Russian IEA Claims CRU (Thus NOAA/NASA) Probably Tampered With Their Data

OK, this is absolutely the last thing I'll point out. See the graph you posted? See the footnote at the bottom: anomaly from 1961-90. Go look at the two temperature lines in the Russian economic "think tank" study (red and blue lines), from my posting #6 above. Note how the two temperature series are essentially identical, in fact literally overlay one another, from 1960 to the present.

Conclusion: if you substituted the "think tank" temperatures for CRU, you would get the same chart that you posted. Russia would still be just as warm, relative to the 1961-90 baseline, using the "think tank" time series, as it appears above, using the CRU data.

So when Watts posted this chart, with the snarky comment about how different things would look if CRU hadn't fudged the data, he literally didn't know what he was talking about. He's so intent on making his point that he either didn't actually look at the Russian think-tank analysis, or didn't bother to look at this chart. The Russian economic think-tank analysis agrees closely with the CRU temperatures for the time period depicted in that chart. The Russian think-tank analysis directly validates the warm Russian areas shown on your chart.

 

Cho this is how the party of NO operates time and again. Rather than take some interesting piece of info and analyze it for just a minute like you did, the LAZY party of NO simply regurgitates it as fact. We see this on every single piece of news and data their beady little eyes fall on. THINKING persons follow up, LAZY persons regurgitate. Guess which type of person the OP is? Thus why people with brains are so abhorrent of the lazy party of NO. That party of NO are perfectly willing to risk it all rather than act smart. Once again I say there are leaders in the world and there are followers. Those in the party of NO are without doubt followers.

 

Amped

"We're on flip sides of the same page. When oceans of money are at stake and one group has the power to issue laws forcing compliance and taxation based on cooked books, it makes almost any amount spent on lobbying seem insignificant."

Do you actually believe this? Congress can't pass meaningful anything in the current "party of no" gridlock! Between health care, global warming, regulatory reform,, almost anything of meaning!

You actually think that Joe Lieberman's opposition to the health care bill (expansion of medicare coverage) was based on "principle"? This after touting the idea for a number of years, until it came to crunch time, and the insurance industry (largely based in,,,wait for it,, Connecticut) chimed in, and then, lo and behold he's against it. So against it that he claims to have been against it always, IN SPITE of a plethora of videos of him supporting it. Black is white/up is down, tell a lie often/loud enough and it becomes "truth"!

I have a hunch you would echo RadioPrius comment, in post #404 of the "is global warming unstoppable:

"Sorry, I'm not willing to give up my freedoms and pay more taxes due to something we aren't sure of. Before you permanently cripple me you better be sure the problem is legit. And after everything I've seen I am more than sure that AGW, as the IPCC would have you believe, is not legit."


When asked point blank how he was going to be crippled he couldn't or wouldn't answer. I posited that he might have to give up the Golf club membership, or the ski chalet, or the weeks in France, or the Condo in Fla. I'm not sure I would consider that "crippling", especially given the potential gravity of awg.

 

Which shows that you are not at all sincere, same as RP. You are spewing the same non-factual/outright lies as the other denialists while falsely claiming to be something you are not.

You aren't "correcting" anyone. You are spinning to further an agenda. Worse than that, you are misrepresenting yourself as somehow "*huge* supporter of global warming" (whatever the hell that means) or middle of the road. That was an obvious lie by you.

Real Climate's links and references are to the actual published, peer reviewed literature. Since you effectively throw ALL that out and any climatologist who isn't a self-identified AGW skeptic, all you are left with is right wing nutjobs as sources.

I'm still waiting to see actual evidence that something was falsified or that there is an actual massive conspiracy. It isn't in the stolen e-mails. The data are available to the public.

Yet we have you around saying:

No, we have not seen any evidence of that. We've watched you and other political operatives claim that based on the flimsiest constructions. If you applied the same measure to yourself and your denialist brethren's claims you would be calling yourself and them liars many times more often. Yet you don't apply the same standards or skepticism to the other side.

Now why is that? I submit that it is because you've already got a conclusion, and like the other denialists you are cherrypicking only those things that you think you can use to fool someone with.

Meanwhile, I'll wait for some actual proof that there is falsification or intentional misrepresentation by Mann and others. It's not hard to find proof of intentional misrepresentation of such by you and your buddies on the other hand.

 

Chogan2,

That time of observation bias graph that Tim posted claiming it was something else is very interesting. It isn't hard to see why the correction would be large with improved real time monitoring and such. And therefore it is easy to understand why the correction would be necessary to put things on an "apples to apples" basis. However, because of the magnitude of the correction it is something that is worth some close scrutiny.

This is an area where I wouldn't be surprised to see further adjustment since it is based on an empirical model. This sort of thing could have problems analogous to some of the problems in ocean temperature measurement and therefore ocean heat content. Was this part of the satellite vs. ground based temperature correction, or was that completely different?

 

Yeah, that "liar" comment kind of got to me too. Mann was merely the first to show that. There have now been over a dozen independent studies showing the same "hockey stick" shape. They combine tree rings, ice cores, lake sediments, corals, historical temperature recordings, and on and on, in various sophisticated ways. To hear somebody who clearly grasps none of that call Mann a liar is just not right.

For those who care, a somewhat dated graph shown Mann's work and nine independent studies that all showed roughly the same "hockey stick" shape can be found here:

File:1000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think the actual count of such studies is now in the high teens.

If Mann is a liar, well, he has a lot of company in the scientific literature.

 

All I know is what I read on that page. My impression, based on the timing of the references, is that this is all essentially statistical adjustments based on internal checks within their ground-based data set. Do geographically close stations give similar trend, that sort of thing.

The urban heat island effect, for example, is specifically stated as a regression-based adjustment, with methodology reference dated 1988. At that time, the satellite data were still so screwed up that nobody would have used them as the reference, I think.

I couldn't get the original work, but I do that sort of work myself, so I can think of two or three sensible ways to do that. Regress temperature on time trend plus indices of urbanization for the environment around each recording station. A somewhat smarter approach would add indicators of geographic proximity (effectively contrast each urban station with the nearest rural station trend).

The nice thing about regression-based within-dataset corrections is that they will completely remove any measured urban heat island effect. That is, once you've done that, if you then classified stations as urban and rural using the same classification you used in the regression, you're guaranteed to find no remaining urban heat island effect. Whereas if you norm it to some other dataset, that's not guaranteed.

Anyway, as a long-time user of various government datasets, I just assumed that the folks who put this together a) knew what they were doing, b) knew more about it than anybody else, and c) for sure, knew a whole lot more about it than I ever will.

So I had no cause to question what they did, or to bother to learn the details

Particularly, as you can see from the references, since they started doing these adjustments well before global warming became such a political football.

 

Please point out one outright "lie" that I have "spewed" and I will be happy to respond to it.

"Hide the decline" is proof of intentional misrepresentation by Mann and others. It is plain as day.

 

Er, on your graph the black line is the instrument data. The proxy data is near useless for recent temperatures. And I guess you didn't read anything about "hide the decline" did you? Did you actually read the ClimateGate emails and see the conversations between Keith Briffa and the rest of them?

Is it my responsibility to spell out something that I've already seen other posters demonstrate multiple times, just because *you* don't know something?

 

This is completely false. I argue on both sides of the debate. I do not believe that our warming is primarily driven by anthropogenic GHGs, but I do believe our warming is affected by our GHGs. I started posting here because I saw valid criticisms being made by denialists get skipped over by people who frankly had no idea what they were talking about.

I agree with some of the message of your post - it is important to not spread misinformation. But there is so much misinformation being thrown around on the boards that I need hip boots just to walk through the posts.

 

Amped,

Can you spell filibuster? I agree that it is the right of the senate to do so, but to claim there is no "bi-partisanship" when almost no vote in either the house or the senate has not a single republican vote. If indeed it were a matter of conscience so be it, but I contend that the republicans are committed to doing EVERYTHING they can do to ensure failure of the Obama administration.

So much for the McCain line "country first"! Makes me want to puke!
First they spread misinformation, then they feign concern, then they block everything, then they "lament" the lack of bipartisanship"!

 

Well, it boils down to this.

On the one hand, I pointed out that there are more than a dozen such studies now published in the scholarly literature, validating Mann's original "hockey stick" conclusion. These are based on a wide variety of data sources and methods, and are consistent with (e.g.) borehole temperature studies.

On the other hand, there's your comment above.

So, I can either:

a) Believe that Mann's analysis and conclusions really have been validated in a wide variety of ways, or

b) Believe that authors, editors and reviewers for a wide array of scholarly journals have repeatedly made the same huge, fundamental mistake in their analyses and that this, entirely by chance, happens to line up beautifully with borehole temperature studies.

I'm going with a).

EDIT: And I forgot that the US Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences to look into this, and they vindicated Mann's findings, with a few caveats. Mainly, and quite reasonably, the farther back you go, the more uncertain the data gets, mostly because fewer proxies are available.

So, to point b), I'd also like to add: And the National Academy of Sciences was wrong in its report to the US Congress about historical temperature reconstructions such as those done by Mann.

I'm still sticking with a).

 

NevadaPrius,

In one of your early(iest) posts you claimed to be " a being "supporter" of global warming".

Can you please explain what is it you actually believe is happening? For the tenor of most of your posts I wouldn't have drawn the conclusion that you are a "supporter". Perhaps I am misunderstanding what mean (t) by that.

Thank you

 

It should be quite obvious that being a supporter of global warming is not equal to being a supporter of anthropogenic global warming.

 

On this subject we agree, but probably for different reasons. There is enough blame to go around. Our politics have become so polarized in the last generation, I am not convinced that we even have a governable country any more.

 

I'm a supporter of the United Way, and the Boy Scouts, but I wouldn't describe myself as a "supporter of global warming".

I ask NevadaPrius again,,,

 

I've already pointed out several, including your "*huge* supporter" post. You've only argued the other side, so it is apparent that you are anything but what you posed as.

Another would be your claim of debating both sides, a complete falsehood by you from what I've seen so far. You've already said you reject all of the climatological data and researchers that indicate AGW.

And claiming "hide the decline" as proof is so laughably stupid that it can only be attributed to a lying troll. I've got no patience for either characteristic. I'll probably put you on ignore shortly as you sound like the other trolls already on that list. One can't debate lying trolls, it is a waste of time. I've seen enough of your species already.

I see you and your brethren making wild claims and accusations that you can't back up. You are the sources of misinformation. Your fantasy based perception of yourself as some sort of objective gatekeeper is complete bullshit.