Friday
Jun082012
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Gergis paper disappears
Jun 8, 2012 Climate: MWP Paul Matthews has just drawn my attention to the page for the Gergis et al paper at the AMS Journal website, which now displays a notice as follows:
The requested article is not currently available on this site.
Is this significant I wonder?
Update on Jun 9, 2012 by
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill
Steve M reports that the paper has been "put on hold".
Reader Comments (279)
8:02 PM | Jack Savage
"I know "Patience!" is an admonition invented by dull buggers who cannot think fast enough..."
Thanks to Spike Milligan and Puckoon - my favourite book.
@Huhnetothe slammer
From your love of good literature and your excellent choice of handle....I conclude we are twins separated at birth.
My suggestion to the authors is that they follow their stated method and release the reults. We know that six or eight proxies satisfy their stated criteria. Maybe some of the omitted proxies will be included if they are detrended.
So make a committment to publish the results exactly as they would have been if the stated process had actually been followed. With data and code this time please. No going off in any other direction with the same data- let's see what the result really was.
The response will determine whether the method is decided in advance or subsequent to processing.
David: Copied from RC the expanded et al "by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly". And to that we add the peer reviewers, is that typically 3? So 8 people, plus or minus, have already reviewed the paper but the most fundamental analysis of all, the proxy selection, wasn't scrutinized?
AND this paper had been given priviledged admittance to AR5, under Patchy's beady eye. btw who is the Lead Author of the chapter in question?
This is reminding me of that other story, the Ten Trees and YAD061, where so much was to depend on so few.
Then JeanS: "Please tell me what I'm doing wrong"...... ah, that phrase stands so powerfully against "Hide the Decline". What a world of difference in attitude.
Thank you all.
"... it's called research." Only in climate science circles it appears, elsewhere "...it's called "sloppy research."
It would be really interesting to see a timeline of events from Karoly and his colleagues. Did they really spot an error in an already submitted paper before Steve "also" spotted it? What could it have been that made them decide to look at the paper again? [sarc]
Colour me cynical.
Ah, should have read CA first.
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
The significant thing here is that CA and Steve Mc are being taken seriously by the establishment. And getting some acknowledgement. A few years back this would not have happened. Auditing works. Another brick in the wall.
I see Karoly's email as nothing more than damage limitation. What else could they do once it was obvious and public that the work has a fundamental error? To my mind it reads as a cynical quasi press release with the baloney about "This is a normal part of science"- tthe real attitude of the authors is as displayed in Gergis' original "We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter."
In order to rescue The Project, a paper providing the same results as the withdrawn effort will have to be produced. Last submission date is 31 Jul 2012.
How will they go about this? Speleotherms are a perfect proxy for climate science -- very variable, lots of wiggle room, lots of opportunity for discarding the series which don't match the known result and hiding the discarded series from inquiring eyes. There must be a way out from their dilemma -- after all, this paper was specifically written to help AR5 come to the conclusion that it's worse than we thought, timed to nip in under the wire and cut off any responses critical of its findings.
Submitted 30 July? We'll see.
Here's a quote I found about speleotherms:
quote
A USEFUL STARTING POINT FOR SPELEOTHERM CLIMATE RECONSTRUCTION
IS TO ASSUME THAT:
· every sample has a different response to climate, and that even two stalagmites ten cm apart in the
same cave will have different climate signals.
· that non-linear responses should be expected due to the inherently non-linear hydrology of karst
· deeper, slower dripping samples will show more linear responses, but will also be lagged and
maybe even have no response to surface climate. In contrast, shallow and fast dripping stalagmites will be very responsive to climate but will be more difficult to calibrate and understand.
· Most climate proxies preserved in stalagmites are a complex mixture of soil, vegetation, rainfall,
evaporation, hydrological and geological processes.
unquote
I've got it filed under 'good grief!'
JF
Anybody live in Canberra?
From the National Library Site.
About this event
Unearthing Australia's Climate History
Dr Joelle Gergis reconstructs south-eastern Australia's rainfall variations back to first European settlement, highlighting some of the first-hand descriptions and artworks inspired by the epic droughts and floods that have shaped our nation. She described how to get involved in a new 'citizen science' project (ozdocs.climatehistory.com.au) to help write our nation's climate history.
Tuesday 14 August, 2012 6 pm
Theatre, Free
Hmm "Citizen Science" - I think we have that covered already.
@GrantB - '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.'
What is the minor error or where will the adjustment be document?
Interesting/amusing comment at RC. The spin is on:
"Response to no. 39: My impression is actually that the particular error was not first identified at Climate Audit. Karoly's letter says "also". But whatever, this is a perfectly good example of science working properly. My initial impression is that Gergis et al.s' results will not wind up changing much, if at all.--eric"
The full sentence said: "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."
So eric (sic) implies CA's identification was "also" to someone else identifying the issue. But the full sentence makes it clear it was 'also' to "scrutiny of our study".
I would not be surprised if the following statement proves true "My initial impression is that Gergis et al.s' results will not wind up changing much, if at all". But why? I project that instead of re-doing the analyses the way it was described, they will instead tweak the analysis method (with a 'trick'?) - for example, justifying why they do not need to use detrended series - and coming up with a very similar result.
Jun 9, 2012 at 7:27 AM The Leopard In The Basement
You are probably right that this will make little or no difference but it is conceivable that this particular paper may (depending on the outcome of the data review) be a significant one.
McIntyre is right to call for posters to play down the triumphalism; pointing the finger and sneering is not a critical method likely to endear the critic to those he is trying to convince.
The importance of this incident is that those with a decent reputation on the sceptical side of the argument are in a strong position to say that they identified a flaw in this paper which may (or may not) be fundamental to its findings.
No suggestion that the data was cherry-picked; no comment about Gergis' rather abrupt refusal to release her data or explain her reasons for selecting the data she did; just the simple fact that somebody tried to replicate the work on the basis of the information contained in the paper and found it flawed.
There are enough honest people in government, science and the media who would listen to that argument and its corollary, namely that climate science does not have a monopoly of wisdom when it comes to the analysis of data and it is possible even for an experienced group to make errors which result in the production of a flawed paper.
Whether one then goes on to make the point that at least one of the authors is an environmental activist, that there is at least prima facie evidence that the paper produced a desired result and no-one therefore bothered to check it, and that if all the data had been publicly available the error might have been identified a lot sooner is a decision to make in the circumstances.
If we can resist the temptation to crow and we address this with a certain degree of dignity it may enhace the reputation of those who dissent from the orthodoxy. It may also wrong-foot the committed warmists which will help to plant a seed of doubt in minds that are currently not open to new ideas on the subject.
@Mike Jackson Jun 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Wise words. I hope they're heeded.
I've just been to Real Climate, they're in denial. No rational intelligent person could read that site and believe their views are based on science.
A moderator is already saying that the Gergis et al results "won't change much, if at all". How could he come to that conclusion?
If they're anything like the hockey team they'll put the paper out again and have someone support it with a study using milk bottle tops as proxies showing that the 20th century is indeed the warmest for the last 1000 years.
Mike Jackson, as ever, wise words, but I have to say that the withdrawal of the paper, even temporarily must give Steve Mc a feeling of quiet satisfaction given the churlish ill-mannered reponse he got from Gillies. Having said that I think you're being over optimistic if you think they will credit Steve and co. over at CA with discovering the flaw. They're already hinting that they knew already, in which case Gillies needs to get her money back from the charm school.
Gergis, not Gillies. Sorry
Mike Jackson
"... help to plant a seed of doubt in minds ..."
Meh! Merchant of Doubt!
Do you even know the struggle that took place to weed out merchants of doubt like you from climate discourse? And now you think it is a good thing to make people doubt things, especially the most important thing in life (and our grand children's lives too), the looming catastrophic anthropogenic global warming?
And you call yourself a skeptic?
Real skeptics are scientists, and climate scientists are real scientists. Therefore climate scientists are the real skeptics here.
The so-called 'skeptics' like yourself and everyone else on this blog are climate deniers and merchants of doubt.
The end of the world is really truly nigh!
(Ahem! In the current unprecedented drought of trolls, that was me pretending to be one. A troll that's ready "to entertain communication")
GrantB
The Climate Science Team
The University of Melbourne:
"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."
A juvenile opening, GrantB, from one signing themselves from the University of Melbourne (which I have known since cows grazed in an open paddock there), a university in which I have an expectation of excellence and wisdom.
I have considerable doubt in "global warming" but have never, and will never, "deny" climate. It is all around us; it has changed over time, and will continue to.
Be exact, and be respectful of your fellow man or you cannot expect, and will not get, their respect in return.
Roger Carr.
Grant was being satirical.
The stream of consciousness emanating from Gavin Schmidt is a sight to behold.
Buffy Minton: "Roger Carr. Grant was being satirical."
Uh-huh... but satire is not appropriate in this matter, nor in this context, and I refuse to admit it here where lives, livelihoods and massive sums of money are on the line.
Let them giggle in the caf..
Geronimo
Yes, I understand that my optimism is likely misplaced but I really don't care what RC think or do. In my view they are beyond redemption (well .. just about, since we are told nobody is totally beyond redemption!).
I just have this sneaking feeling that there are still people who would understand the sceptic case if put to them properly and it should be comparatively simple with instances like this present one for sceptics with some expertise and decent qualifications — which rules out the likes of me and a lot of those who just shoot their mouths off at places like WUWT (sorry, Anthony, but they do!) — to walk them through the arguments and point out where the orthodoxy itself is at fault.
It just needs a couple of the right people to say, "hang on a minute, these guys have got a point". Realistically, that's all we're asking for, isn't it?
What's the beef Roger? GrantB's post is an inoffensive example of what is commonly known as "satire". And as an alumnus of both UNSW and Sydney U, I was less than impressed by the convening professor at a conference I attended in Labor heartland recently, aka Melbourne, when he started crapping on about the "5-star green venue", no doubt giving a nod and a wink to the cognoscenti that he's a Gillard and carbon tax admirer. Granted that he could be a Monash graduate though, couldn't be bothered looking it up.
And no this isn't a Sydney vs. Melbourne thing. It's a much more livable city than Sydney in many ways, just wish a few more people would speak up against the PC and nanny state BS.
Charles Dawson of Piltdown Man fame is connected with other controversies. In 1907 he discovered bricks at a Roman fort in Pevensey in East Sussex. They had inscriptions on them including the name of the fort, Anderida, and were dated around 400 AD. Most archaeologists accepted the bricks as genuine with only a few being sceptical.
It was only in the 1970's that the bricks were found to be fakes. Thermoluminescent dating, a new technology, determined that the bricks were in fact less than 100 years old.
In 1895 Charles Dawson, at the age of 31, was elected a fellow of the Society of Antiquaries. Dr Miles Russell of Bournemouth University has investgated Charles Dawson's finds and found that 38 were fake.
He wrote that Charles Dawson's career was "built upon deceit, sleight of hand, fraud and deception, the ultimate gain being international recognition".
It took 70 years to prove that the bricks were fakes using new technology. One day in the not too distant future new technology will conclusively prove that catastrophic man-made global warming is fake. Until that time many scientists will continue to genuinely believe in it and produce papers which erroneously show that their belief is true.
From an Australian layman’s perspective, the astonishing thing about this sequence of events is David Karoly admitting any kind of an error in work he is associated with.
In a field not short of arrogant and dismissive self-promoters, Karoly is right up there at the head of the peloton.
I am wondering whether this episode might help to catch the interest of statisticians and people who seriously care about abuses of data and methods per se, i.e., experts who are not (yet) engaged in climate issues but who will be offended by bad stats, bad science.
Perhaps statisticians should be encouraged to take a professional interest in "auditing" the work of scientists in a variety of fields. They will be reluctant, particularly in light of the abuse that Wegman was put through, and also because math geeks don't typically love to dirty their hands in a lot of real world stuff.
This website straightstatistics.org (linked on Unthreaded, h/t John Shade) seems like a good place to start. It seeks to engage journalists and statisticians with issues of misuses of data and methods. I've sent them some links to BH and CA simply urging that they take a look at the statistics issues with the Gergis et al (2012) paper:
Columbia Univ. development guru Jeffrey Sachs embarrassed by mis-use of data in paper
it is an amoly of some sorts ?
Normally the chap=mpagen left NEVER admits errors.
They are always right, sometimes misunderstood.
Or, when all evidence points against them, they were "tired", while doing much good for the community. At least when they have enough diversity flags checked in their favor.
Note however the speed with which the chick (a Phd, lol) , or better a "Phd") checks out when adversity comes her way, and let matters be handled by her "superior". Because she has a life she knows, she knows how to organise. it would be totally unfair to keep asking the chick questions, that wld be soooo misoginistic.
When it wld be a reverse situation where laudum and accolades were pile upon the publications, there would only be ONE NAME, and that wld be the chicks of course. Then she wld have time.
There’s something weird about the article at RealClimate. Something that hasn’t been noted is that eric the article author is Steig of Steig et al (2009); that the the article makes a point of rubbishing O’Donnell et al (2010) (co-author S. McIntyre); and that eric the moderator spends enormous effort below the line defending the work of Steig et al against criticism of eric the author’s claims about O’Donnell et al, using sometimes the first person, in a way which makes the drama incomprehensible to any but the cognoscenti. (All this before the Gergis story breaks).
At comment 33 eric the moderator promises that Steig will find time to answer O’Donnell “... this summer. It's more compelling with the Orsi et al results because they offer independent validation. That way it is not just me and O'Donnell arguing with another another. In the end, physics trumps statistics”.
Could someone comment on those last three words?
"... we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that ..."
ONE DAY before the Jean S post at CA? What a coincidence!
Clearly these people believe they can get away with anything.
The coincidence is even spookier than first thought!
Jean S's first mention of problems replicating the Gergis paper is timestamped 'Jun 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM'.
So are Karoly & chums claiming to have discovered this problem mere *hours* prior to it being mentioned at CA?
Jake Haye
With all respect, Jake — and I'm not having a go at you personally — you demonstrate the point I was making earlier.
We gain nothing and open ourselves to a riposte or to being ignored by trying to "prove" that because Karoly claims to have found the error himself 24 hours before JS's post, therefore it's too much of a coincidence, he's just covering his back, he would say that wouldn't he, aye! pull the other one, etc., etc.
My own opinion is that you may well be correct; it's not just in the field of climate science that people who have been found to be in error will desperately try to cover their backs. It's called human nature.
But how do we or the case we are trying to make benefit from scoring cheap points?
No offence intended.
Where are Richard Betts and Rob Wilson?
Having a pow-wow with Gavin and Michael to get their stories correct?
Mike Jackson, I'm with you all the way. As I said I don't believe they'll credit CA, but that's not important in the whole scheme of things, it's getting to the truth that matters, and the truth is that this was a lousy paper, that was prepared by five of the brightest minds on the planet and reviewed by another three before being given approval to publish, (it was "peer reviewed"), and within 24 hours of receiving it the CA people had found a major flaw at the start of the process, i.e. the selection of the proxies. The paper seems to be desperately needed for AR5 so we can expect it will be re-done in the next week or so, re-submitted and published before anyone can get to inspect it. The new methods and data will be kept secret and the team that produced it will tell the world they're being harassed by well organised, well funded deniers who are trying to discredit their work which has been peer reviewed and published in the scientific literature.
That's the way it's done. The environmentalists want to control the world, they don't attract any popular support worth mentioning in democracies, so they're trying to do it via "world governance" by unelected bureaucrats of like mind, they're not going to give up when they can point to the "science" and say we've got to do what they say or it will all come to a dreadful end.
A propos of nothing, but I'm bloody freezing and have just put the heating on, again. It has rained pretty soidly for seventy days and seventy nights, and the Met office told us 76night ago that we were in for a drought. Isn't anyone concerned that our nations meterological office is incapable of forecasting the weather? Isn't that their job?
I agree with Leopard...wait until a last-minute development will save the initial results!!
If I close my eyes I can almost see the contents of the frantic emails being sent by Mann right now all over the world to find a novel way to make McI look wrong.
Karoly said- '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.'
I take this as pure equivocation. 'We discovered' in the sense that they read it on Climate Audit but could not bring themselves to admit it. Thus the weaselly-worded verbal tergiversation.
@geoffchambers Jun 9, 2012 at 2:53 PM "physics trumps statistics"(?)
If actual measurements disagree with what climate theory predicts then those measurements clearly need adjustment. .
PaperGate
I did a cartoon too which now will have to wait till it might be appropriate. Fancy the journal doing the proper thing and retiring the paper, who'd have thought.
Steve Mc put up a post reporting that his request for data had been "blown off" by Gergis on May 31. That thread isn't so obvious on the front page because the title only refers to Myles Allen (Myles Allen Calls For “Name and Shame”) and Steve reports Gergis "blowing off" his request for data as a related matter. It was that thread which initiated the examination by Climate Audit readers and Steve's request for data no doubt had the authors on edge at the expected rubber gloves treatment. This is a paper already accepted for publication which was then re-reviewed because of Climate Audit's attention, so I don't think it really matters if they did get it themselves or not - they're hand was forced, and too late anyway.
Isn't the more general issue here the need to archive all the data that is relevant for supporting a conclusion? For me, at least, the real issue is the unseemly and unpleasant response from Gergis to Steve McIntyre's request for all the proxy data. Surely nowis the time for more civilized card carrying establishment climate scientists to speak up in favor of greater transparency and ease of replication.
I haven't read all the comments, but has BBD demanded the editor of the journal of the paper in question resign?
Andrew
Jun 9, 2012 at 3:25 PM | Mike Jackson
Speculation is inevitable when there is a notable gap in both credibility and information. Karoly has come back with the bare minimum here. Someone has managed to put his name to a report that cites "detrending" as a unique feature, it then transpires that this isn't the case. When I see this I then think there are all kinds of possibilities on what that someone later thinks the definition of "time" and "discovered" means exactly.
I admit I am probably suffering a prejudice and possibly too easily only see a homogeneous caste of people who I see as proponents of smug climate scientism. So I now only assume that the finest sophistry is crafted for their self preservation and make no allowances for endearing myself to these people by offering credulity to their every utterance.
I don't see that as a bad stance really. It can be fixed by them offering the truth - warts and all. If someone wants to be "endearing" and credulous then fine, do so. It will make a handy comparison and we can see how they get on. ;)
Anyway, I'm just in the peanut gallery who cares? Although I seem to detect that Steve McIntyre seems to have similar feelings when he describes the Karoly statement as:
"a claim that is distinctly shall-we-say Gavinesque"
BTW, has anyone seen Frank lately? Haven't seen him around for a while. I miss his cheery posts, like this one:
"While I realise this is pointless, you might actually try reading the Gergis paper to see what was actually done before getting on your high horse.
[...]
So first they only looked for proxies that track *detrended* temperature changes over the calibration interval - so they aren't selecting for trends at all, and all of the verification is based on getting a higher skill than using AR1 noise - exactly the issue you are accusing them of ignoring.
But hey, any reason to bash an inconvenient scientist right?"
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/1/joelle-gergis-talks-up-her-results.html
rising CO2 causes rising temperatures
in the same way that
Climate scientists finding errors in their papers causes Steve McIntyre to then find errors in papers
The semblance of credibility is the only currency in political enterprises like climate changeology and other fields where pseuds reign supreme.
Warmistas like to brag about how that's all they need to justify their cut of the new global technocracy.
"Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus" is a powerful weapon against them.
"But whatever, this is a perfectly good example of science working properly."
-Eric Steig
OK, help me out here. What is to stop 'them' graphing every one of the 62 proxies and putting those graphs against the best local instrumental records? Then we could see what is going on. They could pick the best ones themselves by eye, then give correlation numbers for them. Not original enough for a paper?
Too likely to show a sticky mess?
johnbuk: yes.
Where are Richard Betts and Rob Wilson?
Having a pow-wow with Gavin and Michael to get their stories correct
No Don, No. You got it all wrong. Betts is busy writing excuses for the UK Met Off's total cock up (yet again) of a spring forecast.
March-April-May will be dry sunny and warm with above average temps. That's why the other green fanatics at DEFRA called a drought and hose pipe ban. Sad to relate but their super-duper ultrasensitive, super- grided computer model FAILED yet again. It's easier to remember when they were last correct, never. Ah but wait, they swindled another £60million out of the taxpayers recently. All be right with their world in another 3 years when they will be asking for the next £120m for their new new super-wonderful computer.