By Steve
McIntyre
Beneath the seemingly
placid world of U.S. weather co-operatives, recent analysts have found a
turbulent world of changing observation times, with regime change after regime
change. Hansen and Karl have been forced - unwillingly, IÕm sure - to adjust
past temperatures downwards. In contrast to the seemingly almost Iraqian chaos
of the U.S. weather observation network, Jones et al 1990 reported that islands
of homogeneous measurement could be found in Russia and China, where dutiful
comrades seemingly set aside minor worldly concerns, like revolutions and
famines, and homogeneously attended to their max-min thermometers creating, in
the process, what Peterson 2003 described as two of the few studies that used
Òhomogeneous dataÓ.
When David Lean made the
movie Dr Zhivago - a blockbuster in my teenage years with Julie Christie then a
famous beauty - he must have forgotten the scenes where Omar Sharif and Julie
Christie, just before fleeing, instructed arriving soldiers on how to
transcribe max-min thermometer readings, with time suspended as in a Roadrunner
cartoon so that the soldiers could take on these duties before Julie and Omar
fled. In the tranquil world of Jones et al 1990, such scenes must have been
repeated time and time again throughout the gulags.
Jones et al 1990 did not
do anything as mundane as identifying the sites in their Russian ÒruralÓ
network (and have thus far resisted efforts to identify the sites), but Jones
et al 1990 does have a chicken-scratch map. Warwick Hughes has enlarged the
chicken-scratch map and begun the process of trying to identify the 38 sites
with some partial success. His analysis is here[1]
- see, for example the map here.[2]
Some sites can be plausibly identified. Malye Karmakuly on Novaya Zemlya is one
such site, about which IÕll make some comments today.
LetÕs re-visit the
quality control for the Russian network that Jones described as follows:
All the site records were
assessed for artefacts due to factors such as site moves or changing methods
used to calculate monthly mean temperatures. At twelve stations the observing
station was moved slightly. Comparisons with neighboring sites were made before
and after each change and, where necessary, corrections were made to ensure
homogeneity of the rural-station record. No corrections were deemed necessary
for the remaining 26 stations where no station moves were reported.
So Jones has specifically
verified the integrity of each of the 38 stations in the Russian network. LetÕs
look at the first site that Warwick identified - the lat-longÕs of the most
northerly station in the Jones Figure are approximately 72.37N, 52.7E, which
matches WMO station 207440 (Malye Karmakuly) on Novaya Zemlya. There are no
other nearby candidates in any listing of stations. This station is listed in
both GHCN v1 in 1992 (NDP041) and in the current GHCN v2 (updated through Feb
2007). So I think that we can safely proceed on the assumption that this
temperature series is one of 38 stations in JonesÕ very homogeneous
Russian network and use this to spot-check the degree of homogeneity.
I extracted data for WMO
station 20744 from both GHCN v1 (NDP041) and GHCN v2. The first figure is a
plot of the information in GHCN v1 - the version contemporary with Jones et al
1990.

Figure 1. Malye Karmakuly annual temperature from GHCN v1 (NDP041)
Petty minds may think
that they see gaps in this graph, suggesting that the record may not be totally
homogeneous. A report on NDP041 here[3]
states that over 40% of the data from this site is missing. Sure enough when
one examines the raw data, although the data goes to 1990, one observes gaps as
follows:
from Oct 1900 to Aug
1901;
from Aug 1910 to Dec 1912;
only odds and ends from Nov 1916 to Sep 1921
none from July 1940 to Jul 1942
none from Jan 1951 to Dec 1960;
none from Apr 1963 to Dec 1980
The corresponding
information from GHCN v2 is shown in the next figure, with more continuity. Two
separate identifiers are noted and are colored black and red respectively. The
values from GHCN v1 are marked with blue circles and match closely to GHCN v2
values where they overlap. While there are additional values in this data set,
like GHCN v1, the values do not extend further to the present than 1990.

Figure 2. Malye Karmakuly fromn GHCN v2
LetÕs think about the
homogeneity of this record and whether this provides evidence that the Russian
network achieved a homogeneity that eluded observers in the turbulent United
States. In both GHCN v1 and GHCN v2, there are notable interruptions from Nov
1916 to Sep 1921 and from July 1940 to July 1942. One can surmise that the
comrades responsible for the max-min thermometers in these periods may have
given priority to other things. Astonishing as this possibility may seem, the
shameful truth is that the responsible comrade seems to abandoned his
thermometer and failed to preserve the homogeneity of the record. So how did
Jones establish the homogeneity of the record before and after Nov 1916-Sep
1921 and July 1940-July 1942? At this remove, it seems hard to understand
JonesÕ confidence. But the ways of the Team are deep and mysterious.
The period from 1951-1980
even has its own interest. In GHCN v1 (1992), 27 of 30 years were missing in GHCN
v1 (to which Jones has sent information on 1872 stations.) GHCN v2 has second
record which fills in most of the missing years. However, note that there are a
couple of years in which the two versions overlap and the red record is higher
than the black record in both years. What adjustments did Jones make, if any?
Another Caramilk secret.
Was the information in
GHCN v2 available to Jones et al 1990 but not to GHCN? The mind boggles at the
thought. Novaya Zemlya was home to the Russian nuclear program. Maybe local
temperatures in Novaya Zemlya were classified. Now we know that the Team has
access to internationally sensitive high-security data - such as the
password-protected tree ring data at the CRU website - long sought after by
international agents. Did Jones have access to high-clearance Malye Karmakuly
max-min thermometer readings? Ah, intrigue everywhere.
But leaving aside the
TeamÕs access to classified information, does this record show evidence that
dutiful comrades were making homogeneous temperature records that observers in
the turbulent United States Co-operative Network were unable to achieve? Not to
me. And when you think about it, the idea of looking to Russian and Chinese
records as havens of homogeneous temperature measurement, unavailable
elsewhere, is completely preposterous. Novaya Zemlya certainly doesnÕt support
this idea.