The paper might have been scientifically invalid, but it was a box-office success.
The headlines were everywhere
“1000 years of climate data confirms Australia’s warming” said the press release from University of Melbourne. It was picked up by The Guardian: “Australasia has hottest 60 years in a millennium, scientists find”; The Age and The Australian led with “Warming since 1950 ‘unprecedented’. The story was on ABC 24 and ABC news where Gergis proclaimed:” there are no other warm periods in the last 1000 years that match the warming experienced in Australasia since 1950.” It was all over the ABC including ABC Radio National, and they were “95% certain“! On ABC AM, “the last five decades years in Australia have been the warmest. ” Plus there were pages in Science Alert, Campus Daily Eco news, The Conversation, Real Climate* and Think Progress.
Blog review is where the real science gets tested
Skeptics have been looking through the paper, and three weeks after it was published a team at Climate Audit (kudos to Jean S and Nick Stokes) uncovered a problem so significant that the authors announced that this paper is “on hold”. It has been withdrawn from the American Meteorological Society website. Bishop Hill has probably the best summary of what this means, and how it unfolded.
When Steve McIntyre asked for the full data, she refused. Gergis has an activist past which she has recently tried to hide. She was proud to mention in her biography that her data has been requested from 16 nations: So requests from Tunisia, Cuba, and Brazil are OK; but Canada — not so much. Apparently she didn’t appreciate his expertise with statistics and told him to get the data himself from the original authors, and added ” This is commonly referred to as ‘research’. We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter. “
Will any of these media outlets update their news?
(The Uni Melb news feed is here).
On AM, David Karoly raved about how the study was strong because it relied more on observations not modeling (it is getting to them that skeptics keep pointing out they have no empirical evidence), and claimed he had “high confidence” in the results. (Is that the same kind of high confidence he has in future predictions of warming?)
MATTHEW CARNEY: Professor Karoly says the strength of the study is that it’s relied more on direct observations and measurements than climate modelling.
DAVID KAROLY: Nothing is absolutely certain in science but we say with very high confidence because we have repeated the analysis alone for the uncertainties that the warming in the last 50 years is very unusual and cannot, very likely cannot be explained by natural climate variability alone.
How concerned are they with accuracy? Are all these media outlets happy to leave their readers or viewers with the impression that these results are robust, reliable, and strong? In truth, even before this paper was withdrawn, before it was promoted, investigative reporters had plenty to wonder about.
Did any journalist really ask any hard questions to start with?
Let’s not bother to get into the point that the results of crunching the data 3000 different ways means their “confidence” came from models, not from the 27 proxies, most of which didn’t cover the full 1000 years, or the Australian mainland either.
The litany, the message went on and on and on in the media and apart from Adam Morton in The Age, most investigative journalists never thought to ask the question “How much warmer are we now than 1000 years ago” because if they had, Gergis would have had to say “by a tenth of a degree”. (That much eh?) Technically it was 0.09C.
The certainty of Australia being 0.09 of a degree cooler 1000 years ago comes down to observations from a batch of trees in Tasmania and New Zealand. (If we can calculate the regional temperature so accurately that way, why do we bother with a network of 100 thermometers? We could pop a max-min gauge next to those trees and “interpolate” the rest, No?)
Why not skip the thermometers and just go with the trees? They’re accurate to one hundredth of a degree across a continent and sea.
Funding?
Funding apparently ran to $340,ooo but may have been nearly a million dollars (at least that’s what Gergis thought in 2009, I can find no official record of it):
“The project, funded by the Australian Research Council’s Linkage scheme, is worth a total of $950K and will run from mid-2009 to mid-2012”. [Source: Joelle Gergis has deleted her blog. Cached copy here. Webcite copy]
UPDATE: Did Gergis get more funding for this from outside the ARC? If so where?
“Proposals for funding under Linkage Projects must involve a Partner Organisation from outside the higher education sector. The Partner Organisation must make a significant contribution in cash and/or in kind, to the project that is equal to, or greater than, the ARC funding.”
Is this how policies are promoted now? The government finds b-grade activist scientists, funds them to produce papers that may or may not stand the test of …a few weeks, and the media rush to rubber stamp and repeat the story without asking hard questions, and in the end the government gets “third party” policy promotion — seemingly independent endorsement of the purest kind. At $340,000, it’s returned decent value some would say.
———————————————————————-
REFERENCES
Cook, E. R., Buckley, B. M., Palmer, J. G., Fenwick, P., Peterson, M. J., Boswijk, G. and Fowler, A. 2006. Millennia-long tree-ring records from Tasmania and New Zealand: a basis for modelling climate variability and forcing, past, present and future. J. Quaternary Sci., Vol. 21 pp. 689–699. ISSN 0267-8179. [abstract]
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. [ Paper (PDF)]
ARC Funding: ARC Linkage Project Funding Outcomes
[It’s hard to find the original grants, this is one, which doesn’t add up to $950k could be part of the funding, or extra funding, or perhaps the original offer of $950k didn’t come through?…]
2606 ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES
The University of Melbourne
LP0990151 Dr JL Gergis; Prof DJ Karoly; Prof N Nicholls; A/Prof DS Garden; Prof CS Turney; Dr AM Lorrey; Dr K Braganza; Dr RJ Allan; Miss G Skelly; Ms RJ Moran; Dr K Tan; Mr RA Neville; Dr NR Lomb
Approved Project Title Reconstructing pre-20th century rainfall, temperature and pressure for south-eastern Australia using palaeoclimate, documentary and early weather station data.
2009 : $ 65,000
2010 : $ 117,500
2011 : $ 105,000
2012 : $ 52,500
APA(I) Award(s): 1
APDI Dr JL Gergis, Collaborating/Partner Organisation(s), Australian Bureau of Meteorology, Met Office Hadley Centre, Murray-Darling Basin Commission, Department of Sustainability and Environment,
Melbourne Water , National & State Libraries Australasia, National Library of Australia,
State Library of Victoria , State Library of New South Wales, Powerhouse Museum, Administering Organisation The University of Melbourne,
Summary of Linkage Projects Proposals by Primary Class Code for Funding to Commence in 2009
Updated 13 August 2009 Page 14
Project Summary
South-eastern Australia is in the grip of a severe water crisis due to the worst drought in recorded history and increasing temperatures. This landmark project brings together a team of Australia’s leading climate scientists, water managers and historians with the common goal of reconstructing south-eastern Australia’s climate history. The greatly extended record of annual rainfall and temperature variability will allow better planning for water storage and use, and improved testing of climate model simulations. Improving our understanding of the historical impacts of climate extremes on society will assist with planning for life in a hotter and drier future.
Thanks to Geoff Derrick for advice.
*UPDATE #2: Real Climate link fixed
UPDATE #3: (kudos to Jean S and Nick Stokes)
A million dollars in research funding that justifies ten billion dollars in carbon taxes. I’d say that’s a pretty good ROI…if it holds up.
10
[…] I’m reposting this excellent essay from Jo Nova to give it a wide as an audience as possible. Be sure to bookmark her site if you have not already. […]
00
This appears to me to be yet another example of screening data for series that produce the desired result before you even process them. So imagine I have 100 series of data. I want to show significant modern rapid temperature change. I screen those 100 for the subset that show rapid modern change and use those. But it gets even more subtle than that. I want to show modern temperature change of a greater amount than past change. So I select series that show significant modern change, throw away the sign of the change, and simply operate on the absolute value of that change. So if I have a series that change +1 unit and a series that changed -1 unit, I have two series that changed by 1 unit. Now I operate on the magnitude of the change (disregarding the sign of the change) and bingo! I have a hockey stick!
What a crock.
10
Thanks for putting the funding price with this.
00
Excuse me but this incessant bit@@@@g about the AGWers is getting nowhere. What people here need to do now is to WRITE AN EMAIL to every single MSM newspaper (that praised the findings such as the Australian etc) pointing out that the paper has been withdrawn because it was full of BS or similar and point them to Climate audit etc
20
http://cooley.libarts.wsu.edu/schwartj/pdf/Geddes1.pdf
This paper provides a good explanation of the “selecting on the dependent variable” problem inherent in selecting trees that appear well correlated with temperature as a basis for doing temperature studies.
If you only select trees that appear correlated with temperature, you are ignoring the larger body of trees that are telling you that trees are not a good proxy for temperature.
For example, say we selected companies that were highly profitable to study why they were profitable. We found that factor X was common to all successful companies. This might lead us to conclude that factor X causes companies to be profitable.
However, by not studying unprofitable companies, we overlooked the fact that factor X was common to unprofitable companies as well, and thus had little or no influence of profitability.
The same situation with trees. The assumption is that temperature (factor X) determines tree growth (profitability). By only studying trees that correlate with temperature, climate science has ignored the large body of trees telling us that temperature (factor X) is also common to trees that show no growth (low profitability) and thus had little or no influence on tree growth (profitability).
00
I can’t be the only person who thinks that when Gergis responded with her “this is what we call research” email that the response would be “Yes, but taxpayers funded it, so spill the beans Ms”.
00
A good way to handle the publicity on this right now is to “Like” this blog to your Facebook account, and encourage others to do the same. That way, the MSM is circumvented, and people that trust you will believe you rather than their lying newspaper.
10
[…] old story as told by Jo Nova:http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three… Like this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in climate. Bookmark the […]
00
[…] JO NOVA BLOG 300,000 dollars and three years to produce a paper that lasted three weeks: Gergis June 10th, 2012 http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three… […]
00
There’s no way to know the temperature from 1000 years ago to an accuracy of 0.09C. If their techniques were valid, their conclusion could be stated as “Within the limits of our study, the 20th century warming wasn’t unusual. It’s no hotter than 1000 years ago, before industrialisation.”
00
If Austrialia’s “sponsored research” is like the U.S., then the study had a direct cost of whatver, plus an approximate 50% mor ethat is “indirects,” or overhead, that goes to the home university of the awardee. So, a study that was approved with a $300,000 budget would take the govt an outlay of around $450,000.
00
The problem is an entrenched culture in government agencies and, notably the ARC, in which hype and political posturing are substituted for science. Correcting it will require a 90 degree change of course, restructuring imposed from the highest levels of (new) government.
00
J. Gergis et al. (2012) have manufactured a gigantic global omelette, now spattered on the MSM, CAGW driven ruling elite and self-serving, government eco-bureaucrats. They have inadvertently driven another nail through Mann et al. (1998). In summary, Gergis and colleagues have not only done the rest of us a huge favour, they have run out of feet to shoot themselves in.
The growing vacuum of corroboration behind CAGW becomes ever more apparent. Reality inexorably asserts its presence due in no small part to the persistent and painstaking efforts of dedicated groups and individuals that we all know and recognise for their immense contributions.
So now we wait for the ‘yes, but..’ brigade as new reasons are identified to justify the primitivising shackles of the Ministry-of-We-Know-Best. The big question: just when will opposition parties wake up and re-educate the brainwashed with the science? There is an urgent imperative to develop an informed, compelling counter position in policy and ultimately, government.
00
Brilliant article, well done can’t wait for any follow-up.
00
“Blog review is where the real science gets tested” – how very true Jo.
And the proposal to “name and shame” see climate audit:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/05/31/myles-allen-calls-for-name-and-shame/
is the only valid way.
There should be no need of painful process with FOI and skeptics begging for data.
Either the data is provided and the work can be reproduced and verified, or the data is hidden and the work is on the “suspects-work-without-data-thus-irreproducible-result” list and is a good candidate for the journal of irreproducible results, a fine journal after all, for good amusement not for policies.
00
“Gergis paper disappears”
http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/?page_id=1469
00
[…] ook door McIntyre op ClimateAudit.org is verpulverd. Lees het hele sneue verhaal op Bishop Hill en Joanne Nova. Hierrrr het laatste stukkie op ClimateAudit.org waarin we zien dat de printpublicatie in de […]
00
The Gergis paper was obviously published in haste without adequate internal review- apparently to some Australian political imperative.
00
If the screening fallacy as well described by Steve McIntyre, David Stockwell and others is so well understood, how can supposed PhD students and their leader (Karoly) fall into the same fundamental reasoning error?
Doesn’t the scientific method demand that scientists strenuously try to falsify their pet hypotheses?
Has any paleoclimate study, instead of using proxies which correlate with the instrumental record (such as it is — and there is no reason to do so other than get a desired result), used randomly selected proxies or proxies that do not correlate, to see what results?
00
THis is an excellent example of why the peer review process cannot be relied to provide any real level of quality.
For issues such as AGW, the data and methods should be made public during the peer review process for any member of society to be able to check and critique.
For any “climate scientist” to claim they’re capable of providing independent quality control on papers is utter bunkum. Too many specialised disciplines are involved.
The question is, how can members of the public be rewarded for their work. In this case I understand the claim from the scientists was that they somehow discovered the flaw at the same time. What a load of stinking cr*p. Totally disingenuous.
Isn’t it interesting that there is talk about a media council for media that critiques, but no talk of a quality control group for Global warming papers.
Peer review is not a quality control technique – never has been and never will be.
All Data and methods should be made available to the public for issues of public concern – Particularly when public funds have funded it!
00
I’m happy to spend a few hundred thousand dollars. It’s the billions and trillions to which I object.
00
[…] I’m reposting this excellent essay from Jo Nova to give it a wide as an audience as possible. Be sure to bookmark her site if you have not already. […]
00
Amazing how they accuse the skeptics of “cherry picking”.
I think Cadbury’s “Cherry Ripe” should become the official chocolate bar of Climatology.
00
Steve McIntyre (along with help from Jean S) is to be congratulated on a thorough examination of the paper. For the lay-person, the correlation tests are complex. There are three, simpler, problems with the reconstruction which are sufficient to classify this paper as pseudo-science.
1. Geography
The study is a
So why are Palmyra Atoll coral proxy (>2100km NE), 2 Rarotonga coral proxies (2000km east) or 2 Vostok Ice Station proxies (>3100km S) included?. 5/27 of the proxies are well outside the area.
2. Proxy Correspondence
Fiji (<150km across) and Rarotonga (<10km across) both have two coral proxies. The temperature proxies, if any good, should give similar results. They are massively different. I have graphed them here.
3. Unrepresentative proxies
By far the biggest land mass in Australasia and Oceania is the sub-continent of Australia covering 2,900,000 sq miles. There were a couple of coral proxies off the coast of Western Australia, but nothing on the mainland. The only proxies more than 250 miles from the coast are at Vostok, Antarctica, holder of the the world record for lowest temperature ever recorded. I have never visited Australia myself, but I believe permanent sub-zero temperatures is hardly representative of the Outback. Of course climate scientists who actually live in Australia might know different:)
00
Good work Jo. Andrew Bolt is also on to it. BTW copy of paper still available at http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3bNTeXhMdxAJ:journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1+http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00649.1&hl=en&gl=ca
00
This would be an opportune time for the puppy dog Maxine to use her Bachelor of Science degree to join the debate on this issue…
00
I notice that “MAXINE THE OMNISCIENT” is strangely silent on this issue. Perhaps she has taken her B.Sc and gone home, tail between her legs. Perhaps this was the crackpot science to which she was referring in the last thread-
Maxine’s own advice would have best been applied by Messrs Karoly et al before trumpetting the merits of junk science.
And some sage advice for Ms Gergis…..
The definition of “real science” takes a hammering, and yet it takes “krank sites” to hold the “real” scientists to account and guess who is found wanting!
Science that can’t stand the glare of the spotlight of scrutiny is not, by definition, science.
10
If the paper is reworked and comes back up in a different form, does that mean we can say it was reGergisated?
00
Jo the refusal to release the data underlining the study in a form that can be used to replicate the study is indefensible.
Taxpayers funds were used to find this study and as such the research should be in the public domain.
It needs to be tested with a FOI request by someone such as yourself who knows what information is required.
I appreciate that this takes time and money and for one would be prepared to contribute towards the costs of such an action. I’m sure that many others who support your work would also join in.
00
We are in the end days of the AGW hysteria. These are grand days indeed. Now about that election?
00
Minister Combet will be very very angry
00
Unfortunately the warmists won this hands down. The heading on the top of this posting “The headlines were everywhere” this is what they wanted. They dont give a Rats #### if its correct or not. You will not see any mainstream say it has been withdrawn, they were wrong etc… ANYWHERE.
00
It occurs to me that this preselection of data sets for “correlation” with the thermometer record is really little different in its scientific value than searching for a group of stars that might be said to exhibit a pattern of say a bull or a bear or some ancient god.
I would just love to see people like Gergis put in front of a judicial inquiry and have some senior counsel just take them through their “scientific” logic and process. I reckon that would be great and hilarious television.
I also hope that the apparent collapse of the scientific credibility of this peer reviewed, published (toilet) paper asserting a hockey schtick australis opens up the public imagination to the constructive nonsense behind the Mannian hockey schtick major and the broader issue of self referenced logic in so called “climate science”. It is becoming crystal clear in the skeptical blogoshpere that “climate science” is branch of human enquiry and endeavour that has slunk and shrunk back from the enlightenment into the penumbra of belief based, ideologically inspired activity.
The next step is to see that view being properly articulated in the MSM. After all , when it comes to public policy, it is the numbers of voters ( as measured at the ballot box or indicated by properly conducted polling) who will accept a particular policy or policy advocate rather than the asserted number of alleged scientists who support some cartoonish depiction of where the centroid of the “science” is located. The MSM is where the Gaugemala, the Waterloo, the El Alamein, the D-Day or the Bulge will take place. Otherwise the MSM will let this struggle become another Khe Sanh, ie part of a mythology of defeat.
(Also posted at WattsUpWiththat except the last phrase)
00
Excellent work Jo. Another ecofascist activist “scientist” and their propaganda exposed.
00
Garbage => 3,000 random reconstructions => 3,000 garbage reconstructions.
00
Just a note, if one goes to skepticalscience (which I loathe reading, but curiosity got the better of me):
http://www.skepticalscience.com/new_research_20_2012.html
The paper is still linked there:
http://web.science.unsw.edu.au/~sjphipps/publications/gergis2012.pdf
Should we time the disappearance?
Apologies if that sounds sarcastic, but rather tied of those who play the AGW game, and decry the ability of statisticians and so forth (who work for nothing usually to test the outcome) – calling them all sorts of names and questioning their intelligence.
Interesting to really see who the free thinkers are – who has the “closed minds”.
00
“All lying is an attempt to alter reality but there should be a special category of lying to describe AGW ‘science’.”
There already is a category,
Its called FRAUD!
00
UPDATE: Did Gergis get more funding for this from outside the ARC? If so where?
“Proposals for funding under Linkage Projects must involve a Partner Organisation from outside the higher education sector. The Partner Organisation must make a significant contribution in cash and/or in kind, to the project that is equal to, or greater than, the ARC funding.”
Can anyone track down the other source of the funding? Is that what makes this up to $950k, or did that promised funding never eventuate?
PS: Sorry. The Real Climate link in the first para was wrong (it had an extra http// typo – the page is still up at RC and the link works now.)
00
Unsatisfied with the northern original, the Gergis Team were looking for a Hockeyroos Stick.
They thought they’d found a Scorcher worth a medal but it turned out to be a little vat of Van Demons and flotilla of frosty Ice Fernz which sometimes played with their sticks upside down.
McIntyre cautions us “do not oversell this” but Karoly and Co are only embarrassing themselves by not giving credit where it’s due.
A good proxy is only as good as the land temperature record used to select it. The CRU’s convenient glossing-over of the south’s warm 1940s makes a delusional dog’s dinner of Gergis’ greenhouse outgassing.
If hockey mining was profitable, Clive would do it too! 🙂
00
having switched off a NatGeo docu on frogs this morning when they started on how scientists were racing to save frogs from “climate change” (the program had begun by telling viewers frogs had survived everything thrown at them for 350 million years mind u, i have no doubt the MSM will not report anything that goes against the CAGW meme. the individual MSM employees (whom i cannot even call journalists/reporters) would lose their jobs if they broke rank, but nothing stands in the way of them quitting their jobs. however, don’t hold your breath waiting for them to do the honourable thing:
10 June: Scotsman: Eddie Barnes: Global warming and the economic effect
THE doomsday scenario for global warming is as chilling as ever, but in the shadow of economic meltdown there are fears that Rio+20 will just be a talking shop…
And the build-up to this summit has been so low-key as to be unnoticed. United Nations secretary-general Ban Ki-moon warned last week that progress on any kind of deal has been “painfully slow”. Preparations are going ahead anyway in Rio for the imminent arrival next week of the 50,000-strong army of government ministers, bureaucrats and NGOs. But the optimism of Rio 20 years ago has given way to low expectations and scepticism.
That is a paradox, for the warnings of global destruction which prompted world leaders to meet in Rio in 1992 are only becoming more urgent. In a paper published in the journal Nature last week, a group of international scientists declared that the trends of rocketing population growth, rising temperatures and rapid development had left the Earth at a “tipping point”.
“The net effects of what we’re causing could actually be equivalent to an asteroid striking the Earth in a worst-case scenario,” said lead author Anthony Barnosky. “I don’t want to sound like Armageddon. I think the point to be made is that if we just ignore all the warning signs of how we’re changing the Earth, the scenario of losses of biodiversity – 75 per cent or more – is not an outlandish scenario at all.” By the time a child born today turns 58, “we’ll live in a hotter world than it’s been since humans evolved as a species,” the report concluded…
http://www.scotsman.com/scotland-on-sunday/scotland/global-warming-and-the-economic-effect-1-2347269
00
When scientists and universities are drawing conclusions that can affect the very future of mankind – us out here in ‘Mankind land’ should at the very least have the right to know what the formulas are for these conclusions … particularly as WE are paying for the research. Instead, we’re having FOI and full data requests refused, plus obfuscation at every level.
Instead of going before a ‘jury of their peers’, they release scripted and edited, PR – friendly conclusions to a media that is either naïve or complicit.
I smell a recurring theme – and a rat.
00
Re: FUnding
With respect to funding, a likely source is some federal or state
govt department. Many ARC linkage projects have government funding.
Many govt scientists like to do their bit for the cause. There
also is probably a contribution for uni of Melb internal funds
from research block grants.
Sincerely
Jim Mitroy
00
Joelle Gergis has an article that would interest TonyfromOz –
http://climatehistory.com.au/tag/joelle-gergis/
“Salvaging Sunken Treasure” – “Journal of the Weather Situation Each Day at Noon on His Majesty’s Ship Sirius”
00
Jo it would appear that this article would make a great article for The Drum over at our ABC.Seeing how they trumpet every bit of GW hysteria.It would show to a wider audience how they trumpet their successes but bury their mistakes.
00
The Uni of Melbourne release has:
I went to take a look at the IPCC website. Google knows!
00
“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.”
So… the degree of warming is less than half that of the error? Is it just me, or does that make it unsafe to draw any conclusions regarding a trend, either positive or negative?
00
Hi Jo, There is more than one grant or contract. Perhps your $340,000 mention is for the first and the $950,000 is for one or more of the later. The partner is presumably the Dept of Climate Change, but I can’t see with a short search any category that extends specific research beyond Australia. It might be there, I just can’t see it.
Grants
Title, Role, Funding Source, Scheme, Award Date
Reconstructing pre-20th century rainfall, temperature and pressure for south-eastern Australia using palaeoclimate, documentary and early weather station data. Chief Investigator. AUST RESEARCH COUNCIL. Linkage Projects, 01/01/2009.
Contracts
Title, Role, Funding Source, Award Date
ESTIMATING NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN THE AUSTRALASIAN REGION OVER THE PAST 2,000 YEARS: DATA SYNTHESIS FOR THE IPCC 5TH ASSESSMENT REPORT. Chief Investigator.DEPT OF CLIMATE CHANGE. 01/01/2011.
ESTIMATING NATURAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY IN THE AUSTRALASIAN REGION OVER THE PAST 2,000 YEARS: DATA SYNTHESIS FOR THE IPCC 5TH ASSESSMENT REPORT. Chief Investigator. 15/07/2011.
PALAEO RECONSTRUCTION OF RAINFALL AND STREAMFLOW FOR MELBOURNE WATER CATCHMENTS. Chief Investigator. MELBOURNE WATER CORP. 01/04/2012.
Additional Grant and Contract Information
Reconstructing pre-20th century rainfall, temperature and pressure for south-eastern Australia using palaeoclimate, documentary and early weather station data, Australian Research Council Linkage Project LP0990151
http://climatehistory.com.au
From http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person203094.html
00
The problem is that science about AGW is too polarised. Particularly high profile stuff like this paper. There continues to be lots of good science being done, some of which supports AGW, and some which casts doubt on aspects of it. But when “warmists” proclaim the imminent end of civilisation, and “skeptics” call for the gaoling of climate scientists, it doesn’t help us figure out what is really happening.
I went to David Evan’s talk at UWA the other day. David raised some good points, but his conclusion was faulty. He showed data indicating that the models had problems, and then said that since the basic premise behind the models was “CO2 causes warming”, therefore that premise is wrong. Jorg Imberger pointed out that there could be lots of other reasons why the models differed from reality.
Jorg’s position is a good starting point. The models aren’t perfect (and serious climate scientists know this), so we need to know why the models aren’t as good as they could be. After all, when you are looking at the future, with only the models to guide you, they need to be good!
But the “skeptic” mindset that challenges anything that might be “warmist” is no help. For example, the surface temperature record has been done to death, with several different methods being used, the most recent being BEST. And they are all basically the same, including BEST, which was done by a typical physicist who knew that other people couldn’t possibly have done it properly. And BEST found? That their results matched everyone elses. So you’d think that it would be game-over for challenging the surface temperature record – but no, we still see alarmist pictures of poorly located thermometers – even though we now know that they make no difference. How does that help? Whilst it was originally justified, now it just confuses people who want to be confused. It is as though these “skeptics” are not actually interested in understanding.
02
What would they say if the weather turned really bad as in days of yore – here’s a sample –
00
“Its most high-profile practitioners gradually became what can only be described as the media stars of the movement, but what actually happened, was the more they sucked greedily on the teat of notoriety, the more they degenerated into nothing more than advocates, masquerading as scientists”
http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2012/06/08/how-environmentalism-turned-to-the-dark-side/
Gergis to a tee …
Pointman
00
Dear Gergis et al
Just so you know what a big lie is see below, source Wiki:
The expression was coined by Adolf Hitler, when he dictated his 1925 book Mein Kampf, about the use of a lie so “colossal” that no one would believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously.”
Please understand that we have learned much since 1925 and if you are going to waste public money in the name of the
Cause then you are going to have to be be a bit smarter; difficult I appreciate for a so called climate scientist.
We wont get fooled again.
00
Punchline: ±0.19°C … i.e. the error bars are twice the magnitude of the “signal”.
I have little confidence in the ability of proxies to produce reliable temperature records. The Ningaloo same’s readme file says:
(emphasis mine)
Note that the data appear to be from a single core sample. Coral, not Bristlecone Pine this time.
Nearby Onslow Airport’s data, which are from 1943 to 1973, “thanks” to the Japanses, were not used to “validate” the Ningaloo Reef data. Why would a researcher ignore measured temperature data and use proxies instead? Perhaps because the data don’t fit the model?
The “uselessness” of Ningaloo as a temperature proxy has been known for a while.
00
Once again the reputation of Australian Climate Scientists has been trashed.
How long are they going to stand for this blatent politicisation of what is a useful and important branch of science?
Watched Penny Wong spinning on “meet the press” this morning, once again omitting that the carbon tax was supported only if Copenhagen got every country to bring in the same tax. She keeps treating us like we are stupid, no wonder voters are carrying baseball bats for the next election.
00
This is the email I sent to Leigh Dayton, science writer for the Australian:
00
I feel like after reading this and all the comments that…
…we are about where we were a year ago!
– Picking holes in the argument.
– Exposing the lies.
– Exposing the fraud and complicity.
… and the UN, IPCC, the OZ Govt. and the MSM just go about their merry way.
Just what the hell is going on here ? Is this Climate Groundhog Day?
00
Interesting when reading through the project scope and summary I find a disconnect to what the team delivered in the papers. It is not what they have been asked to do or am I missing something?
In summary: “South-eastern Australia is in the grip of a severe water crisis due to the worst drought in recorded history and increasing temperatures. This landmark project brings together a team of Australia’s leading climate scientists, water managers and historians with the common goal of reconstructing south-eastern Australia’s climate history.” – what they brought was an analysis on proxies from which none is from the region?
Then the uncertainty monster is laughing mad -they pretend to know the average temperature of “Australasia during A.D. 1238–1267, the 45 warmest 30-year pre-instrumental period, is 0.09°C (±0.19°C) below 1961–1990 levels.”.
So, if I choose any 17 thermometers in the giant area – based on 1960-1990 behaviour of those thermometers – I can tell the average temperature of the area with a precision of ±0.19°C for now? and this will be the same with other selected thermometers which behave like the trend between 1961-1990? But what is really the trend 1961-1990? Is it also not influenced by what thermometers I choose? If it is not influenced by the thermometers I choose why is HADCRUT4 different to HADCRUT3? And how about local climate and influences?
So they used a grant for a study to investigate possible water crisis to promote an alarmist agenda, not to do the science requested and have been busted at Climate Audit.
As Steve there says:
“I urge readers not to get too wound up about this, as there are a couple of potential fallback positions. They might still claim to “get” a Stick using the reduced population of proxies that pass their professed test. Alternatively, they might now say that the “right” way of screening is to do so without detrending and “get” a Stick that way. However, they then have to face up to the “Screening Fallacy”. ”
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/
00
Hi Jo,
I’ve posted three responses over at WUWT in regard to your question of [other] funding. Tough question, I’ve had two brief web searches.
00
For those who might be interested, here is an analysis of why there is no possible net CO2-AGW, apart from second order effects: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/mdgnn-limits-on-the-co2-greenhouse-effect/#more-6600
00
I can’t help asking why should I worry about .09 degrees C (about .16F) when the thermometers on my patio swing back and forth between 29 and 105F during the year (-1.6 to 40.6C)?
Those are actual observed readings from two thermometers that agree within 1 degree F when in the shade. It’s been that way since I’ve lived in this once desirable little haven in Southern California (43 years). Some summers are hotter, some are cooler. Some winters are colder, some are warmer. We’re influenced by cool ocean breezes, ocean currents, El Niño, La Niña and Santa Ana Winds. Take your pick. They’re all uncontrollable by us puny little humans, even if we wanted to.
It’s all been happening for millions of years and will keep on happening for millions of years more. And the tree rings in Tasmania, Russia or wherever else don’t mean as much as my cup full of cold coffee about the climate of this planet.
Actually my cold coffee means more right now than tree rings and I’m going to get it warmed up pronto.
Nothing changes. It just gets more outrageously abusive of science, statistics, good judgment and self-respect. Maybe I should add, abusive of the patience and the tax dollars of the people of Australia and the rest of the world. Outrage is not a strong enough word.
00
Its all got to do with the imminence of the start of the idiot Carbon Tax on July 1
Its no wonder that the Press Releases went out to all and sundry, and picked up mainly by the ABC
IT is also not surprising in the least, that there has been no follow up retractions by the ABC.
I reckon Gergis and Karoly will be a lot of pressure from academics in Melbourne University and Uni NSW for having bought the supposedly good name of the Uni’s into disrepute…and so they should ..its not the first time Karoly has set the side down
00
I wasn’t really going to mention this because some people may think I’m drawing a pretty long bow to associate the two, but it is worthy of some thought and does actually fit in with the main thrust of this Post from Joanne.
Being an old guy, I remember and old TV show from the mid 70’s called Quincy ME, and it starred that guy from The Odd Couple, Jack Klugman. It was the forerunner of all those forensic shows around at the moment, and probably the closest of them would be Silent Witness. Keep in mind that this was from the 70’s, and while (probably) feasible today with DNA and the huge advances in forensic science, this was long before any of that.
In one episode (and after all, this is TV we’re talking about) a thigh bone was found at a construction site, just the thigh bone. Given to Quincy, he then determined the age, the sex, and from that he constructed the body, which, amazingly bore a striking resemblance to who it turned out to be. He also determined, from the thigh bone alone, and not after he found out who it was, that the person was murdered, and during the course of the one hour episode he solved a 20 year old murder.
Now, little resemblance to the Post here in question you may think.
It seems to me that in this case, and even for CAGW in the overall sense, I get the impression that they have taken one thing in isolation and comprehensively constructed, around that, something that they ‘want’ to fit into that. From that, they then found a cause, so they can lay blame. Then, they have investigated, and in the process, they have found other things that they then attempt to fit the original premise.
They are looking for things that will fit in with their argument. The models are the same. They also are used to fit an end result they hope to find, and I get the impression they just keep ‘fiddling’ with the model(s) until something close to, or exactly fitting that desired end result is achieved.
Then it’s just a matter of ‘feeding’ it to the punters.
In much the same manner as the Quincy script writers fed that episode to the punters in the 70’s, when forensic examination was something the punters had never seen before. They had to make that script believable, and now, with all this CAGW, a somewhat similar case, they have to make the ‘script’ for CAGW believable.
Everything is designed to fit the argument if you can see that.
One inherent problem with this is that sometimes, the ‘punters’ actually follow the same process, and come up with different results, as happened here.
I know, I know, this is another case of Tony using an ‘inefficient’ analogy, but hey, you guy know me now.
Tony.
00
Gergis et al (which includes Karoly) do have an out:
“[For predictor selection, both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period to avoid inflating the correlation coefficient due to the presence of the global warming signal present in the observed temperature record.] Only records that were significantly (p<0.05) correlated with the [detrended] instrumental target over the 1921–1990 period were selected for analysis"
By removing the square bracketed comments, the box-office blurb then accurately describes the paper's actual methodology. Of course, this destroys the original "we didn't cherrypick data" stance, but which MSM outlet will publish that ?
H/T Climate Audit
00
20 days till Carbon Price mechanism operating!
Re solar generation projects you will be happy about this:
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/450m-solar-project-for-outback-nsw-20120609-202cd.html#ixzz1xRoXlLUM
As you know, WA getting lashed by severe storms—something that will become more common due to AGW.
00
here we go again:
11 June: Radio Australia: Research shows humans main cause of global warming
A US-led research group is claiming to have bolstered the argument that global warming is real, and humans are largely to blame…
The research has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The team looked at rising ocean temperatures over the past 50 years, and a dozen models projecting climate change patterns.
Australian based co-author, Dr John Church from Australia’s island state of Tasmania says there’s no way all of the world’s oceans could’ve warmed by one tenth of a degree Celsius without human impact…
He says nature only accounts for 10 per cent of the increase.
Leading climate change and oceanography expert, Professor Nathan Bindoff says scientists are now certain man-made greenhouse gases are the primary cause.
“The evidence is unequivocal for global warming,” he said…
http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/2012-06-11/research-shows-humans-main-cause-of-global-warming/958298
00
and this is just one part of the horror story that is CAGW/carbon dioxide tax and emissions trading:
11 June: Daily Telegraph: Carbon tax shoots holes in Liberty balance sheet by: EXCLUSIVE BY STEVE LEWIS
STRUGGLING small businesses face punishing power bill rises of up to 25 per cent due to the carbon tax and are warning of job losses and flow-on price hikes.
Putting a lie to Julia Gillard’s claim that only big polluters will pay, the owner of six McDonald’s outlets in Sydney estimates the carbon tax will add hundreds of thousands of dollars to his annual operating costs.
Melbourne-based firm Hardchrome Engineering estimates the government’s greenhouse scheme will add $70,000 – or 25 per cent – to its energy bill and says each of its 3000 customers will likely pay more from July 1.
NSW service station operator Craig Glasby has been told his power bills will rise by 15 per cent and is now considering cutting back his staff to cover the increased costs…
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/carbon-tax-shoots-holes-in-liberty-balance-sheet/story-e6freuy9-1226390604484
11 June: Daily Telegraph: $46m carbon tax bill for hospitals, schools by: EXCLUSIVE BY SIMON BENSON
With 220 hospitals across NSW, the average cost to power each hospital will increase by $120,000 a year, according to the budget papers.
Hospitals are particularly energy intensive due to the hi-tech operating, diagnostic and emergency equipment and the fact they are open 24 hours a day.
But the education department will also have a four-year liability of $77 million – or $19.25 million a year. With 2177 schools across the state, the average bill increase per year for every school will be $9000.
Railcorp will pay an extra $57 million over four years, or $9000 a year for every one of its 1650 train carriages.
Even NSW Police will be slapped with an annual $4 million increase to power bills for its 500 police stations.
The state’s jails would pay an extra $58,000 a year each to cover the carbon tax, while State Transit would pay an extra $1 million a year to run city buses…
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/m-carbon-tax-bill-for-hospitals-schools/story-e6freuy9-1226390600021
00
outrageously misleading headline from reuters:
10 June: Reuters: China emissions study suggests climate change could be faster than thought
By David Fogarty and David Stanway
Editing by Jonathan Thatcher
China’s carbon emissions could be nearly 20 percent higher than previously thought, a new analysis of official Chinese data showed on Sunday, suggesting the pace of global climate change could be even faster than currently predicted…
“The sad fact is that Chinese energy and emission data as primary input to the models will add extra uncertainty in modelling simulations of predicting future climatic change,” say the authors of a study in the journal Nature Climate Change.
The team of scientists from China, Britain and the United States, led by Dabo Guan of the University of Leeds, studied two sets of energy data from China’s National Bureau of Statistics. One set presented energy use for the nation, the other for its provinces.
They compiled the carbon dioxide (CO2) emission inventories for China and its 30 provinces for the period 1997-2010 and found a big difference between the two datasets.
“MORE UNCERTAIN THAN EVER”
“The paper identifies a 1.4-billion tonne emission gap (in 2010) between the two datasets…
Guan added the China is not the only country with inconsistent energy data…
The findings also expose the challenges China faces in introduce emissions trading schemes, which need accurate measurement, reporting and verification of energy use and carbon pollution at the local and national level…
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/10/us-china-emissions-idUSBRE8590AD20120610
what fun the banksters will have trading carbon dioxide derivatives!
00
@Maxime
You deliberately evaded the point of my comment (golly gee, fancy that)
The Gergis et al paper loudly proclaimed that “We haven’t cherry-picked data” – a large neon light selling point
It has been conclusively demonstrated that in fact this paper DID cherry-pick data. That is why the paper has been removed
We are predicting that the way around this – the “out” – will be for the authors to say “Oh well, we did cherry-pick … but so what ?”
You think that science progresses this way ? Oh dear !
00
How for do the reactionary morons in Canberra have to go to get their (C)riminal Tax as Gillard and Swann single handedly destroy the Australian economy.
00
Someting else to worry about about Gillard and her Gov is up to. Bite the hand that feeds you..
“CHINA Warned Australia For Their Deepening Military Ties With US While Using China For Their Economy”
http://www.4thmedia.org/2012/06/10/china-warned-australia-for-their-deepening-military-ties-with-us-while-using-china-for-their-economy/
00
“Cherry Ripe, Cherry Ripe, Ripe red cherries…………………..” More smoke and inverted mirrors.
Goodness gracious me I am astounded our recent warming is clearly less than a bee’s digit warmer than it was in the Medieval Warm Period. Or if you take the lower error bar its less.
The question you need to ask however, if it’s warmer then why is Greenland not ‘green’ at present as much of it clearly was in the Medieval Warm Period with Viking colonization? The answer is simple – it was actually much warmer than at present. Research (see Salby 2012 – Physics of the Atmosphere and Climate p 71) by four listed authors indicates temperatures of up to 2 deg C warmer than in the late 20th Century.
There you are 3 years of “research” disproved in a matter of seconds with commonsense and some basic historical data. No need for proxies, 3000 iterations and flawed statistical analysis.
What a load of old hockey piffle propaganda this study turned out to be.
00
If you want a conceptual diagram of my comment above about cherry picking, smoke and inverted mirrors go to this site.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/screening-bias-cartoon-form/
Cherry Cheers.
00
How Gergis Suppressed The Medieval Warm Period
In the Gergis paper, the major headline conclusion was
Out of the 27 proxies in the Gergis paper, only 3 had data prior to 1430. Of these, the suppression of the MWP was due to one rogue data set – Palmyra Atoll. I have analyzed the impact, and list five reasons why it is rogue data. The reasons are not leading-edge science – more high school or first year undergraduate.
00
My summary of the Gergis affair, “The Gergis Paper Debunking – Peer Review is Inadequate” is here.
00
Jo, another list of possible funding sources for the Gergis project posted over at WUWT.
00
[…] Jo Nova Share this:PrintEmailMoreStumbleUponTwitterFacebookDiggRedditLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Climate Change and tagged climate fraud, climate models, climate research, PlayStation® climatology, weather superstition. Bookmark the permalink. ← Agenda 21: Alabama may have outfoxed it. Why you should care. […]
00
[…] Guardian), ”IT’S OFFICIAL: Australia is warming and it is your fault ” (News). JoNova
00
Gergis et al 2012 (Mk2) is shortly to be submitted for peer review.
I have tried to catalog the numerous faults and errors with the original – both those I have found, along with those raised at Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit.
These lists are not exhaustive by any means. Maybe others can find more, or are able to restate in more succinct terms.
00
Gergis et al. (2012) delayed again, now the U. Melbourne website says they hope to re-submit by end of Sept. This is “curious” in the extreme since Gergis pretended (or believed) that it was going to be a quick and minor fix that should not greatly affect the study’s results. Meanwhile, more interesting aspects have emerged (Neukom is one of the co-authors and apparently at the core of handling the proxies and stats according to the Gergis announcement when he came to Melbourne to work on the project):
Climategate emails in which Phil Jones and Raphael Neukom discuss possibly dodgy statistical methods for another SH reconstruction
00
hmmm I’m not sure why my new comment plunked into the middle of the thread at #78 but there are updates on Gergis et al. (2012) and the fact that it has not yet been re-submitted as planned. Evidently the data/stats issues are more serious than Gergis and her co-authors first recognized, because they have now missed the IPCC deadline for inclusion in AR5, so far as one can tell.
00
Can anyone determine what happened with the Gergis et al (2012) paper? per my post at Climate Audit, now even the announcement that a re-submission was expected (“likely”) by the end of Sept. 2012 seems to be removed from the Univ. of Melbourne website. Stranger, stranger, strangest:
http://climateaudit.org/2012/08/02/gergis-and-watts-delayed/#comment-348628
00
[…] – as Jo Nova noted – this shocking story exposing man's greed, selfishness and wanton refusal to accept the […]
00