UPDATE: It appears the paper has been withdrawn and credit acknowledgement given to Steve McIntyre, see below: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/
Manfred, that last point you make is a good one, and it _should_ be published regardless as it is still, having been done correctly, the reconstruction of the southern hemisphere temperature record. This is not something that should only be published if it suggests unprecedented warming. From a climate change perspective we want to know where current temperatures stand historically regardless of the conclusion.
I do not “regard David Karoly’s letter to Steve McIntyre a step forward” because it just substitutes politeness for honesty. Please, “Stephen”, accept our kind words in lieu of the credit that you deserve! Yeah, right. Shameful behaviour by the me-too-ing Aussies.
Now this begins to look as science. A fair exchange over open data and method. More of that kind, please!
Is there anyone out there who’d be prepared to bet that this paper will reappear:
a) with only the detrending problem corrected
b) no other changes to data or methods (and therefore no hockey stick)
c) under the same credited authorship?
No, I didn’t think so.
Karoly & co should all be sacked. What bludgers off my taxes they are.
Nice! Steve McIntyre wins one for the good guys!
Manfred: “I also hope, the paper will be republished, even if the Hockey Stick disappears“.
Seconded. [Thirded? since DavidA has already seconded.]
Here is a golden opportunity for Gergis to achieve fame and fortune. After the paper is corrected and re-published, it becomes ground-breaking science – the paper that establishes that the MWP was global, the paper that overturned Mann’s hockey-stick, the paper that overturned the IPCC report, the paper that saved the world’s economies. Gergis will be the name spoken of with awe throughout scientific circles, while Steve MacIntyre will get a mention in the footnotes if he’s lucky. Science working as it’s supposed to work.
to measure temperature accurately, you need a thermometer of some kind….these proxy studies are mostly bullshit
I think what it shows is the oh-so-small capabilities of statistics among the climate, or climate related scientists these days.
All assuming they did not intentionally “fudge” with the data (which I really think they did not).
Mike Jonas;
the paper that establishes that the MWP was global, the paper that overturned Mann’s hockey-stick, the paper that overturned the IPCC report,>>>>>>>>>>>>
There’s dozens of papers that already do that. Scroll through these. Some are million year time scales but there are dozens of reconstructions on the 1000 year scale from all kinds of different proxies and from all over the world that all show the MWP and the LIA.
http://www.c3headlines.com/temperature-charts-historical-proxies.html
So there is no date correlation between between the finding of data processing errors in this paper by Climate Audit and by the authors themselves on June 5th.
I wonder if Gergis et al get the irony of that.
REPLY: “Progress in Climate” is distinctly different than “Climate Progress” Joe Romm probably won’t be able to bring himself to report this or even correct his article:
(link snipped to save electrons)
Be sure to let him know in comments, I’m banned there. – Anthony
Evidently, comments are closed to anyone without the Secret Handshake. However, I *did* utilize the Hot Tip box to post the following:
Gergis et al has been redacted due to several flaws in the work. You might want to update your 1 June post, in the interest of accuracy — “Yet another hockey stick broken” might be a good title…
Cheers
Got screenshots of the tip and the nice Thank You from the monitorbot, but I’m guessing I shouldn’t hold my breath waiting for CP to update the post…
Anthony
It was Jean S, a regular contributor both here and at Steve’s who discovered the detrending problem and , i think, Steve found the usual proxy selection fiddle.
Would I be too cynical to suggest that…
1) Yes, they discovered the error themselves.
2) No, it wasn’t on the 5th of June but prior to even submission to the journal.
3) They went ahead anyway hoping that Steve McIntyre wouldn’t get to it too quickly.
DaveE.
John Bills says:
June 8, 2012 at 3:56 pm
///////////////////////////////////////////
As you rightly infer, it is a damning indictment of both the quality of the science and of the quality of peer review. If it was not for pal review, the errors ought to have beem picked up prioer to publication and the paper either corrected or rejected.
This affiar is an endorsement of the need to provide all code and data sets whenever a paper is published, it is also an endorsement of the effectiveness of independent review by ‘amateur’ scientists and demonstrates the value of their independent input and review.
Well done Steve.
Might want to read BH comments page 3 GrantB: http://bishophill.squarespace.com/contributor/19573169
Sorry Ignore above link, I’ll just repost GrantB comment:-
‘We would like to put the record staight on some recent misrepresentations in the climate denial community regarding our research (yes research!) and our recent paper in the Journal of Climate.
* Our paper has received wide acclamation in the Australian and world media. The Guardian reports that our study “of tree rings, corals and ice cores finds unnatural spike in temperatures that lines up with manmade climate change” as conclusive scientific evidence that “Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium”.
* Radio Australia reports our research concludes that the “Last five decades warmest in Australia’s history”. This was very much against our expectations, but as scientists we were obliged to report it.
* One of us has backed up this research with a video clip and further details on a blog. The link to the blog is currently broken and we will restore it as soon as possible.
* Our paper has five authors. Each one of us has extensively reviewed the data and methodology used in the paper. The paper has passed peer review by three referees in the Journal of Climate and peer review in Climate Science has long been recognised as the the gold standard in scientific publications.
* Our paper will be cited in the upcoming AR5 and is already being seen as seminal. However in a final check we discovered a minor error in our methodology which although it doesn’t matter will be corrected before inclusion in AR5. We understand that a denial blog also picked up this error some time after we did. Small potatoes and no big deal.
* Although we are based in Melbourne we do as a group own property in Sydney. If any of your readers are interested in purchasing a large spanning-arch bridge we will be happy to consider offers.
Thankyou
The Climate Science Team
The University of Melbourne’
What have this peer reviewers done? I can’t believe, that they really read that paper without finding that big mistake.
Congratulations, Steve McIntyre. Climate well and truly Audited.
“From a climate change perspective we want to know where current temperatures stand historically regardless of the conclusion.”
It is impossible to that.
Luther Wu says: June 8, 2012 at 4:42 pm Meanwhile back at the RC ranch:
“My initial impression is that Gergis et al.s’ results will not wind up changing much, if at all.–eric”
Well, -eric, we’re not going to lose sleep over that. Wrong is wrong is wrong.
The emphasis so far has been on the statistics. What of other errors? Some have pointed out that this “Australasian” reconstruction leaves out the mainland of Australia almost completely; others have noted the absence of coral proxy work from the greatest coral accumulation on the World, the Great Barrier Reef. Others have noted that for a Southern Hemisphere reconstruction, some of the sites are in the Northern Hemisphere, some with incorrect coordinates given by the authors.
Related to the latter point and proximity to the Equator, Gergis et al use temperatures to calibrate over the months Sept to Feb – see first line of abstract. At the Equator, the sun is directly overhead 3 times a year. Within the tropics, two times a year. At the Tropics, once a year. So, in the Tropics, there is a geometric effect on what is summer. As Willis Eschenbach has pointed out http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/09/jason-and-the-argo-notes/ surface sea temperatures recorded by Argo floats show that the ocean temperatures in the Tropics top out at about 31 deg C and that the diurnal range near the Equator is tiny http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/07/further-evidence-for-my-thunderstorm-thermostat-hypothesis/ . Surely coral proxies would benefit from a hefty change in temperatures to show useful growth differences during life cycles.
It would be interesting to hear why a Sept-Feb time scale was chosen because in some locations it is illogical. It would also be interesting to know why the reviewers did not pick up this silliness. And more.
As a professional auditor, I am beginning to have very little confidence in the peer review process involving studies relating to catastrophic man-made global warming. This Gergis paper is a fine example why. From the very beginning, the results of the Gergis paper were suspicious. What stuns me is it took an outsider to expose it… but where are the peer reviewers of the Gergis paper? They should be exposed and held to account.
Honestly, the scientific community must find a more effective, transparent and trustworthy process for the reviewing of scientific studies. For goodness sake, we now have the internet, Surely a formal scientific site could be set up to which studies could be submitted and published on the internet. That way, a study could be subjected to as much scrutiny and feed back as is possible within a predetermined cut-off period, and be ultimately assessed by a team of experts in the field before the paper could then be finally published in its final format.
Jean S,
Thank you for your comment at CA which initially made public the error in Gergis et al 2012. And I thank Steve McIntyre for having his wonderfully open venue where such critical analysis as yours can be looked at by anyone interested in a more balanced scientific view than the problematic so-called ‘consensus’ climate science of RC.
John
No doubt a lot of confirmation bias came into play. When the answer that was found was what the authors and reviewers expected they put very little effort into verification.
A search of “Gergis” in Twitter has this near the top,
My Japanese is a little rusty but Google translates it as,
A big hello to our Japanese readers 😉