Here is the full text from RIA Novosti:
Russia affected by ClimategateAnthony Watts points to this comment with respect to Russia in an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann:
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.
"Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has itThe peer review process is obviously one that can be used to limit scientific input to that of the singular viewpoint of the "peers". In this case, finding fault with the work of the peers is rejected: inconvenient. Maybe peer review should be referred to as the "blackball" process. The collusion here between Jones and Mann cannot be escaped.
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.
Cheers
Phil"
9 comments:
Then the skeptics have also fudged their UAH satellite (green line) to match exactly with the fudged surface record.
What does this have to do with the Russian charge? This is the same graph you showed before, right? What does it have to do with the Russian claim that only urban sites show warming, and that rural sites do not? And that the CRU cherry picked urban sites and moved (incomplete data) sites in their data composite?
By the way, satellite data on arctic ice is now being challenged on the basis of "rotten ice", which would also mean that surface texture of any type would interefere with accuracy.
Calibrating satellite sensors against ground data might not be all that accurate if calibration is against false ground data.
Satellites don't measure direct temperature. They measure radiation, and that through layers of dreaded atmospheric reflectors, such as water vapor, clouds, argon, the ionosphere, particulates and, yes CO2. Sort of like trying to measure sunlight through layers of waving sheets of indterminate thickness and composition. But you can take data and recalibrate it and average it graph it, regardless.
As they like to say, it's the trend that counts. But only the nice upward one. Like the urban one.
Here is the rebuttal to the Russian accusations.
Here is another interesting response I found. This guy took the raw vs adjusted data, and plotted whether the adjustments were positive or negative or zero.
Result? It's an almost perfect bell curve, as would be expected from non-biased adjustments. I.e., there is no warming bias in the adjustments.
I posted about the rebuttal, above.
With regard to the Bell curve, it is the "raw" data that is questioned, is it not? Individual station data is homogenized to look more like nearby sister stations; then the data is added to the raw database. That would not appear on this Bell curve. If so, then a comparison of raw to known manipulations is meaningless.
Also, this does nothing for the subject of cherry picking, which is actually the primo issue, I think. (See my next post).
The author also makes this interesting comment:
"The point of this analysis is not to check the good faith of people handling the data: that is not under scrutiny (and not because I trust the scientists but because I trust the scientific method).
The point is actually to show the denialists that going probe after probe cherry picking those with a “weird” adjustment is a waste of time. Please stop the non-sense."
You can't have it both ways, either you support the scientific method, which includes independent scrutiny, or you don't. It is very common amongst believers to rail against such scrutiny. This is a violation of the scientific method they claim to love.
As far as I can tell, skeptics are questioning the adjustments made to the raw data.
This graph plots those adjustments to see if there is a warming bias in them, which there is not.
It is not possible from this to determine whether the data called "raw" is prior to homogenization or not. Another questionable verification, imo.
But they wanted the raw data, and here it is. Now you question whether it really is raw? What would make you happy?
Data with complete history. Replication by someone without bias. NAS maybe.
Perhaps that exists. Perhaps not. I can't tell from this who did what to the data before it is logged on as "raw". Can you? I suppose we can assume that he accessed the right data, all the data, did the right comparison, etc. But I don't assume anything about any data any more. If it is cherry picked then it doesn't need adjustments. If it is homogenized at the site, who would know if it isn't documented?
Post a Comment