EnviroLink Forum

I have been following the Gergis et. al 2012 paper as soon as some shared the latest hockey stick: Gergis et. al 2012. Only recently, did 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,, 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 . This is unfortunately going to damage the integrity of climate science once again.

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...

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

_________________
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

_________________
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

_________________
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

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.

_________________
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

_________________
Pollution is not the solution