HadCRUT Cherry-Picked Warm Russian Data

(Russian) Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to HadCRUT Cherry-Picked Warm Russian Data

  1. Andy Weiss says:

    The global warming scam is being increasingly exposed for what it is.

  2. DERise says:

    This, of course is old news. Anyone who has been following these frauds know the standard practice.
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/16/russian-iea-claims-cru-tampered-with-climate-data-cherrypicked-warmest-stations/
    Just in time for Copenhagen too. Also typical was trumpeting “Hottest November Ever” while reusing the previous months temp data for Siberian stations. Then after being called on it not even acknowleging with a public “my bad”. Pathetic wankers, all of ’em!

  3. Mike Davis says:

    If you want the best Cherry Pie you have to “Pick” the best Cherries!

  4. thepoodlebites says:

    Roy Spencer’s UAH plots are the only surface temperature records I trust, and Bob Tisdale for SST. But I’m a bit confused about the Argo data for OHC, haven’t seen an update since Roger Pielke’s Feb. 2011 post of preliminary Josh Willis results. Using the “unpublished” results, the global OHC looks pretty flat since 2004 but then I read concerns about data reliability. Can somebody provide an update? I’m excited about the Argo floats providing accurate measurements but recent analyses are not readily available. I was anticipating accurate solar/aerosol measurements from the Glory mission but that’s a bust, most unfortunate. Are there any plans for another attempt, the third time’s a charm so I’ve heard. I have significant respect for JPL, NASA, and NOAA, that they are attempting to provide the means for accurate (unbiased) measurements. But I’m a very disappointed in the data manipulation that is turning up in the global surface records.

  5. tomwys1 says:

    Just Google: The Problematic Transition to HadCRUT 4 from HadCRUT 3

    Lots of Cherries!!!

    • Disillusioned says:

      HadCRUT 3 looked similarly to UAH. And they had to get rid of the 1998 (Super El Nino) spike. HadCRUT 4 did quite a number on it. Though not as bastardized as GISTEMP.

      • Disillusioned says:

        I should qualify that. UAH and HC3 only looked similar in shape and trend. But UAH was ~.2 degree C cooler than HC3. HC4 shows even more warming over the last decade, making the 1998 Super El Nino look much less significant. GISTEMP neutered 1998 almost completely.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s