RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 522
- 155
How many of those are in Siberia? You see dear fool, the point is not that there aren't any it's that you fraudsters choose not to use them, but I'll let the Russians speak for themselves.Russia used to have 15,000 weather stations, now they have 5,000. A scientist would wonder where those other stations went.
So first it was "no weather stations" and now it is "they have 5,000"....LOLOLOLOL....I see you're maintaining your usual standards of accuracy and clarity, walleyed....LOLOLOL.
A real scientist would ask whether or not those other weather stations make any difference, given the wide dispersal of the 5,000 in use, given that there are a lot less stations used for temperature and climate data collection in the USA, and especially given the independent verification of the ground based measurements provided by the satellite measurements.
The dual state nature of Russian weather stations
***
"Russia affected by Climategate
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.
You have no idea what you're talking about, you scientifically illiterate buffoon. Your articles are just more denier cult media junk. The Institute of Economic Analysis is a free-market, far right wing 'think tank' founded by a global warming denier and connected to the fossil fuel industry funded propaganda network in America. Their so-called analysis has been comprehensively debunked.
Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures
(excerpts)
The problem here is the IEA report does not support the claims made in the news story. I've reproduced the final graph from the report below. The red curve is the temperature trend using the 121 Russian stations that CRU has released data for, while the blue hockey stick is from a larger set of 476 stations. I've put them on top of the CRU temperatures for northern extratropics. The red and blue curves agree very well in the period after 1950, thus confirming the CRU temperatures. Well done, IEA!
The red and blue curves do diverge in the 19th century, but the one that provides more support for anthropogenic global warming is the blue hockey stick. The red curve shows warming in the 19th century before there were significant CO2 emissions, so it weakens the case that global warming is man-made. If CRU (not HAdley as claimed in the Russian news story) have "tampered" with the data, it would seem that they must have been trying to make a case against AGW.
The IEA analysis is, in any case, misguided. CRU has not released all the station data they use, so the red curve is not the CRU temperature trend for Russia at all. If you want that, all you have to do is download the gridded data and average all the grid cells in Russia. You have to wonder why the IEA did not do this.
Since Russia is a pretty fair chunk of the land north of 30 degrees north, the CRU graph above is a rough approximation of the what the CRUTEM3 trends for Russia is, and you can see that it looks like the blue curve and not the red one.
Finally, the truth about the Hadley/CRU data: The global temperature rise calculated by the Met Offices HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming.
And the falsehoods about the Russian Institute of Economic analysis are exposed
(excerpts)
The disinfomers people like the Competitive Enterprise Institute have been trumpeting yet more ass-backwards disinformation on this, spun from the Russian Institute of Economic Analysis (but debunked by Tim Lambert aka Deltoid and others). Now the Met Office has buried them with a new analysis, published Friday on their website:
New evidence confirms land warming record
New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Offices HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming. The study, carried out by ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) with input from the Met Office, performs a new calculation of global temperature rise. This independent analysis is based on information from a wide range of sources. It uses all available surface temperature measurements, together with data from sources such as satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys.The new analysis estimates the warming to be higher than that shown from HadCRUTs more limited direct observations. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe over this particular period. This provides strong evidence that recent temperature change is at least as large as estimated by HadCRUT. This conclusion is in contrast to a recently released study by the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) think tank based in Moscow. The IEAs output is consistent with HadCRUT as they both confirm the global warming signal in this region since 1950, which we see in many other variables and has been consistently attributed to human activities.
New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Offices HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming. The study, carried out by ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) with input from the Met Office, performs a new calculation of global temperature rise. This independent analysis is based on information from a wide range of sources. It uses all available surface temperature measurements, together with data from sources such as satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys.The new analysis estimates the warming to be higher than that shown from HadCRUTs more limited direct observations. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe over this particular period. This provides strong evidence that recent temperature change is at least as large as estimated by HadCRUT. This conclusion is in contrast to a recently released study by the Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) think tank based in Moscow. The IEAs output is consistent with HadCRUT as they both confirm the global warming signal in this region since 1950, which we see in many other variables and has been consistently attributed to human activities.
***