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 Steve Reuland
    December 21, 2009

    Keith:

    In science, when recording results, its normal to provide error bars on the charts you produce from the data. These are not present, and no ‘station uncertainty’ doesn’t cover it.

    I’m not sure if this is a joke or what, but the blue and red lines in the graph above are straight from the denialist document (Fig. 8). Follow the link and see for yourself. The only thing that Tim added was the CRU data for that region, which does contain error bars. So this is a double FAIL on your part.

  2. #2 sod
    December 21, 2009

    I’m not sure if this is a joke or what, but the blue and red lines in the graph above are straight from the denialist document (Fig. 8). Follow the link and see for yourself. The only thing that Tim added was the CRU data for that region, which does contain error bars. So this is a double FAIL on your part.

    perfect reply.

    but don t expect any insight from Keith. he also thinks that the hockeystick has been discredited years ago….

  3. #3 Tristan
    December 21, 2009

    Mabus cleanup in aisle 188…

  4. #4 Bernard J.
    December 21, 2009

    [Keith](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2156969).

    You are full of shit.

    There is no way that you would have sailed along blithely until you encountered ‘hockey stick’, if you believe that hockey sticks were “discredited years ago”.

    And I can tell you now that there are probably more professional scientists on this blog than you have ever met – or even read – in your life.

    Idiots like you remind me of the ongoing dialogue that Sam Kass has with nimrods who think that “The Big Bang Theory” invented [rock, paper, scissors, lizard, Spock](http://www.samkass.com/theories/RPSSL.html).

  5. #5 Chris O'Neill
    December 21, 2009

    el gullibo:

    Howard found himself in a corner and caved in,

    So Rudd was in control of the Howard government? Thanks for the fairy tale.

    but Rudd has taken the whole thing to ridiculous heights.

    There you go blaming Rudd again. The ETS that Rudd tried to get passed was much the same as Howard’s ETS.

  6. #6 Tom
    December 21, 2009

    Hi there Janet, Conspiracies. I think it was about 1980, when I got the Sunday paper and inside the Parade section there was a story on the only mass book burning organized in the U.S. It was the book “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”. The only place I could find a copy was at Gonzaga Univ., in the Referance section. I checked out the small book printed by Henry Ford, around the time of WW I. I must say it was a mind expanding read. I had no idea someone could write such a complex outline for world control so clearly and concisely. You will not forget these words and you see the powers behind the curtin today, moving the world just as this book lays things out for the reader. The book gives the rumored background of who recovered the book…? To me though it is the methods to be used and the principles that drove their plan. After the last thirty years of watching the NWO unfold around the world, this book has proven itself to me, as being the real deal. You check it out please and get back to us with your view. As to what I have read and where I get my current information; I laid that out for you the first time you asked me, back in November. You smart folks don’t have the; Updated-Approved-Reading, list up yet so I still have to do this on my own. I hope that is OK with you scientists. People do your duty and check it out… Thank you, MGT

  7. #7 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 21, 2009

    Tom, #206 leaves me wondering whether you are a Poe or a Nazi.

  8. #8 Tom
    December 21, 2009

    In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. She asked the question. I gave an honest answer. Have you read this book? Or is it on the unapproved list until this day? It is on the web. Who is sticking their head in the sand? You tell us; the people, will you please? And lets drop the name calling, you don’t know anything about me or my life experiance. If you were a Jew, NWO would read to you as OWN. Smart jokes…? Help us please.

  9. #9 luminous beauty
    December 21, 2009

    Tom,

    You missed the burning of Beatles’ records when John Lennon let the cat out of the bag by by saying, “We’re more popular than Jesus…”. The Secret Plans for World Domination are in the lyrics of “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”, but you have to play it backwards.

    If you value your sanity, I suggest you don’t look too closely at the reverse of the US dollar bill. Also.

  10. #10 Tom
    December 21, 2009

    luminous beauty, Yes I did miss it, I was in the RVN. I called the Treasury Dept. in the 90’s and asked them the history of the design of the $1 bill. The woman in the information department said that the whole issue was vague at best as to the whole construct…? Wow, you are a psychiatrist too! The world is full of smart folks. So you have read this book too? What did you think of it? Thank you.

  11. #11 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 21, 2009

    Tom, I take that back. You are either a Nazi or a fool.

    “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” is a well known forgery which first surfaced in Russia during the early 20th C. Hitler spoke approvingly of it in Mein Kampf. You can read all about it here. Now shut up and leave us alone.

  12. #12 cohenite
    December 21, 2009

    Wow, BJ, your resident eccentrics are much more…interesting than the ones we get at Jen’s but then you used to be one of them.

  13. #13 jakerman
    December 21, 2009

    Tom writes:
    […] Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”. […] I must say it was a mind expanding read. I had no idea someone could write such a complex outline for world control so clearly and concisely. You will not forget these words and **you see the powers behind the curtin today**, moving the world just as this book lays things out for the reader. The book gives the **rumored** background of who recovered the book…? To me though it is the methods to be used and the principles that drove their plan. After the last thirty years of watching the NWO unfold around the world, this book has proven itself to me, as being the real deal. You check it out please and get

    Tom is quite atp that someone with a long record of relying on poor sources believe the bunk about the *Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion*.
    The most [cursory backgrounding]( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion) would show you that it was a put up job. * “much of the material was directly plagiarized from earlier works ofpolitical satire unrelated to Jews”*. It was just another in a long line of anit-jew propaganda.

    But when you depend on the sources you do Tom, you get to belive in century old hateful lies.
    The reason you see elements of truth in the Protocols of Zion is because political satire has elements of truth. And remember the POZ were plagerised from *“political satire unrelated to Jews”*
    It more FUD, distract from the real problems and divide and conquer. While you’ve been conned about the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, you ignore the massive concentration of power that is blatantly evident.

  14. #14 Mark Schaffer
    December 21, 2009

    Hello Professor Lambert,
    Are you aware of the writings of Tom regarding the despicable forgery he is pushing? This has nothing to do with the topic here and should lead him to having his own thread where he can mumble incoherently to himself.
    Tom,
    Please get mental counseling help before you harm yourself or others.
    Thank you,
    Mark Schaffer

  15. #15 Tim Lambert
    December 21, 2009

    I’ve deleted a bunch of Anti-Semitic rants from Tom and some of the responses. He is now on moderation.

  16. #16 Keith
    December 21, 2009

    So the ‘hocky-stick’ is real logon people ?
    I thought I was in discussion with people who were informed. Not much I can do about your lack of information. But you might wonder why IPCC no longer publishes this artefact of blatant falsehood. Of course then you would be thinking for yourself. Give it a try.

  17. #17 jakerman
    December 21, 2009

    Keith writes:

    >*So the ‘hocky-stick’ is real logon people ? I thought I was in discussion with people who were informed. Not much I can do about your lack of information. But you might wonder why IPCC no longer publishes this artefact of blatant falsehood. Of course then you would be thinking for yourself. Give it a try.*

    Keith, that would be the fallacy of assertion without evidence. [This is the evidence](http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-6-10.jpg) you didn’t bother to checkout. And in case you are wondering MBH99 is Mann’s 1999 hockey stick, improved on and largely validated with 8 years of further corroborating findings.

    It has been asked several times, given McIntyres acquaintance with he subject, and his contrary views, why won’t McIntyre publish a temperature reconstruction to show how it should be done. Sniping from the side lines is easy, publishing best in field science is hard work. I think McIntyre knows what his chart would look like if he got the science right. It would look something similar to the other dozen hockey sticks.

  18. #18 cohenite
    December 21, 2009

    jakerman; you should look closely at Fig 6.10(c).

  19. #19 jakerman
    December 21, 2009

    Cohenite wrties:

    >*jakerman; you should look closely at Fig 6.10(c).*

    Yes, good point Cohenite! Its a bit clearer than all those spagetties in (b). And [figure 6.10(c)](http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/ar4-wg1/jpg/fig-6-10.jpg) has quite at lot of similarities [with this](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hockey_stick_chart_ipcc_large.jpg).

  20. #20 cohenite
    December 21, 2009

    Oh well, if you’re going to be silly lets go the whole hog;

    http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/slides/large/05.24.jpg

    Although I think this is the fairest depiction of the HS from AGW theory;

    http://bp3.blogger.com/_0oNRupXJ4-A/R8cydkIMN6I/AAAAAAAAARQ/5B8MdDKGom8/s1600-h/hockeystick_rehabilitated.jpg

  21. #21 Bernard J.
    December 21, 2009

    Cohenite.

    Wow, BJ, your resident eccentrics are much more…interesting than the ones we get at Jen’s but then you used to be one of them.

    1) They are not “my” resident eccentrics, and your claim that “[I] used to be one of them” is a grubby bit of confabulating innuendo. Your implicit association of myself, or of any others at Deltoid, with the filth that Tom has sprayed is a nasty tactic – though perhaps not a surprising one, coming from a former divorce laywer.

    2) The “eccentrics” at ExJen’s are just as interestingly rabid as Tom – I present for the court’s consideration one Graeme Bird as an example: there are many others.

    3) The “eccentrics” that infest Deltoid are not indigenous residents – they are ferals blowing in from Drudge, WTFUWT, CA, ExJen’s, and other delightfully alternative sites.

  22. #22 jakerman
    December 21, 2009

    Cohenite writes:

    >”Oh well, if you’re going to be silly lets go the whole hog”

    Fallacy of assertion without evidence. In fact, assrtion in the face on [contradictory evidence](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2158680).

    Your other link didn’t work.

  23. #23 Keith
    December 22, 2009

    I would note Jakerman that the charts you presented are for a far longer time period than Lambert presented.

    I’m not sure about the “8 years of corroborating findings”, but what about the 8 years of temperature observation ? But of course, the data must be wrong. None of the actual observations actually fit the models do they ?

    Bernard J, Is that an immigration policy I detect ? Do you support internet tribalism ?

  24. #24 cohenite
    December 22, 2009

    Oh, I do apologise BJ; I had forgotten you were beyond reproach. What’s “laywer”?

  25. #25 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2009

    Keith:

    I would note Jakerman that the charts you presented are for a far longer time period than Lambert presented.

    And your point is?

    I’m not sure about the “8 years of corroborating findings”,

    S/he was talking about temperature reconstructions using methods independent of MBH98/99 done since MBH99.

    but what about the 8 years of temperature observation ? But of course, the data must be wrong. None of the actual observations actually fit the models do they ?

    The models generate instances of weather controlled by climate parameters. As we all should know, climate does not tell us when individual weather events occur.

    You can get lost now troll.

  26. #26 Keith
    December 22, 2009

    And no error bars alas.

  27. #27 Keith
    December 22, 2009

    the “point”, Chris, of the time period, is that using the shorter time frame enables the chart to look more alarming that it would otherwise, utilising as it does, a localised minimum in the 1800’s. Not even the IPCC’s chart looks as alarming.

    “S/he was talking about temperature reconstructions using methods independent of MBH98/99 done since MBH99.” Well after that mouthful, I’m still not sure.

    Actually, I’m not a troll. Just another warmer testing your faith. Sadly, I have to report your poor showing to IPCC central now. Ciao

  28. #28 Bernard J.
    December 22, 2009

    What’s “laywer”?

    A pedant who, for want of any credible argument that might actually sustain his pseudoscientific nonsense, turns instead to reproaching trivial typographic errors.

    By inference, ‘laywerism’ is the expedient distraction of a discussion from relevant points, when one’s arguments are hopelessly indefencible.

    Laywer away, cohenite.

  29. #29 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2009

    Keith:

    the “point”, Chris, of the time period, is that using the shorter time frame enables the chart to look more alarming that it would otherwise, utilising as it does, a localised minimum in the 1800’s. Not even the IPCC’s chart looks as alarming.

    Just amazing really. Mann gets hounded by science denialists because his hockeystick goes back a long time into the past and here we get another one complaining about a hockeystick because it DOESN’T go back a long time in the past! You can’t win.

    In any case, jakerman was responding to your bullshit troll about the IPCC no longer publishing hockeysticks which has nothing directly to do with Tim Lambert’s point.

    “S/he was talking about temperature reconstructions using methods independent of MBH98/99 done since MBH99.” Well after that mouthful, I’m still not sure.

    Sorry to exceed your very short attention span. I wouldn’t be too confident you’ll ever be sure.

    Actually, I’m not a troll.

    Sure, if you say so.

    Just another warmer testing your faith. Sadly, I have to report your poor showing to IPCC central now. Ciao

    I hope this means you’ve finally taken my advice to get lost, troll.

  30. #30 jakerman
    December 22, 2009

    Keith writes:

    >*I would note Jakerman that the charts you presented are for a far longer time period than Lambert presented.*

    Correct, as you were making [demonstrably wrong](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2158550) statements.

    I’m not sure about the “8 years of corroborating findings”

    Well its in the charts Keith.

    >*[...] but what about the 8 years of temperature observation?*

    The climate models show 11 year smoothed curves temperature, so we’ll need to wait and see how the [record breaking](http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/08/world-meteorological-organization-wmo-2000s-warmest-hottest-decade-on-record/) high temperature of the 2000s fit into the scheme of things.

    >*But of course, the data must be wrong.*

    Only if you are debating yourself!

    >*None of the actual observations actually fit the models do they?*

    The models don’t predict year on year weather, [they predict climate trends](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:132/plot/gistemp/last:132/trend).

  31. #31 cohenite
    December 22, 2009

    Keep tooting that flute BJ; speaking of distractions, The Hockeystick Mann seems to have upset the citizenry with his latest set of proxies; now, he is a laywer;

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682_Comments.html

  32. #32 jakerman
    December 22, 2009
  33. #33 Jeff Harvey
    December 22, 2009

    Cohenite writes”: *The Hockeystick Mann seems to have upset the citizenry*

    should read, “The Hockeystick Mann seems to have upset the *far right and corporate* citizenry *who don’t give a damn about the huge volumes of empirical evidence in support of AGW*”

    That’s more like it.

  34. #34 jakerman
    December 22, 2009

    Cohenite,

    Your linked comment left out the important point that the Top Of Atmosphere (TOA) [energy imbalance in increasing](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Understanding-Trenberths-travesty.html) (now at 0.9 W/m^2) and the imbalance is growing.

    And as Trenberth states:

    >*The current radiative imbalance at the TOA has increased
    from a very small imbalance only 40 years ago when
    carbon dioxide increases and radiative forcing were less
    than half of those today. The excess in heat does several
    things. [Icluding] It warms the planet, **increasing temperatures that in turn increase the radiation back to space**[...]*

    And later:

    >*the total net anthropogenic radiative forcing once
    aerosol cooling is factored in is estimated to be
    1.6 W/m 2 [...] The imbalance at the top-of-the-atmosphere
    (TOA) would increase to be [ 3.6 W/m 2] once water vapor and ice-albedo feedbacks are included.
    However, the observed surface warming of 0.75 C if
    added to the radiative equilibrium temperature of the
    planet would result in a compensating increase in longwave
    radiation of 2.8 W m 2 [...] The net imbalance is
    estimated to be [0.9 W/m 2] [...]*

  35. #35 jakerman
    December 22, 2009

    Cohenite,

    Here are [some bands of out going radiation](http://www.skepticalscience.com/How-do-we-know-CO2-is-causing-warming.html) that show interesting results.

    Despite the rise in Earth’s temperature, these bands are are emitting less radiation to space.

  36. #36 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2009

    cohentite:

    The Hockeystick Mann seems to have upset the citizenry [in] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682_Comments.html

    including an arrogant nutcase who thinks the rising CO2 is caused by the increased temperature, citing a paper in the international peer-reviewed journal Energy & Fuels.

    Wooooooooow.

  37. #37 cohnite
    December 22, 2009

    jakerman, there is no shortage of papers finding a decrease in OLR indicative of a climate sensitivity consistent with AGW; The Harries 2001 paper is probably the most influential; however, subsequent papers by Harries qualify the initial findings;

    “A recent comparison between data taken by two different satellite instruments, the Interferometric Monitor of Greenhouse Gases (IMG) that flew in 1997 and the Infrared Interferometer Spectrometer (IRIS) that flew in 1970, showed evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations between those years.”

    http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&issn=1520-0442&volume=016&issue=22&page=3820&ct=1&SESSID=c77dfc4874e5f3592aa7131cffb3b4f5

    The phrase “evidence of a change in the clear-sky greenhouse radiative forcing” is a much weaker claim than the previous “experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect”. After all, Harries et al did not perform an experiment in the usually understood sense, nor did they directly measure the Earth’s greenhouse effect, which relates to radiation across the whole infrared spectrum, from the surface to top of atmosphere.

    By 2004, in Griggs and Harries (2004), Harries had considerably watered-down his message and said this:

    “The results suggest that while the sampling pattern of the IRIS instrument is sufficiently well distributed and dense to generate monthly regional mean brightness temperatures that are within 1.5 K of the true all-sky values, the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to 6.0 K. Under cloud-free conditions the agreement with the true field for both instruments improves to within a few tenths of a kelvin. Comparisons with the observed IMG–IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback processes.”

    http://www.ggy.bris.ac.uk/staff/personal/JennyGriggs/paper_3.pdf

    In addition, in this latter paper comparing three satellites spectra, an increase in methane was found even between observations when methane was not increasing. They also highlight an inaccuracy in the MODTRAN spectroscopic model.

    This suggests the only really significant result of Harries et al. 2001 at all, the deepened methane line, could have been an artifact.

  38. #38 TrueSceptic
    December 22, 2009

    210 Tom,

    Clearly your obsessions are not limited to a supposed conspiracy in climate science. I suggest that you join [JREF](http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=12), where just about anything gets discussed. Whatever you might think already, you can bet that someone will already have said something weirder!

  39. #39 TrueSceptic
    December 22, 2009

    Hmm… looks like “cohnite” is a laywer after all.

    Didn’t someone show him to be as stupid as A Bag Of Hammers a few months ago?

  40. #40 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2009

    cohenite:

    A decrease in outgoing longwave radiation in contradiction of every AGW model as found by Lindzen and Choi

    So what did you actually intend to write instead of the above considering that outgoing longwave radiation is supposed to decrease with increasing greenhouse effect?

  41. #41 Dano
    December 22, 2009

    Which FUD site is spreading the Iris bullsh– to the Message Force Multipliers? I’ve seen this refuted paper brought up increasingly of late.

    OH, I know: all the denialist arguments are recycled over and over. But why bring up this particular paper? Is Lindzen writing op-eds in Murdoch papers again??

    Best,

    D

  42. #42 cohenite
    December 22, 2009

    How laywerly of you Mr O’Neill to pick up that little error; of course Lindzen and Choi found an INCREASE in OLR in contradiction to what the AGW play-stations had predicted; but I’ll take my leave now that the charming TrueSceptic and Dano have arrived.

  43. #43 Eli Rabett
    December 22, 2009

    Cohenite is a rather ignorant and malicious quoter. If you actually read Brindley and Harries it is clear that the paper does not back off at all from the original claims. Referring to their original 1998 paper:

    This work showed that,over large regions of the earth, the clear-sky emission spectrum showed detailed changes, which agreed well with theoretical expectations based on the known changes of greenhouse gases such as CO2 , CH4 , O3 , and chlorofluorocarbons 11 and 12. In this way it has been experimentally confirmed for the first time that the greenhouse forcing of the earth has, indeed, been changed through the growth of greenhouse gases.

    However the 2003 paper concerns itself with whether more information can be extracted, in particular (from the abstract, C has chopped rather important sentences from the front of the section he quotes in italic)

    A possibly even more intriguing question is whether the data can be used to extract unambiguous information about the radiative feedback processes that accompany such a change of forcing, especially cloud feedback. This paper is an investigation of this question, with particular reference to the uncertainties introduced into the differences between IMG and IRIS spectra due to their different patterns of temporal and spatial sampling. This has been approached by modeling the sampling problem, using high-resolution proxy scenes of top-of-the-atmosphere 11 micron brightness temperature, TB11 , taken from International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) data, sampled according to the characteristics of IRIS and IMG, respectively. The results suggest that while the sampling pattern of the IRIS instrument is sufficiently well
    distributed and dense to generate monthly regional mean brightness temperatures that are within 1.5 K of the
    true all-sky values, the IMG sampling is too sparse and yields results that differ from the true case by up to
    6.0 K. Under cloud-free conditions the agreement with the true field for both instruments improves to within a
    few tenths of a kelvin. Comparisons with the obser ved IMG–IRIS difference spectra show that these uncertainties
    due to sampling presently limit the conclusions that can be drawn about climatically significant feedback pro-
    cesses.

    ALWAYS RTFR when C quotes something at you.

  44. #44 Rattus Norvegicus
    December 22, 2009

    Eli, and Trenberth is still bitching about this 7 years later.

  45. #45 jakerman
    December 22, 2009

    Cohnite,

    Thank you for the links and your assessment.

    What are your views on the [Spenser response](http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/03/spencer-on-lindzen-and-choi-climate-feedback-paper/) to Lindzen?

    And what are your thoughts on [Lindzen's prior preference](http://chriscolose.wordpress.com/2009/03/31/lindzen-on-climate-feedback/) for invalidated data?

  46. #46 Michael
    December 22, 2009

    TS wrote:

    Hmm… looks like “cohnite” is a laywer after all.
    Didn’t someone show him to be as stupid as A Bag Of Hammers a few months ago?

    Yes. BJ set Cohers a small stats problem for him to prove that he had any idea what he was blathering on about.

    First cohers pleaded mercy on the fact that his wife wasn’t home to help him figure it out, then shortly after he was observed over at Jen’s ex-Blog of Crazy begging for help (incredible but true) to solve said problem.

    Bag of hammers found that the other hammers were no better informed.

  47. #47 Chris O'Neill
    December 22, 2009

    cohenite:

    How laywerly

    takes one to know one

    of you Mr O’Neill to pick up that little error; of course Lindzen and Choi found an INCREASE in OLR in contradiction to what the AGW play-stations had predicted;

    So when you said:

    subsequent papers by Harries qualify the initial findings

    you no longer wanted to argue that there was an INCREASE in OLR, you merely wanted to argue that the evidence for a DECREASE in OLR was not as strong as previously observed.

    I’m sorry but it can be a little difficult to work out which line of bullshit you are peddling at any particular moment.

    but I’ll take my leave now that the charming TrueSceptic and Dano have arrived.

    Rather more easy to realize you’re a hypocrite, however.

  48. #48 el gordo
    December 22, 2009

    There is a decrease in OLR towards the poles because of the cold conditions, but there is also widespread areas of low OLR values in Amazonia and Indonesia because of thunderstorm anvils and cirrus cloud.

    So why do they call them ‘cold clouds’? And what has all this to do with global warming?

    Think of me as Ms Average who only discovered the term OLR this morning.

  49. #49 Bernard J.
    December 22, 2009

    [Michael](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2160669).

    First cohers pleaded mercy on the fact that his wife wasn’t home to help him figure it out, then shortly after he was observed over at Jen’s ex-Blog of Crazy begging for help (incredible but true) to solve said problem.

    Cohenite [tried the same thing](http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/?p=6540&cp=38#comment-156817) with the [questions I've been asking of various Denialati](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/firedoglake_book_salon_on_jame.php#comment-2134083
    ) who have infested Deltoid over the last few weeks. Read the post and the several that follow for giggles – I especially like the [JunkScience 'evidence'](http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Stratosphere1278-1204.gif) that he presented to refute stratospheric cooling.

  50. #50 el gordo
    December 23, 2009

    The Met Office and CRU have released a large amount of data and code.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/met-office-and-cru-bow-to-public-pressure-publish-data-and-code/

  51. #51 Jeff Harvey
    December 23, 2009

    The last posting by el gordo proves my point entirely from another thread. He/she does not apparently read the primary literature but cites anti-enviroinmental denialist web logs for discussion.

    This is why el gordo’s world view is as narrow as it is. He/she also scans the web sites of legitiamte bodies like Woods Hole only in search of snippets suggesting that there are anomalies in the data. Yawn. What a joke.

  52. #52 el gordo
    December 23, 2009

    JGC says he will ‘bet a mince pie that this code the Met Office has released is not the code they actually used to create CRUTEM3. I bet they wrote it for this release.’

    http://www.jgc.org/blog/2009/12/theres-hole-in-my-bucket-dear-liza-dear.html

  53. #53 jakerman
    December 23, 2009

    el gordo,

    Thanks for keeping me up to date with the [swill of BS](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2162971) coming from dinialsts.

    It’s interested to document how much fact free speculative garbage they circulate in self reinforcing echo chambers.

    Remember how many crazies are now convinced of “fraud” based on “hide the decline” speculation and erroneous pronouncements of guilt. With such a swell of uncorrecting, self-reinforcing garbage, millions among the denialist will belive the “hide the decline’ meme until they die.

    Is that truth seeking, or pure propaganda and brain washing?

    el gordo, that’s is the guff and bunk you are promoting when you mindless repeat ‘I bet they wrote it for this release.’

    But thanks for the case study in what you think is valid.

  54. #54 Sim
    December 23, 2009

    >*he will ‘bet a mince pie*

    Wow, A mince pie! In otherwords he’s got no evidence, he’ not really prepared to back himself at all, but its a cheap way to make insinuations and smear the work of an entire organisation!

    What a creep! El gordo, you were posting this to show how low the denialist are stooping, weren’t you?

  55. #55 el gordo
    December 23, 2009

    The Denialati don’t stoop, some of us may be a little bent-over but that’s because we have the weight of the world on our shoulders.

    Come the next election, when the banners read ‘global warming global hoax’, your side will be caught in flagrante delicto.

  56. #56 denialatimugger
    December 23, 2009

    Merry Christmas and a Happy new year to all :)

  57. #57 jakerman
    December 23, 2009

    el gordo writes:

    >*The Denialati don’t stoop…*

    So he says without care for the contradictory evidence he just posted above.

    >*some of us may be a little bent-over but that’s because we have the weight of the world on our shoulders.*

    That would be the weight of your ill founded insinuations, smears and slander, combined with the bending moment induced by the gap between your claims and the overwhelming weight of evidence.

    >*Come the next election, when the banners read ‘global warming global hoax’, your side will be caught in flagrante delicto.*

    So glad you care so much for the evidence rather than the blatant propaganda and its flow on effects.

    I repeat, your son would be ashamed if he knew of your behaviour here.

  58. #58 el gordo
    December 23, 2009

    And a Merry Xmas to you, Janet.

  59. #59 jakerman
    December 24, 2009

    >*And a Merry Xmas to you, Janet*

    You do know who’s lives you are toying with with your opinionated ignorance?

  60. #60 el gordo
    December 24, 2009

    If we concentrate on the science you will see that correlation cannot prove causation, but a failure to correlate can prove non-causation.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf

  61. #61 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2009

    el gullible:

    If we concentrate on the science

    What a hypocritical jerk.

  62. #62 el gordo
    December 24, 2009

    I’ll try that link again, just to prove to myself there is no left wing conspiracy.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Correlation_Last_Decade.pdf

  63. #63 el gordo
    December 24, 2009

    Well, that settles that.

  64. #64 jakerman
    December 24, 2009

    >If we concentrate on the science

    Then we could [look here](http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg2_report_impacts_adaptation_and_vulnerability.htm) to see who’s lives the opinionated but ignorant denialsts are toying with.

    And [listen to their voices](http://www.democracynow.org/2009/12/7/voices_from_africa_drought_crop_shortages) el gordo.

  65. #65 el gordo
    December 24, 2009

    That’s one monstrous gravy train.

    In this post-modern world we must be realistic, global cooling will have a profound impact on agriculture and migration.

  66. #66 jakerman
    December 24, 2009

    El gordo writes:

    >*That’s one monstrous gravy train.*

    And you are surfing the Exxon and Plimer [gravy wave](http://anarchist606.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-much-is-global-warming-denial-worth.html) el gordo! While others suffer.

    You should learn from them and really cash is big time! Write a contrarian book they are selling like hot cakes. You don’t even need to get basics facts right to get massive attention, its has been shown you don’t need rigorous science for denialist top sellers, just tell rich engorged people what they want to here.

    El gordo continue:

    >*In this post-modern world we must be realistic, global cooling will have a profound impact on agriculture and migration.*

    All you are missing is evidence. All the contradicts you is the overwhelming weight of evidence.

    Your opinionated ignorance has consequences. But it seem a game to you.

  67. #67 Chris O'Neill
    December 24, 2009

    el gullible:

    Well, that settles that.

    Don’t worry, no-one with any sense cares about the crap from icecap.

  68. #68 dhogaza
    December 24, 2009

    Well, that settles that.

    Let’s see … El Gordo can’t decipher the instructions just above the comment box (the two sentences following “Comments:”, fatty), and takes his inability to do so as evidence of a left-wing conspiracy.

    He doesn’t know what his own handle means …

    And he expects us to believe he can read and understand a scientific argument?

  69. #69 el gordo
    December 24, 2009

    ‘Your opinionated ignorance has consequences.’ Hmmm…the jury is still out on that one. Life is a game to me and a very interesting one at that.

    We can expect more La Nina over the next couple of decades (because of a cool PDO) and as a consequence there will be large floods across south-east Australia. Is it irresponsible to say that?

    Nils Bohr once commented that prediction is very difficult, especially about the future. He got a few laughs out of that, but it’s definitely true.

    As BOM can’t get things right on a seasonal basis, then we all have a chance to make fools of ourselves. I see more summer cold surges. That’s when a extratropical low off Brisbane meets a large anticyclone imbedded below the Bight.

  70. #70 jerryg
    December 24, 2009

    el gordo writes:
    “‘Your opinionated ignorance has consequences.’ Hmmm…the jury is still out on that one. Life is a game to me and a very interesting one at that.”

    The russians just happen to have the perfect game for you…I believe it’s called roulette. There’s a surprise every turn, you should give it a try – what do you have to lose?

  71. #71 el gordo
    December 24, 2009

    coldmugger

    Exciting read. Poor old CO2 has been abused long enough, it’s just an innocent trace gas.

  72. #72 el gordo
    December 25, 2009

    poly mugger

    The unravelling is lovely to watch.

  73. #73 Chris O'Neill
    December 25, 2009

    coldmugger:

    This is PEER Reviewed

    Peer what?

  74. #74 el gordo
    December 25, 2009

    Merry Xmas to the mugger family. Sorry about my rude mate.

  75. #75 guthrie
    December 25, 2009

    Coldmugger, I’ve had a look at that paper. It lacks any evidence for the opinion placed in the final section regarding the effects of CO2 and CFC’s on the climate. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas was known long before we began releasing CFC’s, and oddly enough we can work out the warming potential of CFC’s due to the same physics as we can work out the effects of CO2, which of course have also been experimentally verified. Entertainingly enough the speculation on AGW is contained within a later section separate from the meat of the paper, which is evidence for and discussion of the role of ice particles in helping destroy ozone due to CFC’s on the surface, or so I gathered. AGW hardly gets a mention at all in the abstract at all, which as you would expect from a denialists favourite paper, is mostly about something else instead. Tell you what, you tell us what you find so amazingly correct about the paper compared to the IPCC and we’ll dismantle your points as you bring them up.

    Here’s the abstract:
    The cosmic-ray driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules adsorbed on ice surfaces has been proposed as a new mechanism for the formation of the polar ozone hole. Here, experimental findings of dissociative electron transfer reactions of halogenated molecules on ice surfaces in electron-stimulated desorption, electron trapping and femtosecond time-resolved laser spectroscopic measurements are reviewed. It is followed by a review of the evidence from recent satellite observations of this new mechanism for the Antarctic ozone hole, and all other possible physical mechanisms are discussed. Moreover, new observations of the 11 year cyclic variations of both polar ozone loss and stratospheric cooling and the seasonal variations of CFCs and CH4 in the polar stratosphere are presented, and quantitative predictions of the Antarctic ozone hole in the future are given. Finally, new observation of the effects of CFCs and cosmic-ray driven ozone depletion on global climate change is also presented and discussed.

    To everyone else – thats 2 days since I first saw that paper used by a denialist. Their networks are quite effective.

  76. #76 cohenite
    December 25, 2009

    Do you have a direct link to the full paper? The odd thing is that the IPCC dismisses CR activity as a climate factor because it runs counter to the Hockeystick premise as this graph shows;

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/be10-climate.png

    The question you have to ask yourself is do you think CRs play no part in climate?

  77. #77 jakerman
    December 25, 2009

    >*The odd thing is that the IPCC dismisses CR activity as a climate factor because it runs counter to the Hockeystick premise*

    Cohenite, Care to cite the passages in the IPCC reports to support this claim? Last time I looked the IPCC rejected cosmic rays due the lack of evidence supporting the speculative theory. And because of the overwhelming evidence of another Ockham’s Razor culprit.

    Heaps of evidence for one, hardly any for the other, not a controversial decision by the IPCC to go with the weight of evidence.

    And cohenite, did you miss [the questions](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2160528) I put to you regarding Lindzen’s paper?

  78. #78 jakerman
    December 25, 2009

    [jerryg](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2164614), It’s even uglier than that. El gordo is up for Russian Roulette with 9 bullets in a 10 round chamber, and he wants to pull the trigger while the barrel is pointed at other people, the most vulnerable and least responsible for the problems we are causing.

    He choose to play games of opinionated ignorance when others are facing the biggest risk. It is particularly ugly behaviour.

  79. #79 cohenite
    December 25, 2009

    Here is a comparison between the IPCC report’s handling of MBH and solar forcing;

    http://climateaudit.org/2007/01/16/ipcc-and-solar-correlations/

    I addressed the Lindzen/Colose issue and the Spencer/lindzen issue at JM’s on 23/12 at 5.23pm.

  80. #80 jakerman
    December 25, 2009

    Cohnite writes:

    >I addressed the Lindzen/Colose issue and the Spencer/lindzen issue at JM’s on 23/12 at 5.23pm.

    Since you can locate it, can you link to it here? As this is one of the places you have been uncritically spruking Lindzen’s findings.

    Further more, are you planning to cite the sections of the IPCC reports to back [your previous claims](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2165191)?

  81. #81 cohenite
    December 25, 2009

    The CA link provides relevant IPCC sources up to TAR; AR4 compares the TAR findings about solar forcing and CR influence at S.2.7.1.3; AR4 acknowledges CRs but finds little justification for claimimg they have a significant forcing.

  82. #82 jakerman
    December 25, 2009

    cohenite writes:

    >*The CA link provides relevant IPCC sources up to TAR*

    I read through McIntyre’s post and found no menition of Cosmic Rays; let alone evidence that supports [your earlier claim](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2165191) that: *”the IPCC dismisses CR activity as a climate factor because it runs counter to the Hockeystick premise”*. Can you direct me to the specific passages you are basing your claim on?

    As [I have said](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2165191), “*Last time I looked the IPCC rejected cosmic rays due the lack of evidence supporting the speculative theory*”.

    On the other previous issue of Lindzen’s paper, can you post your response to [my earlier question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2160528) here? Or at the very least link to your response?

  83. #83 Sim
    December 25, 2009

    cohenite,

    Why, to questions posed here (eg. Berard’s statistical challenge), are you replying on JM’s blog, but even stranger not posting the responses here?

    If I were cynical I’d wonder if you were trying to launder your answers.

  84. #84 cohenite
    December 25, 2009

    And if I were cynical I wouldn’t be here; yes jackerman the CA post deals with solar irradiance and MBH; the AR4 link I gave deals with solar irradiance and cosmic rays; I thought the connection was fairly obvious but I’m sorry if I didn’t spell it out.

    Now Sim you ask why I don’t reply here to questions posed here; well, the answer is mixed; sometimes I couldn’t be bothered because I think peurile pointscoring is involved; other times nothing new is being said, just the usual pedantic certainty; other times the answer may just fit better with a thread elsewhere; and anyway what business is it of yours?

  85. #85 jakerman
    December 25, 2009

    cohnite writes:

    >*the CA post deals with solar irradiance and MBH;*

    And does not substantiate [your claim that](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2165191) *”the IPCC dismisses CR activity as a climate factor because it runs counter to the Hockeystick premise”*

    Cohenite continues:
    >*the AR4 link I gave deals with solar irradiance and cosmic rays;*

    You cited a chapter section (no link provided), and as I have said twice before *”Last time I looked the IPCC rejected cosmic rays due the lack of evidence supporting the speculative theory”*.

    So rather than offering Plimeresque bluster, why not either quote the passage you are relying on to substantiate your claim, or retract your claim for the sake of clarity. Doing either of these would be consistent with truth seeking practice.

    From the second part of your response, I to assume that you will continue to decline the invitation to cut and paste your response to [my earlier question](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2160528) here, or even link to it?

  86. #86 cohenite
    December 25, 2009

    You’re right jackerman, I’ll rephrase:

    In my opinion “the IPCC dismisses CR activity as a climate factor because it runs counter to the Hockeystick premise”;

    Now since you cannot find the reply about Lindzen; your first point about Lindzen was that he used false data about OLR; this was the topic of a Colose thread; the gist was Lindzen did not consider that Wong et al had adjusted OLR data; Lindzen replied to this here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/30/lindzen-on-negative-climate-feedback/

    Your second point was the Roy Spencer critique of the Lindzen and Choi paper; my comment about that was this:

    “frankly I find Roy’s comment contradictory; even though Roy did include the obvious caveats about different data sources and methodology between his analysis and the Lindzen effort he still concludes this;

    “While the authors found decreases in radiation loss with short-term temperature increases, I find that the CMIP models exhibit an INCREASE in radiative loss with short term warming”

    The authors are Lindzen and Choi. This is the paper [GRL version];

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf

  87. #87 Sim
    December 26, 2009

    cohenite writes:

    >”Sim you ask why I don’t reply here to questions posed here; well, the answer is mixed;”

    I specifically asked why you post your answers elsewhere but not here, where here is the place you are asked the questions.

    And by ignoring this part of my question each of your *”mixed”* answers read as inappropriate.

    >*sometimes I couldn’t be bothered because I think peurile pointscoring is involved;*

    Yet you could be bothered responding to the question on JM’s blog?

    >*other times nothing new is being said, just the usual pedantic certainty;*

    Yet you could be bothered responding to the question on JM’s blog?

    >*other times the answer may just fit better with a thread elsewhere*

    A response to a question here is more appropriate on a different blog? Maybe a response here could be copied to another blog or vice versa, but why avoid even pasting your response here?

  88. #88 Chris O'Neill
    December 26, 2009

    gaggedmuggle:

    thats not the way to win a debate

    So where, pray tell, have you debated the subject of this thread, “Russian analysis confirms 20th century CRU temperatures”? Anything else is trolling.

  89. #89 guthrie
    December 26, 2009

    Cohenite #276- I have access due to currently being back at uni and said uni having blanket journal access. Many authors would be happy to send copies of their paper to people who ask for them, its easy enough to track this chaop down.

  90. #90 el gordo
    December 27, 2009

    Most of the threads wander off the track, so that’s no reason to pull muggle. He was not offensive, except for those with their heads buried in quicksand.

  91. #91 jerryg
    December 27, 2009

    Re:278
    I see a lot of that from the denialists. It’s not OK to gamble with their money (on AGW being problematic), but they have no problem gambling with the lives of others. I’m hoping it’s a very small minority, otherwise I don’t see much hope for us as a species.

  92. #92 el gordo
    December 27, 2009

    jerryg

    From my perspective as a global cooling alarmist I think you are mistaken about where the threat is coming from.

  93. #93 jakerman
    December 27, 2009
  94. #94 Chris O'Neill
    December 28, 2009

    jerryg:

    they have no problem gambling with the lives of others. I’m hoping it’s a very small minority, otherwise I don’t see much hope for us as a species.

    Judging by the “Liberal” party in Australia, there may be about 25% of the population that have no problem gambling with the lives of others. Unfortunately, that 25% can have a disproportionate influence.

  95. #95 Brian Macker
    December 28, 2009

    Nice spin.

    “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.”

    More like, neither shows significant support for anthropogenic global warming.

    That’s only on the issue of temperature increases.

    How does the shift effect using recorded temperatures in order to calibrate proxy correlations? Must have some effect.

    How does the issue itself effect our confidence in climatologists. I’d say to the negative.

    “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.”

    Both curves show warming in the 19th century before there were significant CO2 emissions, so both weaken the case that global warming is man-made.

  96. #96 Brian Macker
    December 28, 2009

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

    No, “deniers” think global warming is mostly natural variation and that warmists are the true deniers of climate variability.

    They also think that policy proposals to redistribute wealth from one individual or group to another are socialist in nature (see Copenhagen).

    That socialists delight in using the real changes in temperature (mostly natural climate change) in order to justify putting money mostly in the pockets of politicians and industry insiders, then yes it is a scam.

    Al Gore and IPCC chairman Dr. Rajendra Pachauri will be making lots of money off of their scam. I understand that both are and are planning to use the money to increase their personal carbon footprints.

  97. #97 elspi
    December 28, 2009

    “Both curves show warming in the 19th century before there were significant CO2″
    Did you mean to say “Neither” or are you blind or do you not know what the “19th century”
    means?

    The blue is decreasing in the 19th century and the red is a wash.
    You on the other hand are an idiot.

  98. #98 Chris O'Neill
    December 28, 2009

    Brian Macker:

    Both curves show warming in the 19th century

    If you think the blue curve shows warming in the 19th century you need your eyes tested.

  99. #99 Bernard J.
    January 1, 2010

    I’ve been off-line for over a week due to a fried computer, but fortunately I have a lender for a few days.

    Anyways, if Brian Macker is still floating about, I’d like to have him explain exactly what he meant about “[b]oth curves show[ing] warming in the 19th century” because, as elspi and Chris O’Neill have both commented, it ain’t appearing on my radar. I’m especially interested in when it is that Brian Macker believes that CO2 emissions began to increase, and how this relates to his perception of when warming began in the the last century or so.

    You make some rather slanderous statements about people, Macker, so it behoves you to actually stump up some real evidence to support your trolling. My guess though is that you are a drive-by sniper, and unlikely to actually pull over and have a discussion based in science and fact.

    Just as it always is with Denialists. Eliciting a considered response from any of them has [proved futile](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/russian_analysis_confirms_20th.php#comment-2161088) for weeks now…

  100. #100 Heidi D. Cline
    January 1, 2010

    Is it true that CRU is still using FORTRAN?

    Must be a bunch of amateurs.

Current ye@r *