EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Fri Oct 24, 2014 10:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 8:08 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
I have been following the Gergis et. al 2012 paper as soon as some gleeful advocatesshared the latest hockey stick: Gergis et. al 2012. Only recently, did Steve McIntyre explore the paper, and when he asked for the data that Joelle Gergis used in her paper, he got this snarky response:

Mr McIntyre

We have already archived all the records needed to replicate the analysis presented in our Journal of Climate paper with NOAA’s World Data Center for Palaeoclimatology:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/recons.html

While the vast majority of the records contained in the full Australasian network are already lodged with NOAA, some records are not yet publically available. Some groups are still publishing their work, others have only released their data for use in a particular study and so on.

The compilation of this database represents years of our research effort based on the development of our professional networks. We risk damaging our work relationships by releasing other people’s records against their wishes. Clearly this is something that we are not prepared to do.

We have, however, provided an extensive contact list of all data contributors in the supplementary section of our recent study ‘Southern Hemisphere high-resolution palaeoclimate records of the last 2000 years’ published in The Holocene (Table S3):

http://hol.sagepub.com/content/early/20 ... 3611427335

This list allows any researcher who wants to access non publically available records to follow the appropriate protocol of contacting the original authors to obtain the necessary permission to use the record, take the time needed to process the data into a format suitable for data analysis etc, just as we have done. This is commonly referred to as ‘research’.

We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter.

Regards

Joelle


Dr Joelle Gergis
Climate Research Fellow


Only a few days later,the paper was retracted from the AMS' Journal of Climate, because one of the authors conceded that there were significant flaws and errors in their paper.

One of the authors, David Karoly, wrote,

I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study. The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

Thanks, David Karoly

Print publication of scientific study put on hold

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.

We are currently reviewing the data and results.


It was later revealed that the Gergis et. al paper suffered from the same flaw that the Mann et. al and other hockey stick papers had- some of the proxy series were flipped upside down to generate the hockey stick that Gergis et. al desperately wanted.

The flipping of proxies upside down to me smells like fraud all over, as well as the self selecting the proxies that matched the instrumental record. This is unfortunately going to damage the integrity of climate science once again.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:02 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Let me see if I got this right, Snow....

A sciencetific study made a mistake....
They discovered it.....(As good scientists do)
They publically admitted it. They even suggested what the likely mistakes might produce in the results; out for all to see.

It doesn't look like much fraud to me.
Looks like big-league science being sure they act like big-league scientists.
Works for me...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 9:59 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
Does Steve McKitrick have a bias here? HMMMM. The 97% accept Mann's work but the less than 3% doesn't. Of which I would imgine that McKitrick is not one of the even 3%.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 10, 2012 11:11 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 11, 2012 12:21 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 85
Since I don't see the way you do, tell me how this was snarky and how this is a broken hockey stick?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:55 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.


Blatantly false.

Image

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

Image

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 5:58 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Iowanic wrote:
Let me see if I got this right, Snow....

A sciencetific study made a mistake....
They discovered it.....(As good scientists do)
They publically admitted it. They even suggested what the likely mistakes might produce in the results; out for all to see.

It doesn't look like much fraud to me.
Looks like big-league science being sure they act like big-league scientists.
Works for me...


So flipping the proxy upside down to produce a hockey stick shape is not suspicious at all?

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:28 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.


Blatantly false.

Image

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

Image


What is blatantly false is quoting junk science as if it is something to be considered. CO2 science does nothign but give interpretations of work and that work even contradicts other work "interpreted" by the site.

The crap they post on wht MWP, and it is pure crap considers a warming blip of any type being possibly interpreted within a several hundred year band, even if it is not during the period normally associated with the MWP.

Try going to the original work and finding the support CO2 science claims in their interpretations.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:29 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Iowanic wrote:
Let me see if I got this right, Snow....

A sciencetific study made a mistake....
They discovered it.....(As good scientists do)
They publically admitted it. They even suggested what the likely mistakes might produce in the results; out for all to see.

It doesn't look like much fraud to me.
Looks like big-league science being sure they act like big-league scientists.
Works for me...


So flipping the proxy upside down to produce a hockey stick shape is not suspicious at all?



The measured temperature data over the last 150 years will give a hockey stick. There should not be any proxy measurements required during that period.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 3:44 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
Wayne Stollings wrote:
What is blatantly false is quoting junk science as if it is something to be considered. CO2 science does nothign but give interpretations of work and that work even contradicts other work "interpreted" by the site.

The crap they post on wht MWP, and it is pure crap considers a warming blip of any type being possibly interpreted within a several hundred year band, even if it is not during the period normally associated with the MWP.

Try going to the original work and finding the support CO2 science claims in their interpretations.


So disprove that 94% of the MWP studies evaluated by CO2 Science show that the CWP was as warm or warmer than the MWP. You are just offering mere speculation, which is not a scientifically robust argument.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:06 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
What is blatantly false is quoting junk science as if it is something to be considered. CO2 science does nothign but give interpretations of work and that work even contradicts other work "interpreted" by the site.

The crap they post on wht MWP, and it is pure crap considers a warming blip of any type being possibly interpreted within a several hundred year band, even if it is not during the period normally associated with the MWP.

Try going to the original work and finding the support CO2 science claims in their interpretations.


So disprove that 94% of the MWP studies evaluated by CO2 Science show that the CWP was as warm or warmer than the MWP. You are just offering mere speculation, which is not a scientifically robust argument.



Prove the studies actually say what the CO2 science interpretations say they do. You are offering nothing of substance in any scientifically related argument when you use an unknown third party interpretation as "evidence".

Give us the dates for which we can consider the MWP and the minimum length of time the temperature has to cover then you can compare the data from the actual papers to see if there is any real evidence.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:23 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 20562
Location: Southeastern US
Two adaptations from two separate studies from the same cave in South Africa. Notice the MWP header is not consistent in the period implied. Also note the vast difference in the temperature and time period between the two. I thought the MWP was supposedly a long period of warming during a specifi time frame, not a period of peaks and valleys that moves with each graphed adaptation or interpretation.

Image

Image

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Oct 14, 2012 10:32 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2012 1:13 am
Posts: 25
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.


Blatantly false.

Image

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

Image



I find this very very difficult to believe.

Do you have the source papers?

Because the vast majority of temperature reconstructions that I am aware of have the current warm period as the warmest. (That's the instrumental temperature record in black that goes to 0.5°C warmer than any point in any reconstruction.)
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Oct 15, 2012 6:08 pm 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2012 5:33 am
Posts: 67
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.


Blatantly false.

Image

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

Image


More junk from "co2science.org"
Here is a typical comment from the site
Quote:
Because science tells us that putting more CO2 in the air would actually be good for the planet, and because even the best climate models are manifestly incapable of delivering what we require of them, i.e., correct climate forecasts.


The author means by "correct climate forecasts" one that would suit his view of the world.

_________________
Pollution is not the solution


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Oct 17, 2012 7:21 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 7:48 am
Posts: 524
warmair wrote:
Snowy123 wrote:
Wayne Stollings wrote:
All reconstructions resemble the hockey stick because of the sharp increase in the measured temperature data set.


Blatantly false.

Image

Most of the reconstructions show the MWP as being as warm or warmer than the CWP.

Image


More junk from "co2science.org"
Here is a typical comment from the site
Quote:
Because science tells us that putting more CO2 in the air would actually be good for the planet, and because even the best climate models are manifestly incapable of delivering what we require of them, i.e., correct climate forecasts.


The author means by "correct climate forecasts" one that would suit his view of the world.


Not sure what this has to do with numerous studies showing that the MWP may have been warmer than the CWP.

_________________
~Snowy123; Amateur Meteorologist and Climatologist.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 61 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group