    Paralink’s translations from Russian are terrible… Google’s are even worse but those that were manually corrected are very good.

    I don’t have time to translate all 21 pages of the report but below is the punchline in the end of it. Starting with the title of “График 9.” (Figure 9, page 20 with the figure itself on p.21).

    Diference in estimates of temperature anomalies between 152 and 90 cell grids, 11 years smoothed

    Graph self-explanatory. Difference degrees between adjusted and unadjusted temperatures on ordinate.

    Taking into account negative divergence of the temperature series until 1950s (up to 0.56C) and the positive one in the mid 1990s (up to 0.08C), overstatement of the overall warming for Russia from 1870s to 1990s done by HadCRUT can be estimated minimally as 0.64 degree C.

    This estimate is pretty conservative because for the whole Russia calculations the raw data of
    Russian Meteorological Service were used without any selection or necessary corrections for things
    like urban heat effects.

    Temperature distortions of this scale for the country of this size (12.5% of Earth land area) absolutely must affect ["cannot not to affect" in the original; Russian is heavy on double
    negation] the overstatements of the global warming scale presented by HadCRUT and used by IPCC. To clarify the scale of these overestimates and to obtain the trustworthy data, it is now necessary to reanalyse the entire global dataset.

    If the practices of data analysis uncovered in the Russia’s case were applied to other world’s regions, then the inevitable correction of the global temperature and its changes in the 20th century may turn out to be very significant.

    [end of text]

  36. Greg F said

    The Harry Read Me file has a bit on the Russian stations.
    (Note: String of asterics indicates “C” output data removed for readability)

    ***** OPERATOR ADJUDICATION REQUIRED *****

    In attempting to pair two stations, possible data incompatibilities have been found.

    MASTER: 221130 6896 3305 51 MURMANSK EX USSR 1936 2003 -999 -999
    UPDATE: 2211300 6858 3303 51 MURMANSK RUSSIAN FEDER 2003 2007 -999 0

    CORRELATION STATISTICS (enter ‘C’ for more information):
    > -0.60 is minimum correlation coeff.
    > 0.65 is maximum correlation coeff.
    > -0.01 is mean correlation coeff.

    Enter ‘Y’ to allow, ‘N’ to deny, or an information code letter: C

    ************************************************

    MASTER: 221130 6896 3305 51 MURMANSK EX USSR 1936 2003 -999 -999
    UPDATE: 2211300 6858 3303 51 MURMANSK RUSSIAN FEDER 2003 2007 -999 0

    CORRELATION STATISTICS (enter ‘C’ for more information):
    > -0.60 is minimum correlation coeff.
    > 0.65 is maximum correlation coeff.
    > -0.01 is mean correlation coeff.

    Enter ‘Y’ to allow, ‘N’ to deny, or an information code letter:

    So.. should I really go to town (again) and allow the Master database to be ‘fixed’ by this
    program? Quite honestly I don’t have time – but it just shows the state our data holdings
    have drifted into. Who added those two series together? When? Why? Untraceable, except anecdotally.

    It’s the same story for many other Russian stations, unfortunately – meaning that (probably) there was a full Russian update that did no data integrity checking at all. I just hope it’s restricted to Russia!!

    There are, of course, metadata issues too. Take:

    MASTER: 206740 7353 8040 47 DIKSON ISLAND EX USSR 1936 2003 -999 -999
    UPDATE: 2067400 7330 8024 47 OSTROV DIKSON RUSSIAN FEDER 2003 2007 -999 0

    CORRELATION STATISTICS (enter ‘C’ for more information):
    > -0.70 is minimum correlation coeff.
    > 0.81 is maximum correlation coeff.
    > -0.01 is mean correlation coeff.

    This is pretty obviously the same station (well OK.. apart from the duff early period, but I’ve got used to that now). But look at the longitude! That’s probably 20km! LUckily I selected ‘Update wins’ and so the metadata aren’t compared. This is still going to take ages, because although I can match WMO codes (or should be able to), I must check that the data correlate adequately – and for all these stations there will be questions. I don’t think it would be a good idea to take the usual approach of coding to avoid the situation, because (a) it will be non-trivial to code for, and (b) not all of the situations are the same. But I am beginning to wish I could just blindly merge based on WMO code.. the trouble is that then I’m continuing the approach that created these broken databases. Look at this one:

    ***** OPERATOR ADJUDICATION REQUIRED *****

    In attempting to pair two stations, possible data incompatibilities have been found.

    MASTER: 239330 6096 6906 40 HANTY MANSIJSK EX USSR 1936 1984 -999 -999
    UPDATE: 2393300 6101 6902 46 HANTY-MANSIJSK RUSSIAN FEDER 2003 2007 -999 0

    CORRELATION STATISTICS (enter ‘C’ for more information):
    > -0.42 is minimum correlation coeff.
    > 0.39 is maximum correlation coeff.
    > -0.02 is mean correlation coeff.

    Enter ‘Y’ to allow, ‘N’ to deny, or an information code letter: C
    Master Data: Correlation with Update first year aligned to this year -v
    ****************************************************

    Here, the expected 1990-2003 period is MISSING – so the correlations aren’t so hot! Yet
    the WMO codes and station names /locations are identical (or close). What the hell is supposed to happen here? Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)

  37. Jeff Id said

    Greg, that’s amazing. It’s probably worth someones time to put into context.

  38. Ayrdale said

    Climategate has become a huge flywheel, turning with its own momentum and increasing speed with every revelation. In addition, the ongoing farce with costumes at Copenhagen, with delegates STANDING TO CHEER the creepy clown Chavez is producing a kind of surreal fantasy aura to the whole idiotic charade.

    What lessons the left will have to learn from this ! One in particular will have been learnt by now by Steven Schneider…

    …We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public imagination,we have to offer up some scary scenarios,make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have.Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective,and being honest.”

    What an enormous blunder !

  39. Greg F said

    Jeff,
    I am starting to think that whoever put these files together is trying to tell us a story. Found something else that may be indirectly related. It is an email (1094752345.txt) talking about the radiosonde data.

    For the NH there were 54 sites and for the SH 32. Site 9 (WMO ID 21504) is always missing, even with hadcrut2v. The site is located on an island in the Laptev Sea. There isn’t a surface site anywhere near it. I could move the location and pick up the nearest CRU box, but it will be over 5 deg of lat and 10 deg of long away. It’s somewhat unusual for sonde sites not to have a surface site near them. I guess it just doesn’t report its surface data.

    It seems to me that not having a surface station within “5 deg of lat and 10 deg of long” is a pretty big hole in the surface network. So I guess if there is a Russian station within that area we could conclude it isn’t included in the CRU data.

  40. Carrick said

    Jeff you got a mention here

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/

  41. kmye said

    Found these on Trees for the Forest. They’re vs. GISS, because the HADCRUT maps are mostly blank in Russia. If GISS is in relatively close accord with CRU on a regional scale, then the Russian area in these maps is pretty interesting in this new light.

    RSS minus GISS
    UAH minus GISS

    http://treesfortheforest.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/rss-vs-uah/

  42. AJStrata said

    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.

  43. jef said

    From their most recent newsletter:

    “Instead of proclamation and pursuit of decoys political leaders, who gathered in Copenhagen, must be concentrated on other – on the policy formulation, which facilitates the more effective adaptation of humanity to climate changes, the acceleration of economic growth, the development of the freedom of trade, the protection of property rights, strengthening democracy.”

    So now we go to Russia only to see Hayek’s name? And links to CATO, Freedom House. The world is getting weird.

    I used AltaVista Babelfish to translate:

    http://www.iea.ru/about.php

  44. Viv Evans said

    Returning to this thread, thanks for the additional information, especially from the HARRY_READ-ME.txt.

    It will be very interesting to see how this information will be reflected at COP15.
    In the reports from Copenhagen the absence of any Russian voices, political or scientific, is getting ever more glaring.

  45. See the following for an examination of central Siberian temperature data comparing CRU stations / CRU cridded data / NOAA GHCN station data. Warming is not significant as IPCC / CRU claim.
    http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/CRUSiberia.htm

  46. JohnH said

    Accoring to the CRU spokemans quoted in the UK Daily Express the CRU do not pick the weather stations that feed their dataset but it is the World Meteorological Organisation

    http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146517

    When you go to the WMO site and look at the recent news release ref 2009 Jan-oct temps avg putting it in the top 10 you get their confirmation that they select the stations for CRU, GISS and NOAA at the top of para 3. So whoever does the selection sets the stations used by all 3 datasets, so if the selection is slanted it affects all 3 datasets.

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_869_en.html

  47. ArsenyB said

    I am shamelessly taking all of this from IEA paper (in Russian):

    Here is a ‘map’ of Russia showing weather stations used and unused in the CRU (or World Met Organisation) dataset:

    (Brown-used / Blue – not used)

    476 in all were excluded, or 74.6% of the total number

    Geographically, 62 5×5 degree ‘cells’ have been excluded or 40,8% of the whole area.

    The rest of the paper has some pretty astonishing illustrations of the skewed results produced by the dataset. I’ll just mention one. Have a look at this graph of two nearby sations in Dagestan (N42,49; W47,07)(N42,58; W47,33):

    The RED station was selected. Its next to the regional capital – Mahachkala (pop. 552 thousand)- and had to be relocated 3 times previously. Blue station was not selected, it shows minor cooling and next to a minor city of 62 thousand people.

  48. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Anybody interested in looking at UAH versus CRU for the Russian land region?

  49. Jeff Id said

    #47, Sure. I think UAH has a significant trend in that region but I’m not sure.

  50. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Of course, I am going to show you the differences whether you want it or not – my question was a hypothetical.

    For the region bounded by 30E-180E and 50N-75N for land and sea temperatures for CRU and lower troposphere for UAH, I found the following trend slopes and 95% CIs in degrees C:

    CRU 1888-2009: Trend slope = 1.14 +/-0.31; p = 0.000

    CRU 1979-2009: Trend slope = 4.40 +/-2.21; p = 0.000

    UAH 1979-2009: Trend slope = 2.36 +/-1.53; p = 0.004

    CRU-UAH 1979-2009: Trend slope = 2.04 +/-1.32; p = 0.004

  51. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Hold the presses I did that wrong. I switched the latitudes and longitudes above. Be back in a moment.

  52. Kenneth Fritsch said

    CRU 1888-2009: Trend slope = 1.11 +/-0.35; p = 0.000

    CRU 1979-2009: Trend slope = 3.33 +/-2.42; p = 0.009

    UAH 1979-2009: Trend slope = 3.27 +/-1.50; p = 0.000

    CRU-UAH 1979-2009: Trend slope = No significant difference

    So there you have it. There is no significant difference between the CRU and UAH trends from 1979-2009. Notice the sharp trend difference between long term and 1979-2009 for CRU. Since UAH starts in 1979, we cannot look at any questions aimed at longer term data. I can compare GISS with CRU long term, but I suspect those data sets will agree.

  53. Jeff Id said

    Interesting.

  54. Kenneth Fritsch said

    I compared CRU and GISS 1200 for land and sea for the bounds given above and for 1900-2008 and there was no differences in trends. Visually from the chart I can see a trend in the differences for CRU-GISS that indicates that from 1979-presnt there is probably a significanct difference with GISS 1200 giving the more positive trend.

    I’ll do more later but it is martini time now.

    Notice that in my error above I essentially selected a random region of the globe and obtain a very large and significant differences between UAH and CRU. Which leads me to believe that we get sometimes our underwear in knots over the wrong issues.

  55. Kenneth Fritsch said

    For CRU-GISS 1200 km for the period 1979-2008:

    Trend slope = 0.82+/- 0.49; p = 0.002

    So if I have not made a major mistake (and after only a few sips of martini) we have an interesting development here that UAH and CRU agree in trend, but GISS gives a significantly higher trend for the period of interest.

    Maybe we should stick to doing our own analysis.

  56. boballab said

    Kenneth I have a question or two.

    I think I read somewhere that one of the things the IEA mentioned was that the longer records from Russian sites were ignored IE Stations that had long term trends in favor of stations that had multiple moves and shorter trends.

    So question one since UAH has no long term trends I’m slightly confused how that effects the long term trend analysis the IEA did between HadCrut and them using those other stations?

    Second Bishop Hill tracked down one of the papers that might be one of the two that Phil Jones scuttled.

    here is the post at Bishop Hills site:

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/17/more-evidence-of-gatekeeping.html

    And to the referenced paper:

    http://nber-nsf09.ucdavis.edu/program/papers/auffhammer.pdf

  57. boballab said

    Sorry forgot to mention the second question is for a slightly different topic since it deals with reconstructions

  58. Nick Stokes said

    #54 Kenneth, CRU is unlikely to be affected by this station selection issue over that period. RC noted this plot comparing the larger set to the subset, and since about 1960 there is very little difference.

  59. Basil said

    #54 Would the GISS “UHI” homogeneity adjustment have any role in accounting for the difference? Do they apply it outside the US? Are there “urban” sites in Siberia to homogenize?

  60. boballab said

    For those interested, it seems Warrick Hughes did some checking in Russia a few years ago:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/ussr1.htm

  61. Paul_K said

    #58 Nick Stokes

    Yes, but Gavin didn’t mention the rider to the diagram which states:
    – At the same time, this consideration is very conservative, since for the calculations of
    temperatures across Russia, all data contained in the RosHydroMet database was used – without
    any selection based on the data’s contents, as well as without any necessary corrections, for
    example, for the effect of cities’ temperatures.
    UHI adjustment should increase the divergence in recent times.

  62. Greg F said

    #58

    From what I can make out the little difference in recent times seems to be due to how they chose to display the 2 series. Rough translation (Babel).

    For calculating the anomalies of the near-surface temperature of air above the territory Russia in comparison with the level of 1961-1990 (accepted in the contemporary climatology for the base) we produced calculations as according to all 152 cells of the five-degree reference grid (476 stations), so on those 90 cells, data on which they are represented on 121 station from [vyborki] of the center Of [khedli]. In both cases they were carried out the averagings of all accessible annual data over the cell, are calculated deviation from base level for each cell, is produced the calculation of the average significance of a deviation with respect to to all cells in each year.

    It appears they used 1961-1990 as the base to anchor both plots and therefore says nothing about the differences in recent times.

  63. Kenneth Fritsch said

    As I noted before if the differences are before 1979 then, of course, a comparison with UAH says nothing about long term changes and station selection. If CRU and GISS (and GHCN) are using the same long term station selections then we have no meaningful comparison there either. I think KNMI gives station numbers and locations. I’ll have a look. I’ll also do a comparison based on Siberia only.

    Interesting though that the comparisons I did not intend to make are the ones with significant differences.

  64. Nick Stokes said

    #62 Greg F. Well, they should use the same anomaly base. What difference do you mean?

    Anyway, the only thing that would matter is a difference in trend.

  65. [...] that the Russian data are known to have been carefully selected – using only the 25% of stations that showed a consistent warming trend – there is no credible [...]

  66. jeeboom said

    nice info. great post.
    thanks for sharing.

  67. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Nick Stokes @ #58:

    If the graph that you link to is the contentious one from Russia then that contention would be over the very long term differences in the Russia temperature series. Actually the 1900-2009 time period would only have small trend differences. 1860-2009 would show some differences in trend and probably be significant.

    I will therefore confine my future analyses (for personal knowledge and satisfaction) to the completeness of coverage for Russia going back in time. A peek at the KNMI data indicates to me that there are much missing data as one goes back in time. My first impression was: how do they get any reasonable gridded results out of that data series with all its holes. I also see where RomanM has some R script to look at station meta data from the Met Offices at his web site.

    Interesting that CRU, the contentious Russian data and UAH are apparently in very good agreement for at least the period 1979-2009, but the GISS 1200 km data series is significantly different with a more positive trend.

  68. [...] Russia Accuses CRU of Tampering If this is true, It’s true, and it’s huge. Today another example of CRU having their foot on the scale, [...] [...]

  69. RB said

    Ken Fritsch #67, do you think the 1860-2009 trend is important? IPCC has stated something like “we believe with 90% confidence that most of the 1F warming in the last 50 years was due to man-made influences”. And the realclimate folks frequently use the 1970-2009 period as reference while seemingly ascribing most of the warming from 1850-1950 as due to emerging from the LIA. I know politicians like to include the entire industrial age …

  70. Kenneth Fritsch said

    RB @ #69:

    I would suppose that all temperature data is important no matter the time period. My point here will be what does a temperature dispute mean and entail when we go back before 1900. The contested time period of this thread by the Russians appears, from the Nick Stokes link, to be mostly before 1900.

    I now have the Russian station data (GHCN) in form to show how many stations went back that far in time and will post a summary tomorrow. Based on my preliminary looks I think I can say that there is not sufficient CRU (GHCN) data to say much about Russian temperatures and trends going back to 1860. I am not even sure how much credence CRU would give that data. If the Russians have significantly more for that period and it can be shown to be of good quality, I would suggest that we go with it going back in time – with all the provisos that temperature data and its reliability going back that far in time requires.

  71. Kenneth Fritsch said

    At times after a little digging into these seemingly important issues one thinks one might be on a fool’s mission without more information. The Russian contention with CRU which initiated this thread is I think best shown by looking at the Nick Stocks link here: http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X1342&site=noconsensus.wordpress.com&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.realclimate.org%2Fimages%2Frussian.jpeg

    I have used the climate repository KNMI (linked below) to get some better insights into the CRU data series going back in time. I will elaborate as I post more in the future, but for now we can use the definition from KNMI as follows and see where it leads:
    Percentage valid points
    The area average is only considered valid when at least this many valid points are included. Enter a smaller number to get more valid data in the resulting time series, but the quality of these data will be lower. A higher number gives fewer but higher-quality data points.

    I applied that criteria when extracting data from the CRU land and seas series for the region bounded by 30E-180E and 50N-75N and then noted the starting time of the CRU series. Below I have listed the starting times that correspond to the various percent valid points:

    70% – 1932; 60% – 1927; 50% – 1907; 40% – 1899; 30% (default value at KNMI) – 1888; 20% – 1852; 10% – 1850

    It is readily apparent that the data becomes sparse going back in time and the reliability of it has to diminish also.

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

    I plotted the CRU temperature series for the region bounds given above for 1850-2009 and regressed anomaly versus years. The plot is linked below and the regression essentials were:

    Trend Slope = 0.89 degrees C per century +/- 0.20

    In conclusion I have to ask: what is all the noise about and what does the Russian data show that is contentious? That is certainly not much of a trend from the CRU data from KNMI and the data is sparse going back in time. Does CRU make any claims about the very early part of the Russian time series?

    I will continue posting more on the Russian data from CRU for my own edification or until someone shows what the contentions from this thread are here in more detail.

  72. Kenneth Fritsch said

    My final expose on this thread will be the locations and numbers of stations in the primarily Russian area bounded by 30E – 180E and 50N – 75N for stations that have start dates before 1860 and 1900 and end dates after 1989 and to 2009. I also included all stations with more than 10 years worth of temperature data. The information on stations was conveniently extracted from the climate repository KNMI linked here:

    http://climexp.knmi.nl/selectfield_obs.cgi?someone@somewhere

    The total number of stations for area bounded as described above included 172 stations with 24 stations starting before 1860 and 76 before 1900. The end dates of stations after 1989 was 150 and those stations that are still in operation (for 2009) is 46.

    The location of these stations for these start and end dates are presented in the link here:

    In conclusion, I cannot see where the 24 stations going starting before 1860 and their locations are going to have much reliability in depicting Russian temperature trends long term. The station start dates before 1900 and their locations would appear to me not to give a very complete picture of temperature changes in Russia – although I do not have the wherewithal to determine quantitatively what it will do to the uncertainties.

    Going forward it is obvious that many Russian stations were dropped after 1989 and again making current data hardly representative of a geographical area as large as Russia.

  73. JohnH said

    The UK MET office has a ref to the IEA complaint in its latest press release. It seems to have decided that the IEA temp data is consistant with the HadCRUT temp data (no references or data supplied to back this claim up) and that a new study (again no references but a very nice graphic) that claims that the warming effect has been underplayed in HadCRUT and is in fact much greater. The MET office contributed to the new study by the ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts).

    For the full release go here

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2009/pr20091218b.html

  74. [...] by its keepers that they “adjusted” some, suppressed others and ignored others. The Russians have chimed in big time on this [...]

  75. chemtotal said

    this is eye opener now.

  76. Samuelnik said

    Учусь ;) иногда дается трудно. Меня постоянно выручают решебники по всем предметам. Довольно не плохие встречаются на просторах интернета) Понравился сайт по решебникам. Поделитесь ссылочкой, кто с каких качает) За ранее спасибо.

  77. Увлекся чтением книг) уже надоели и фильмы и игры и даже аудио книги) Вот чет зацепило именно чтением в бумажно переплете или на компьютере. Вот нашел интересный сайт с книгами. Очень понравился, может еще кто подскажет аналогичный) Спасибо!

  78. We are a group of volunteers and opening a new scheme in our
    community. Your web site offered us with valuable info to work on.
    You have done an impressive job and our entire community will be grateful to you.

  79. I’m gone to convey my little brother, that he should also visit this website on regular
    basis to take updated from newest news.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 140 other followers

%d bloggers like this: