The latest story exciting the denialosphere is being put about by novelist James Delingpole and is based on an analysis (translated here) by a right-wing Russian think tank. Delingpole quotes from a news story:

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.

Delingpole adds:

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

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!

i-7151784fb35ffa013f2706b6a1319379-crutem3+russia.png

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.

Steve McIntyre will no doubt be demanding the IEA’s data and code for their study. No doubt.

Comments

  1. #1 David Kane
    December 17, 2009

    “support he claims” should be “”support the claims” I think. Or perhaps I am misreading the whole sentence?

    Excellent post. But why the slam on McIntyre? He, like all good scientists, thinks that data and methods should be open and transparent. Do you have any evidence that he does not want this?

    If your complaint is that he, personally, wants data/methods from CRU but does not seek data/methods from IEA, then that seems stupid. No one demands data/methods from every scientific study. We all pick and choose. Even you! (I believe that you have sought data/methods from John Lott but not from some other researchers. Right?) And there is nothing wrong with doing so.

  2. #2 WAG
    December 17, 2009

    So deniers think global warming is a socialist scam, and their trusted source of information is… Russia??

    Not to mention that the CRU hack may have been done by ex-KGB officers.

    Denial makes strange bedfellows.

  3. #3 Ben Lawson
    December 17, 2009

    It really looks like these guys are counting on their supporters to unquestioningly accept whatever they say. Ever since the fizzled e-mail hack they’ve been throwing out desperate claims of climate fraud “proof” that fail on the first examination.

    Thus the farce of “climate skepticism” becomes comedy…

  4. #4 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2009

    David Kane,

    Why doesn’t “he”, like “all good scientists”, conduct his own primary research and publish more of his findings in peer-reviewed journals in lieu of a blog site?

    “Good scientists”, for the most part, submit their data in article form to peer-reviewed journals where the relative strengths and weaknesses are assessed by experts in the same field. I am all in support of blog sites, as many (like Tim’s) give a good overview of policy-based fields. But at the end of the day, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. That is why science by blog site or by think tank does not cut it in the end. Those who support the broad empirical consensus, like Tim and Deltoid, are doing a good job. But unless the denialists do more of their own primary research and get it published in rigid journals, then much of their output should not, in my view, be taken very seriously.

  5. #5 William Wallace
    December 17, 2009

    Communist Party of the Russian Federation

  6. #6 ben
    December 17, 2009

    That blue line shows a fairly smaller trend doesn’t it? That’s interesting.

    Not that I’m defending McIntyre, but, Jeff, isn’t he an amature dong this on his own time? I for one would love to run a research lab with a group of scientists, but I unfortunately do not have a million dollar research budget, and I have to spend my time making a living so my family doesn’t have to live in a cardboard box.

  7. #7 Dano
    December 17, 2009

    But unless the denialists do more of their own primary research and get it published in rigid journals, then much of their output should not, in my view, be taken very seriously.

    Yes the main purveyors of the Doubt Product actually run away from publishing or collecting data. And can you imagine, say, Willis publishing his “proof” of Australian temp manipulating? It’s ridiculous on its face.

    Best,

    D

  8. #8 JamesA
    December 17, 2009

    It’s like this every time anyone tries to throw doubt on the temperature assimilations – they’re more than ready to make all kinds of accusations, but they stop short of backing this up with hard numbers. Funnily enough, whenever you actually test the data properly, it always comes out in favour of the existing assessments.

    I wonder why this is? Could it be that the folks at GISS, CRU, etc. really do know how to do their jobs? Just speculating here.

  9. #9 Eli Rabett
    December 17, 2009

    Science is not a kindergarten full of five year olds playing why daddy, but Climate Audit is and Steve McIntyre is the biggest baby of the bunch. What he does is a purposeful tactic to harass the scientists. McIntyre is very high maintenance and that ain’t just Eli’s POV.

    David Kane is subject to exactly the same tactic and he better realize that less he become gander sauce.

  10. #10 Jeff Harvey
    December 17, 2009

    “I unfortunately do not have a million dollar research budget”.

    Neither do I. And I tend to publish a lot more than said person.

  11. #11 Craig Allen
    December 17, 2009

    Well Ben, I guess that if you too went and studied science at a university, devoted yourself to a field of study for several decades and beavered away for many years conducting research and publishing your findings, you too could earn a living as a scientist.

  12. #12 David Duff
    December 17, 2009

    Well, thank the ‘Intelligent Designer’ for that, at last, a set of data that we can all trust. Yes, yes, I know, some people will point out that during the time scale in the diagram there were two world wars, a massive civil war, that huge amounts of Russia were occupied territory, that state-run communism was hardly the most effective and efficient form of government and that if you take all that into account, the result is about as reliable as the production figures from a Stalin-era tractor factory!

    Carpers – do’ncha’ hate ‘em!

  13. #13 wildlifer
    December 17, 2009

    David Kane asks:

    But why the slam on McIntyre? He, like all good scientists, thinks that data and methods should be open and transparent.

    McIntyre has proven he’s neither good, nor a scientist, otherwise he would turn his “skepticism” toward denialist reports and papers which claim refutations and examine all claims.

    He has an agenda, which is to cast doubt on, and discredit climate science and climate scientists, not illuminate the truth.

    There’s not a single post on his site which critically examines any claim that supposedly challenges AGW. That, should speak volumes for any thinking person.

  14. #14 Rich Horton
    December 17, 2009

    Hmmm…the report says…

    Given the negative divergence of the temperature series until the mid 1950 years (up to 0,56 ° C) and a positive divergence of the temperature series in the mid-1990 years (up to 0,08 ° C) overstating the extent of warming of the staff HadCRUT, for the territory of Russia from 1870 to 1990-ies can be estimated as minimum of 0.64 degrees C.

    This estimate is at the same time very conservative, because calculations of temperature on the territory of Russia have been used all means at the base Hydromet data without conducting any meaningful their selection, as well as without them with the necessary correction, for example, the effect of urban heat effect.

    Agree or disagree with the report for scientific reasons all you want, but to claim “Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures” is damn near Orwellian.

  15. #15 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    To claim that 1870-1899 is part of the 20th century is damned near even more Orwellian.

  16. #16 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    Watts needs to send his troops out to siberia photographing stations. They can leave the day after christmas, I hear it’s nice there this time of year …

  17. #17 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    WAG Post 2, Do you think Putin has a problem with Zionists? There have been many Jewish deaths in Russia and the world, is he getting even or upsetting plans? Just an observation. Your thoughts please?…

  18. #18 sod
    December 17, 2009

    great work Tim. this stuff needs fast debunking. in 24 hours, they will run the next non-story again.

    they are pushing out rubbish after rubbish at the moment. the e-mails. the code. now the “raw data” meme, with new zealand, darwin station, alaska temperature and now russia.

    basically all those claims fell apart, the very moment that somebody took a closer look. but they don t care. they wont publish corrections, and they simply move to the next false story, knowing that their denialist followers will keep spreading this rubbish over the net.

    it is a really disgusting mode of operation. every one of these stories exposes a lot, aout “sceptical” “science”. it doesn t exist.

  19. #19 sod
    December 17, 2009

    If your complaint is that he, personally, wants data/methods from CRU but does not seek data/methods from IEA, then that seems stupid. No one demands data/methods from every scientific study. We all pick and choose. Even you! (I believe that you have sought data/methods from John Lott but not from some other researchers. Right?) And there is nothing wrong with doing so.

    David, as always, your argument is flat out wrong.

    “free the data” has become the battle shout of denialists and “sceptics”. Steve has made a massive fuss, about tree data that he actually already had, for a couple of days. he has flooded CRU with about 50 FOI requests in 5 days.

    nay tiny bit of data missing (like raw CRU data for a couple of countries) and every single slightly unclear mechanism is seen as PROOF a fraud.

    this is something completely different, than normal people, asking for normal data in a normal way.

    it is exactly the same, as “family values” conservative politicians, getting caught in sex affairs. it makes a difference!

  20. #20 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    God more lies, I urge people to check out these images derived form satellite data:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=3905
    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7839

    I suppose the satellites are telling “lies” too? Really, do these guys have no shame?

  21. #21 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    MapleLeaf, you are so right. I just read Kerry’s speech and then checked out the sponsors of the site; they are telling lies too. These guys have no shame.

    http://kerry.senate.gov/cfm/record.cfm?id=320808

  22. #22 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    Tom @21, I’m not sure I understand you post, or what Kerry has to do with the IEA data. Just to be clear. I was accusing the IEA of lying. Not CRU. The independent satellite data (surface and troposphere) images clearly show that most of Russia has warmed.

    This is just more trash and pseudo science from people with agendas, and it is sad that Delingpole is gobbling it up.

  23. #23 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    Sod @19: “he has flooded CRU with about 50 FOI requests in 5 days”

    Is this SteveM?!

  24. #24 ben
    December 17, 2009

    Well Ben, I guess that if you too went and studied science at a university, devoted yourself to a field of study for several decades and beavered away for many years conducting research and publishing your findings, you too could earn a living as a scientist.

    Been there, done that, not in climate science but in aerospace engineering. As such I don’t get millions of tax dollars to study climate science. If I could get a couple million dollars to produce a really sharp C++ and Matlab based open source project with code that doesn’t look like it was written by a bucket full of squirrels, like the CRU code, I would.

    And while the CRU code *might* crunch the numbers correctly, nobody can tell for sure, no one ever accused those guys of writing competent or intelligible code.

  25. #25 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    Ben @24. Are you suggesting Jones gets paid (in pocket) millions of dollars? For goodness sakes, you would think an aerospace engineer would know better to distinguish what CRU as a whole gets, and what Jones gets paid annually. Jones does not get paid “millions of dollars”, you know that and yet insist on disseminating misinformation. This kind of outright deception smacks of desperation. Tell me, how much money did your parent aerospace company get paid over several decades?

    You do know that there are three other independently analyses global SAT datasets out there right (NASA GISS, JMA, NCDC)? And that id before one even considers the radiosonde and MSU data. Funny thing Ben, they all agree that the planet is warming. Look at the satellite images that I posted above @20. Actually take the time and look at them.

    The IEA is just more junk to try and muddy the waters even further.

  26. #26 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    Been there, done that, not in climate science but in aerospace engineering. As such I don’t get millions of tax dollars to study climate science

    Nor, of course, do climate scientists, in any personal sense. You know that.

    And while the CRU code might crunch the numbers correctly, nobody can tell for sure, no one ever accused those guys of writing competent or intelligible code.

    I’ve been a software engineer for over 35 years. Code doesn’t need to be intelligible to be competent, if by competent you mean “work correctly”.

    Obviously readability is a virtue but I’m tired of the denialsphere conflating it with correctness. Perfectly readable code can be buggy as hell. I’m sure that Windows 95, written in C, following well-defined coding standards, was much more readable than the kernels I worked on in the early 70s that were written in assembly, but hell, our stuff flat-out worked. Operating system crash? Not unless their were sparks flying from the power supplies.

  27. #27 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    I think I understand what you are saying but I was accusing CRU of lying. Kerry is just one of the lite’s… Hill’ has given $100,000,000,000.00; to get things going? She is lying. She is one of the lite’s. George Soros, wants to give cash for Green, to the third world; for IMF gold if the dictators can’t pay. He is lying & a big lite. Who do you trust?

  28. #28 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    MapleLeaf, sorry- Ref. post #27, to post #22.

  29. #29 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 17, 2009

    BTW, the IEA is a Russian version of CATO or CEI. In fact, the founder of IEA is a fellow at CATO.

    All in all, this “takedown” of the CRU record, like all such takedowns, is an epic fail.

  30. #30 Eli Rabett
    December 17, 2009

    Ah Tom brings the spittle. Try cleaning it up a bit will you?

  31. #31 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    Hang on Tom, now you are sounding like a conspiracy theorist. Did you look at the image that I posted? Do you not understand the significance of the source of the Russian “analysis”? You are willing to believe an obscure right-wing group with an agenda over more than 115 years of science? Right…..

    Christ the search for the silver bullet continues, all in the hopes that you will be absolved for doing NOTHING. Good on ya mate.

    PS: And please do not start throwing random numbers around. Those numbers are paltry compared to the profits of the energy and FF industry, not to mention the costs the USA and others spend on fighting wars.

  32. #32 Paul UK
    December 17, 2009

    Ben:
    >Been there, done that, not in climate science but in aerospace engineering. As such I don’t get millions of tax dollars to study climate science.

    erm yes well. You get billions of tax dollars for defence contracts.

  33. #33 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    Starling to Rabbit Run… Hop, Skip & Jump.)

  34. #34 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    Tom and Ben. You are trying to derail this thread. Try and stay on topic. I’d be interested in your thoughts about the IEA report. What makes you so certain that this is a trustworthy and legitimate analysis? What do you think their point is in releasing this ‘analysis’?

  35. #35 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    MapleLeaf, I downloaded the FOIA files when they first came available. I spent days going through the documents,emails and data files, code and comments etc. From what I saw, I understood there was blatent fraud. Pettyness was throughout the emails, as well as their use of funds to travel the world. I don’t trust anything they say now… You can’t make me. I have done my homework. It is not about the science anymore. It is treason on a world wide scale. This I know, is just the tip of the iceberg but everywhere you look you find Soros, Gore etc., etc., etc. It makes me sick to see how many, for so long have worked towards this goal at COP15. I want to see it fail. People around the world arrested and tried then sentenced for their crimes. I know when someone tries to kill me… The world is being threatend with slavery by those with money. You will only be able to scoff at this if you are blind. You all have assisted in Their plan. Let us all get to the bottom of the NWO plans and participants. We need to know this first. Would you agree? According to Jewish law, anyone who signs any contract while he or his family is under threat; is void. We don’t have to “preform” with what has been signed. That applies to treaties, contracts, agreements, all voided.

  36. #36 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    Tom, I am not engaging you unless you speak to the Russian IEA file. You are not using me as a springboard for your propaganda. Go troll somewhere else.

    G’day

  37. #37 Dano
    December 17, 2009

    Tom @ December 17, 2009 1:51 PM[kill]​

    Ignorance and willfull blindness are rarely compelling arguments. The weird pathology gives the rant some color, though…there IS that…

    Is it just me or are the nutters thrashing about that much harder, as each day goes by with no evidence of fraud, manipulation, hiding, or punching having been found out in reality? No crawlers on Faux/Murdoch, no red light on Drudge, no Rush spittle drying on a copy of a report…

    Ah, well.

    HTH.

    Best,

    D

  38. #38 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    MapleLeaf, God forbid; Propaganda. Tah

  39. #39 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    Have you all(AGW folks),read the FOIA files? I mean, spent a bunch of hours…? You don’t see what I see?… A simple direct question to you. Kerry wants the skeptics to prove the negitive in his speech; no problem with you all?

  40. #40 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    Case in point, ask a denialist to speak to the issue at hand and present some facts, and they are suddenly speechless. Same old same old.

    Dano, McIntyre is trying especially hard though….his blog has morphed from a faux “audit” blog to something akin to WUWT.

    Has someone explained to Delingpole to check the credibility of his sources? Sounds like he has been chatting with the denialist folks at Air Vent. Here Delingpole, a lead for you, absolute crap, but hey, it will be excellent material to further confuse the public.

    Monbiot is right, we are losing….oh hail, pseudo science and rhetoric.

  41. #41 wildlifer
    December 17, 2009

    Tom writes @ 35:

    I don’t trust anything they say now…

    Tell the truth Tom, you didn’t trust anything they said even before you read the emails and searched through them to find out-of-context snippets to confirm your a priori conclusion.

  42. #42 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    wildlifer, I admit I had my doubts about the subject over the years but I too felt that the weather patterns were different. Things like the light of the sun, bird behaviour and changes in plants kept me open. When I read the FOIA files I did shut my mind to their work. To me it was like having a video of their offices and routines. Very personal stuff. They knew they were doing wrong. As an honest witness I can not say with certinty how wrong but I will not give away rights for a half truth. I think you would admit that there is much more that has yet to be revealed. As I went through the futerra PR doc., it speaks of the long term nature of this project. Not if, when. Predetermind. Lots of money invested by Stakeholders. Who? I really want to know.

  43. #43 MartinM
    December 17, 2009

    From what I saw, I understood there was blatent fraud.

    Kindly support your slanderous accusation or shut the hell up.

  44. #44 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    MartinM,Go find the email that says to send less than ten thousand dollars per day to avoid the banks and their records. They also mention that the person who moved the money took a small taste. But no worry’s… Cheers

    Does that sound kosher to you?

  45. #45 MartinM
    December 17, 2009

    [This](http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1&filename=826209667.txt) is the closest I can find to what you describe, and it’s not particularly close.

  46. #46 Mark Francis
    December 17, 2009

    “Go find the email that says to send less than ten thousand dollars per day to avoid the banks and their records.”

    Yes, Tom, Please, do. And let us know. Hyperlinks are easy to do.

  47. #47 Brian D
    December 17, 2009

    Tom, this is the only time I will respond to anything you say that is off-topic for this thread, but:

    I downloaded the FOIA files when they first came available. I spent days going through the documents,emails and data files, code and comments etc. From what I saw, I understood there was blatent fraud. … It is treason on a world wide scale. This I know, is just the tip of the iceberg but everywhere you look you find Soros, Gore etc., etc., etc.

    Funny you should mention that, as I’ve been looking through the mails for Gore and Soros. In brief, you fail.

    This is one of the most transparent examples of denialist self-delusion I’ve ever seen, since anyone can freely replicate what I’ve done.

  48. #48 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    MartinM, Thank you for your effort. It is not the email I read. It was shorter. From memory… I will shut up on this subject. I don’t need to read more FOIA files. I have read enough already. I know what I read. It is my hope the whole world gets a chance to read these files as well. They speak for themselves.

  49. #49 hmmm
    December 17, 2009

    The only problem with this blog is that some frequent participants treat comments from, say, David Kane or Ben the same way they treat, say, Tom’s.

  50. #50 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    Brian D, When I first posted in November I pasted a futerra PR piece that led to the Board and the Pres. said she sat on the board of Tomorrows Company, which had/has a picture of Al Gore on its home page… The Kerry piece that I read this morning came from a site that supported AGW and the sponsors were Soros, Gore, Rockefeller all kind of foundations and trusts on the left. You are saying I am wrong about this?

  51. #51 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    So is anyone going to talk about the Russian data? Or are we going to keep talking about conspiracy theories put forth by trolls?

  52. #52 Bruce Sharp
    December 17, 2009

    Tom, if you really “know what you read,” then you would know that you weren’t reading FOIA files. You were reading data stolen by hackers.

  53. #53 ben
    December 17, 2009

    I guess it wasn’t obvious that I meant “a couple million dollars to run a lab,” not just “in my pocket” but then some of you just like to think the worst of me.

    Repling in no particular order to the criticisms above:

    1. Lack of crashing in and of itself != competent code, this is necessary but not sufficient. How can anyone look at code written that badly and have any idea if it works? I write tons of numerical code every day and I have to be very careful about design and testing to ensure that it works correctly.

    2. I’ve don’t get any money from public sources… I haven’t managed to tap into that gravy train yet. You gotta have some sort of connections for that.

  54. #54 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    Giving praise and glory to God. Good day, Gentlemen

  55. #55 ben
    December 17, 2009

    Another point of curiosity… Shoudnt the uncertanty regions of the graph above don’t encompass either of the red or blue data sets. Isn’t that a problem?

  56. #56 MartinM
    December 17, 2009

    Not really. There’s more than just Russia in the CRU series that Tim posted.

  57. #57 MapleLeaf
    December 17, 2009

    Tom @ 54 “Giving praise and glory to God. Good day, Gentlemen” WTF? And hey, women post here too you know!

    Is this guy serious? Next he’ll be quoting the bible in his defense.

    This is OT, but you have to read what deepclimate has just posted about the infamous Wegman report!

  58. #58 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    Tom writes:

    >*I spent days going through the documents,emails and data files, code and comments etc. From what I saw, I understood there was blatent fraud.*

    >*I don’t need to read more FOIA files. I have read enough already. I know what I read. It is my hope the whole world gets a chance to read these files as well. They speak for themselves.*

    So Tom is saying ‘trust me’ I remember there was fraud, I just can’t find it now.

    Tom, when you find your evidence for fraud, please do present it. As you will be the first person I would have found that has been able to back such claims.

    So far experience shows everyone else making bold claims of fraud has been shown to be making such [claims without supportable evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/more_on_the_stolen_emails.php#comment-2131273).

  59. #59 Bruce Sharp
    December 17, 2009

    Ben in 53 says: “Lack of crashing in and of itself != competent code, this is necessary but not sufficient. How can anyone look at code written that badly and have any idea if it works? I write tons of numerical code every day and I have to be very careful about design and testing to ensure that it works correctly.”

    How can you tell if the code works? Ben, you answered your own question in your very next sentence. To ensure that code works correctly, you don’t look at it. You test it.

  60. #60 Boris
    December 17, 2009

    They speak for themselves.

    Actually, apparently you speak for them.

  61. #61 Lee
    December 17, 2009

    @ Maple Leaf, 57:

    “This is OT, but you have to read what deepclimate has just posted about the infamous Wegman report!”

    Wow. Wegman is shown to have plagiarized widely. He looks to have had an unnamed denialist co-author, now revealed as Rapp, who cited in his recent textbook as support for his ideas, the stuff he wrote anonymously in the Wegman report two years earlier.

    Just.. wow.

  62. #62 Fyodor Trol
    December 17, 2009

    Tom, don’t pay attention to them… Only open-minded people like us will be able to decode the hidden messages you refer to. In fact, having spent hours perusing the emails, I have conclusively decoded precise instructions for rebuilding the ancient golden temple of the Elites. So please, ignore the endarkened commenters on this blog, and continue to trust the voices in our head.

  63. #63 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    Lack of crashing in and of itself != competent code, this is necessary but not sufficient. How can anyone look at code written that badly and have any idea if it works?

    Obviously, it’s difficult. However, the clear climate code people have managed to do so with GISTEMP, while rewriting it in for structure and readability. They’ve confirmed that GISTEMP does appear to implement the algorithms described in the various published papers the project’s spawned.

    They’ve found a small number of bugs that don’t impact the GISTEMP product. Most hearteningly, rather than bitch like you do, they put in this effort and have communicated the bugs they’ve found to the person who maintains GISTEMP. And that person has verified the bugs and has accepted their patches into NASA’s version.

    Now the clear climate code team aren’t denialists, see. They’re doing useful work with the code that’s been released. AFAIK they are the ONLY people doing useful work with it. Denialists like yourself have restricted their efforts to bitching about the code, rather than digging in to improve it by finding and fixing bugs, or rewriting code to be more readable. All that screaming by denialists to “free the code!” and, when given the code, all they do is bitch about it.

  64. #64 Bruce Sharp
    December 17, 2009

    Dhogaza, I hadn’t heard of the [Clear Climate Code](http://clearclimatecode.org/about/) project previously. Very cool.

  65. #65 el gordo
    December 17, 2009

    I’m not very good at reading code, could someone translate into English?

  66. #66 Dano
    December 17, 2009

    The only problem with this blog is that some frequent participants treat comments from, say, David Kane or Ben the same way they treat, say, Tom’s.

    Indeed! [killfile] saves lots of eye ouch.

    Best,

    D

  67. #67 wildlifer
    December 17, 2009

    Hell el gordo, you don’t appear to even do that well with English.

  68. #68 ben
    December 17, 2009

    Denialists like yourself…

    Who said I was a denialist? I’m more of an inconvincilist.

    Also doing this from an iPhone is leading to some funny looking sentence structure
    :)

  69. #69 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    Damn you, wildlifer, beat me to it!

    I was busy reading Deep Climate’s latest post.

    The rest of y’all (minus fatty and tom) should do the same…

  70. #70 ben
    December 17, 2009

    er, that should probably be “unconvincilist”

  71. #71 Brian D
    December 17, 2009

    Re: MapleLeaf, Lee, Dhogaza:

    That is a bombshell.

    Surely I can’t be the only one noticing the irony of having a report that prominently used a “social network analysis” to imply secret author collaboration being ghostwritten.

  72. #72 jakerman
    December 17, 2009

    Brian D,

    >*Surely I can’t be the only one noticing the irony of having a report that prominently used a “social network analysis” to imply secret author collaboration being ghostwritten.*

    That is a powerful point!

    And here is a link for others:

    < http://deepclimate.org/2009/12/17/wegman-report-ghostwriter-revealed/#more-1273>

  73. #73 TrueSceptic
    December 17, 2009

    35 Tom,

    Are you Tokie, who used to post at JREF?

  74. #74 TrueSceptic
    December 17, 2009

    40 MapleLeaf,

    One of the denydiot signatures is the inability to stay on, or even start with, the topic.

  75. #75 el gordo
    December 17, 2009

    Rapp said the ‘naysayers have maintained blogs and circulated reports, but generally have not penetrated the scientific literature that is dominated by alarmist publications.’

    That is undeniably true.

  76. #76 TrueSceptic
    December 17, 2009

    44 Tom,

    Just cite the file.

    Just so you know, anyone can search the emails, but I want _you_ to support a claim for once.

  77. #77 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    That is undeniably true.

    And he goes on to say that they don’t have the prerequisite skills and knowledge …

    Also undeniably true.

  78. #78 TrueSceptic
    December 17, 2009

    65 el gordo,

    See, this is the problem. What good is it if people have access to code and can’t read it, or (more likely) misrepresent it?

    But anyway, which bit would you like translated?

  79. #79 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    TrueSceptic, Let’s stop fooling around. I asked earlier about proving a negitive… Here is Kerry…Frankly, those who look for any excuse to continue challenging the science have a fundamental responsibility which they have never fulfilled: Prove us wrong or stand down. Prove that the pollution we put in the atmosphere is not having the harmful effect we know it is. Tell us where the gases go and what they do. Pony up one single, cogent, legitimate, scholarly analysis. Prove that the ocean isn’t actually rising; prove that the ice caps aren’t melting, that deserts aren’t expanding. And prove that human beings have nothing to do with any of it. And by the way — good luck!

  80. #80 TrueSceptic
    December 17, 2009

    64 Bruce,

    Yes, it’s good stuff. You might also be unaware of [Open Temp](http://www.opentemp.org/main/) by John Van Vliet, who has posted as JohnV in various blogs.

  81. #81 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    TrueSceptic, So… prove me wrong about the email and the cost of moving less than $10,000 per day to russia. Sounds fair. And; good luck.

  82. #82 TrueSceptic
    December 17, 2009

    79 Tom,

    I asked a very simple question. Where is an answer that looks remotely relevant?

    WTF does Kerry have to do with the OP?

  83. #83 TrueSceptic
    December 17, 2009

    81 Tom,

    Show us the email/whatever. A simple request.

    BTW are you Tokie?

  84. #84 Bruce Sharp
    December 17, 2009

    Another new project — ostensibly along the same lines as Clear Climate Code — is [Data Against Demagogues](http://data-n-demagogues.blogspot.com/). The guy who started it — Ken Burnside — comes across as being pretty reasonable. He didn’t do himself any favors, though, when he brought Eric Raymond on board… and Raymond immediately inserted his foot into his mouth by saying [“Ironically, Ken’s inclinations are more skeptical than otherwise. I think he’s bending over backward to be fair, and perhaps shouldn’t.”](http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1445#comment-242861)

    When a member of your teams says, right off the bat, “We shouldn’t be fair,” it’s not too hard to see how things are going to turn out. I’ll go on record now as saying that they will bail on this project. The real question is: why will they abandon it? Will it be because they can’t figure out what to do with the code? Or will the team split apart because Burnside doesn’t share Raymond’s agenda? Or will they quietly call it quits when they realize that the code actually works just fine?

    Place your bets.

  85. #85 dhogaza
    December 17, 2009

    Oh, I wouldn’t say it’s on the same lines as clear climate code at all. Ken Burnside doesn’t seem particularly reasonable:

    The second point, it’s the contention of most of us that CRU has significantly damaged its credibility. If similar behavior had occurred in the financial sector, people would be facing criminal charges. In scientific circles, they’ve put a dent on their reputation…

  86. #86 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 17, 2009

    Lee and MapleLeaf:

    I just went over to DC and read Wegman’s Ghostwriter Revealed. I am speechless. I had little respect for this report after reading it at the time. Now I have none at all.

  87. #87 el gordo
    December 17, 2009

    I only want the funny parts of the code translated.

    Ahh…sorry for the cherry-pick but there’s a blizzard in Copenhagen. The weather gods are not amused – big al failed to show.

  88. #88 Bruce Sharp
    December 17, 2009

    Dhogaza, re 85: I stand corrected.

  89. #89 Michael
    December 17, 2009

    @87

    What?! Snow in Europe…in winter…

    wow.

  90. #90 silkworm
    December 17, 2009

    Tom @ 35 said:

    Let us all get to the bottom of the NWO plans and participants. We need to know this first. Would you agree?

    On first reading this, one would have to think that Tom was a conspiracy theorist, a follower of Alex Jones, or maybe even Viscount Monckton, but then he follows up with “According to Jewish law…” This tells me what I need to know about Tom. He is a religious nut, probably a creationist.

    Then @ 44 he drops in some religious-speak with the word “kosher,” to perhaps reaffirm his commitment to the Jewish cause.

    Then @ 54 he says inanely, “Giving praise and glory to God. Good day, Gentlemen.” This tells us that his entire worldview is a religious one, and that his religious beliefs lie at the root of his “skepticism.”

    In short, he is an idiot troll who is incapable of rational thought, and he should not be engaged except to be mocked mercilessly.

  91. #91 Daniel J. Andrews
    December 17, 2009

    Thanks for the heads-up on the Wegman Report, MapleLeaf. Just read it myself. I need to reread it later as I’m feeling a bit..?…don’t know what…but definitely need a reread.

    And hat-tip to TrueSkeptic for linking to OpenTemp. I hadn’t seen that one before, nor Clear Climate Code (thanks dhogaza).

    And big thanks to Tim for posting this Russian bit so fast. I caught a passing reference to it from a denier perspective this afternoon, but Tim’s on it already.

  92. #92 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 17, 2009

    Burnside seems like a not unreasonable person. He seems to be wrong about just about everything, not maliciously wrong, just mistaken.

    I also think his rather quixotic quest to run CCSM 3.0 on a 2.66Ghz Core Duo is going to crash upon the rocks of reality. I don’t know why Raymond told him that a climate model couldn’t make use of multiple cores. This is a patently absurd statement since the simultaneous computation of gridded values is what climate models are all about, this is a trivially parallelizable (sp?) problem. Well, I never had much respect for Raymond anyway, this just validates my low opinion of him.

    I suggested that they try playing with EdGCM, which is meant as a pedagogical tool, rather than the toy for big boys who already know what they are doing.

  93. #93 Vince Whirlwind
    December 17, 2009

    I think you’ll find that poorly-written applications make poor use of multiple cores, causing threads to become orphaned, clogging up the CPU which gradually ramps up to 100% utilisation and stops doing anything useful.

    I don’t know if this is common in applications developed in academia, but I think chances are it is – application developers love recycling old chunks of code, thus perpetuating stuff which can’t handle multi-threading. When you’ve got an application like this, the only solution is to disable multithreading.

  94. #94 Tom
    December 17, 2009

    silkworm, is that your stage name? This fresh piece looked to address the nexus stuff, good for a start anyway… I may be a troll but I work hard. Rock on.

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/12/vast-nexus-of-influence.html

  95. #95 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 17, 2009

    Vince,

    I think you are probably wrong. This model has been run on massively parallel machines for years. I would think that problems like this are probably pretty well wrung out.

    The fact is that the type of bug you cite could only be due to a thread which does not exit, but rather loops continuously, an obvious coding error. Threads which hang on i/o or waiting to be picked up by a wait() call take up space in the process table or the MP executive, but they do not take up CPU resources since they are not scheduled. A loop which does not exit would be a bug which gets picked up in the lab and would never make it to the wild (to obvious), which in this case is running the IPCC reference runs. Believe it or not, the IPCC schedules now dominate GCM development.

  96. #96 Vince Whirlwind
    December 17, 2009

    Rattus – I wasn’t making any comment about *this* application.
    I have encountered (more than once) cowboy applications which hogged all CPU resources until multithreading was disabled.
    I thought it was worth noting that it is within the realm of possibility that Raymond’s advice on a particular modelling application *could* very well be based on fact.
    Make sure he is talking about the same application that you are – and not a different version recoded (by cowboys) for running on a Microsoft machine.

  97. #97 Vince Whirlwind
    December 17, 2009

    TOM: “I may be a troll but I work hard.”.

    ???

    You make vague claims about something you’ve read in some stolen emails, but when pressed to name and/or quote the email in question, you say you just “remember” it.

    If this is your idea of “I work hard”, then nobody here is in the least bit suprised that were unable to complete high-school level science leading you therefore to become yet another gullible victim of climate change denialism kooks and conspiracy theorists.

  98. #98 Bernard J.
    December 18, 2009

    Tom.

    Your thinking is completely uncoupled from any acquisition of real knowledge or understanding, just as cellular electron transport is uncoupled from useful energetic work when poisoned with HNC.

    The best thing for you to do is to apply a nice cold bag of frozen peas to your forehead, and have a long lie-down.

  99. #99 Eamon
    December 18, 2009

    Regarding Clear Climate Code, they’re looking for helping hands – so if you’ve got Fortran and Python experience please consider helping them out.

  100. #100 cohenite
    December 18, 2009

    Nick Stokes has used a similar graph to the one posted at the top of this thread;

    http://www.realclimate.org/images/russian.jpeg

    But the issue is, how many of the Russian sites have been excluded from the post 1975 period; and does that exclusion produce the good blue correlation with the CRU data in the red?

1 2 3 5

Current ye@r *