UPDATE: It appears the paper has been withdrawn and credit acknowledgement given to Steve McIntyre, see below:
There was yet another recent “hockey stick” being foisted on the public. Gergis et al.
It says:
The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels.
Basically, another “ah-ha, man is at fault” pitch.
At Climate Audit, the paper was examined in more detail, and alarm bells went off. Concern centered around the 27 proxy data sets used in the study. Now, after Steve McIntyre found some major faults, it seems this paper has gone missing from the AMS website without explanation. All that remains is the Google cache thumbnail image, not even the cached web page. See below:
Here is the original URL:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1
Here’s a backup copy: http://static.stuff.co.nz/files/melbourne.pdf
To read about how the takedown came about, I suggest this excellent summary from Bishop Hill as the technical details are rather thick: Another Hockey Stick broken
The problems with the paper in a nutshell:
- upside down proxy data again
- preselection of data, ignoring the whole set in many cases
- though they tried to justify preselection, the paper’s methodology doesn’t hold up (circular reasoning)
- inability to replicate given the data and methods used
In Gergis defense, they provided full *some documentation and data at the outset, unlike some other hockey stick purveyors we know. This allowed the work to be checked independently. This is how science is supposed to work, and apparently it has.
(*Added: apparently Gergis refused some additional data Steve McIntyre requested, the documentation of this on his CA website)
It appears from my perspective that this is a failure of peer review at the AMS.
UPDATE: Further proof that the paper has truly been taken down, and this isn’t a web glitch.
1. The DOI link is also broken over at Real Climate in their article: Fresh hockey sticks from the Southern Hemisphere
References
- J. Gergis, R. Neukom, S.J. Phipps, A.J.E. Gallant, and D.J. Karoly, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium”, Journal of Climate, 2012, pp. 120518103842003-. DOI.
2. On the AMS search page: http://journals.ametsoc.org/action/doSearch
I put in both the author name and the DOI, and got nada:
Search Results
Search Query: Authors: gergis
Your search did not match any articles.
Search Query: PubIdSpan: JCLI-D-11-00649.1
Your search did not match any articles.
============================================================
UPDATE2: Steve McIntyre reports the paper has been put “on hold” http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Regarding the latest piece of wah-wah editorilizing by Michael Mann:
What the NRC study actually found:
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=11676
I guess the Mann just can’t help himself.
Such a loose use of the term “likely” by such a careful scientiist.
Ya know, if these type of paper writers would read WUWT they wouldn’t be constantly making the same mistakes over and over…
Oh, and thank goodness for Steve McIntyre.
What heroes Mcintyre, Mckitrick, Watts and now Jean S. These people should all be given a million $ each at least.
Let’s hope that all of the sceptical blogs are waiting with baseball bats when the final AR5 rears it’s head. If it can be pulled apart quickly it would save the world wasting trillions $ on this fraud of CAGW mitigation.
Gergis will fall on her sword and announce that the MWP was regional and apologize for implying it occurred in the Southern Hemisphere too.
The AGW cult members I regularly argue with INSIST the MWP and LIA were regional and could therefore be dismissed. They were freaking out over the exstence of an MWP in this paper and graph showing up on “mainstream ” science sites.
They didn’t retract the paper because it was wrong, they retracted it because it demolished the narrative of the MWP being irrelevant and regional.
I will add my Congratulations to Steve McIntyre/Jean S, Thank You your efforts are very much appreciated and with luck, history will show your true worth.
Funny thing about the data fudging crowd – they hate eating crow!
I always wonder why these climate criminals are so reluctant to give Steve McIntyre all of the data he requests. Is it because they don’t want him to try to replicate their ‘results’? If so then is it really science?
Jokes aside they know they have been had. The Ponzi Scheme is going down.
Help me out understanding this; my doctorate is in the law, not physics or math. The quoted part of the summary says, “The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels.” Now, when I went to school and studied math and that stuff, when the margin for error is larger than your result, that equals a meaningless result; has that changed?? Nine-hundredths of a degree Celsius, plus or minus nineteen-hundredths of a degree Celsius means (to my feeble understanding) that the average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia … blah, blah … is between minus one tenth of a degree Celsius and plus twenty-eight-hundredths of a degree Celsius and we don’t know where the real average is, between those two numbers? Either the average temp was .28 degrees C below or was .10 degrees C above the 1961-1990 levels; or some number inbetween those two. Is that right? Then the temperature anomaly is useless to establish that average temps were above or below the 1961 – 1990 averages, because the range of possible anomaly results ranges from above to below. What am I missing here??
Following some recent criticism, there is no solar system study by Copernicus in existence.
Ike;
What am I missing here??>>>
Nothing!
BTW, if you apply that same logic to pretty much ANY of the climate reconstructions out there, you wind up with that exact same conclusion. The error range DWARFS the very things they are supposedly measuring. In no other field of science is such a ridiculous practice ever considered, let alone used to justify major changes to the world economy. Would be a good thing if more lawyers such as yourself would ask the same questions and then apply your skills (as lawyers) to dealing with the matter. What you have discovered through your own reasoning and questioning is only scratching the surface of what the “team” has passed off as science.
Russ R. says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:35 pm
If they had “material results” all along, why did they go to such extreme measures to get the results they wanted?
I don’t think we’ll see a corrected revision of this paper–should it be done correctly, it would likely be another refutation of Mann’s sacred cow.
Can’t have that now, can we?
Well spotted Ike.
Perhaps all that could be said is that there is no discernible difference between the data sets. I haven’t looked at them so don’t know.
The claim of….“The average reconstructed temperature anomaly in Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels.” is patently ridiculous.
The suggestion of a mean of 0.09 and a standard deviation of 0.19 is meaningless. The mean is below the detection limit of the analytical method used [ whatever it was, perhaps just wishful thinking].
So what happens if thier corrections lead to a graph with no stick, do they still have to publish the results? Or would they just withdraw the paper completely?
A new defense for Gergis and friends:
Claim that Peter Gleick went “rogue” against the climate science community and forged the paper to embarrass them, because Gleick is now secretly in the pay of major fossil fuel interests.
Hey, if they have to sacrifice someone from the hockey team why not sacrifice a marginal third stringer already known to do that sort of thing??
Just some guy: If that happens, the paper will disappear. If they published a paper that shows a warm period around 1200ish then a cold period in the 1700ish time frame and 1200ish warmer than current in the SOUTHERN hemisphere, they would fear for their lives (skeptics wouldn’t be able to be blamed either – not that we ever were – we argue facts, warmists MUST destroy the opposition).
Now if all of their data were available for inspection (including that which they rejected) and their processes and statistical methods were available and found by statistical experts to be above reproach and their results held, I would be interested in hearing what they say. Unfortunately the IF part of the IF->THEN statement will never happen so I am not too worried about having to reassess my thoughts on global warming, but should they actually pass the IF part, I will look carefully at their conclusion to adapt my thinking.
Just some guy says:
June 8, 2012 at 6:48 pm
So what happens if thier corrections lead to a graph with no stick, do they still have to publish the results? Or would they just withdraw the paper completely?
===================
You make a valid point.
davidmhoffer says:
June 8, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Ike; [@ur momisugly 5:49]
What am I missing here??>>>
Nothing!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, I don’t know about that. One might add that all the world-changing schemes to address AGW via CO2 reductions (if I’ve understood the reports) would reduce future world temperature by an amount that to the nearest whole number is zero. Wait! Oh, that’s actually nothing, isn’t it. Okay, then. Back to the room.
When the standard deviation exceeds the anomaly there is no statistically significant difference from the baseline. There is still a level of confidence that can be provided given that there is a calculated difference. The level of confidence that the difference is real is low, very, very low.
That’s all. It is not complicated.
They found the error themselves, after being poked with a cattle prod.
Has anyone noticed the parallels between the Phlogiston theory and AGW?
Another collectable Climate Science sneer from Joelle Gergis:
We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.
in response to Steve’s request for data.
I would regard David Karoly’s letter to Steve McIntyre a step forward, and similar steps overdue from Mann, Rahmstorf and many others.
Climate literature is littered with bad science and the poor quality of IPCC reports is just one consequence. More than a decade old bad science is still circulated just because the persons responsible or in charge at the journals do not retract.
I also hope, the paper will be republished, even if the Hockey Stick disappears (what I expect to happen, as this happened with all other former Hockey Sticks after a Climate Audit.).
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/rising-temperatures-across-australia/4033876
The crap is still kicking. Betcha the Australian Government will still pin Policy decisions to it.
Just some guy says:
June 8, 2012 at 6:48 pm
So what happens if thier corrections lead to a graph with no stick, do they still have to publish the results? Or would they just withdraw the paper completely?
============================================================
Depends on how much they adhere to epoxology.
just some guy says:
June 8, 2012 at 2:28 pm
The problem is they forget to add Manns Secret Hot Sauce…. 😛
Are you tired of bland trends and boring flat lines? Do your proxies have a case of the chills? Why not spice things up a bit with Mann’s Super Ultra Hot -n- Spicy Sauce! Put some pizzaaz in your data! Give your stick a sizzling uptick! And best of all, results are guaranteed, or your grant money back!
Mann…. That’s Hot!!
======================================================================
Hahahaha……. Golden Guffaw Award for the week goes to you mate….. That was a good laugh. Thnx. 🙂