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)
Hi Rhoda, always delighted to read your posts on Coffee House.
OK Stephen, that accounts for Richard Betts.
What's with Rob Wilson? :-)
I think this episode clearly shows how valuable the collaborative work is from ClimateAudit (full credit to Jean S remember) and how shallow and partisan is the approach at RealClimate. Gavin's comment at RC is beneath contempt and he has gone down severely in my estimation over this.
When I read: "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." you cannot help but laugh. This is a key step in the analysis, to detrend the data, but they got it wrong. Didn't they check that they had applied their workflow correctly?. Its very careless for such careful researchers and highlights once again how peer review is not adequate for ensuring that results of these climate science papers are at all valid. The only way to ensure they are valid is to show all the data and the workings so the results can be reproduced and checked. Peer review is a cover for arguing from authority, and this shows it is not up to the job. (That is also true for Steig09 which should be withdrawn).
So the paper will need revision. Are they also going to show the discarded series? Without that its difficult to give it any credibility. And are they now in danger of falling into the "Screening Fallacy" trap?
Finally, is Gergis going to go on TV and retract her comments? She was a little premature with her assertions and extremely arrogant in her reply to Steve M. One can live in hope that she might have learned a little humility and might herself focus on doing her research properly rather than being dismissive to others with far more statistical knowledge than herself, but given her background as an activist it seems unlikely.
The fact that the methodology of a paper which was widely publicized is found to be flawed has to be news worthy, does it not?
If no news organization covers this error freely admitted by the paper's authors (and missed by the paper's peer reviewers) - then this shows clear media bias (given the air time and column inches dedicated to the paper's now suspect conclusions). If the news organization thought it was important to bring this research to the public's attention, then the media should just as urgently bring attention to its flaws.
I would also suspect that the second round of reviewers will take a little more care - and will ask for the exact raw data and code necessary to compare the stated methodology with the actual methodology. (Imagine the ridicule if a second error were to be found post publication). This will then reveal the details of any non-standard statistical procedures, such that their properties can be understood.
Jo Nova weighst in.
http://joannenova.com.au/2012/06/300000-dollars-and-three-years-to-produce-a-paper-that-lasted-three-weeks-gergis/
I could go for 100k per year for 3 years research. Or 300k per year, Gergis is not clear on that.
Most of my research would be on temperature proxies in large controlled vegetated sporting areas.
About 18 holes large. 36 on a good day. I believe in being thorough.
Despite this fiasco does anyone doubt that somehow or other the southern hemisphere hockey stick will come flying back again just like a boomerang?
Perhaps an audit of Gergis' PhD dissertation is in order.
Seems difficult to find any info on what grant(s) fed the Gergis et al (2012) study. JoNova's post cites one that seems to be much smaller and only about precipitation. Perhaps a large umbrella grant like this one, which cites Univ. of Melbourne as a partner org., is feeding Gergis et al??
ARC Centres of Excellence for Climate System Science
$21.4 million can feed a lot of papers. Gergis said on her blog that hers was for 3 years, this "umbrella" grant is for 7 yrs but presumably could feed a lot of lesser grants for varying time scales.
Les Johnson;
(Jun 9, 2012 at 7:08 PM)
"Most of my research would be on temperature proxies in large controlled vegetated sporting areas.
About 18 holes large. 36 on a good day. I believe in being thorough."
Crude. I propose a more sophisticated alternative.
I would measure the temperature proxy by the loss of currency in my wallet following rehydration after exposure to the climate in these vegetated areas.
And I could get an inverse correlation by using distillate consumption (again, the wallet loss being the proxie) in colder climates.
How about "No New Southern Hemisphere Hockey Sticks After All - gate." It's damn descriptive, but it doesn't flow cleanly off the tongue.
What could AR5 possibly say about hockey sticks? No clear evidence, previous methods faulty, too much uncertainty, outright scam? Sure!
Les Johnson
You do that research and meanwhile I will be glad to pursue well funded climate research from the ski slopes..... unlike the alarmists I'm not really worried about snow disappearing too soon, but I will be happy to personally monitor the ski slopes and issue regular "scientific" reports.
ThinkingScientist:
All the comment at RealClimate was about defending Steig09 against O’Donnell et al (and we all know who al is) until the AMS dropped Gergis and the Schmidt hit the fan.ZT:
.. which is hardly news, but is worth acting on. The Graun covered the original fanfare announcement on their science page athttp://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2012/may/17/australasia-hottest-60-years-study
so no doubt Goldacre (Bad Science) will have something to say. (Sorry, he’s on record as saying climate science is too difficult for him).
Roy:
I think this one is already the hockey stick that became a boomerang.
Someone must have already said that, surely.
Josh?
"...but I will be happy to personally monitor the ski slopes and issue regular "scientific" reports"
Sorry skilphil, but that particular job has been taken by John Mashey. :)
Steve is now in South America with Gergis's colleague Neukom.
http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/09/law-dome-in-the-neukom-south-american-network/
Gergis-gate being too obvious, I suggest we label this story "Gergis Khan('t)"
Sheilagate?
But Shub, Skilphil and John Mashey could audit each other's results.
From, until a year or so ago, being a near neighbour of our host to residence in Italy, I could use a grant to study the effect of temperature variation on olive trees, vines and wild boar populations: a three-fer!
I am disappointed that having followed this whole thread, all the while incubating a joke about hockey sticks and boomerangs, right at the last moment two people scoop me. Aye weel, I bet La Gergis is feeling worse...
@RayG "Perhaps an audit of Gergis' PhD dissertation is in order.":
Reconstructing El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO); evidence from tree-ring, coral, ice-core and documentary palaeoarchives, A.D. 1525-2002.
Gergis, Joëlle L 2006
School of Biological Earth and Environmental Science, UNSW., University of New South Wales (Australia), 337 pp.
http://disccrs.org/dissertation_abstract?abs_id=1012
From the abstract:
To assess whether late 20th century ENSO variability was unprecedented within existing palaeoarchives, a number of ENSO proxies (tree-ring, coral, ice-core and documentary) were examined back to A.D. 1525. Strikingly, 43% of extreme, 20% of very strong and 28% of all protracted ENSO events reconstructed occur within the 20th century. Of all the extreme event years, 30% occur post-1940. Principal component analysis was then used to extend instrumental records of the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) Nino 3.4 Sea Surface Temperature (Nino 3.4 SSTs) and the CEI by 347 years. Marked changes in the frequency and intensity of ENSO begin ~A.D. 1850, consistent with the end of the Little Ice Age (~A.D. 1550-1850) and boom in global industrialisation.
The results presented suggest it is likely that ENSO operates differently under natural (pre-industrial) and human-influenced influenced background states. Given the large-scale socio-economic impacts of ENSO events, future investigations into the implications of an increasingly anthropogenically warmed world may have on ENSO are vital. Further information and access to relevant publications can be found at www.joellegergis.com
Most of the tree proxies are from NZ where there is a pending court case against NIWA over the instrumental record.
Just saying...
Andy scrase
"Most of the tree proxies are from NZ where there is a pending court case against NIWA over the instrumental record."
It's more ironic than that. As I've noted elsewhere the recent NIWA revision has changed the Hokitika instrument record that was used by Cook to develop the Oroko proxy t(one of only two covering the MWP in Gergis). NIWA added that the per-1900 series was too unreliable to include in the series, but these measurements had been used by Cook to validate their proxy model.
Nicl: I like your methodology for temperature proxies. Mind if I use it? A lot?
Cook used the instrumental record of a place called "Hokitika"?
:)
"We will not be entertaining any further correspondence on the matter"
Entertaining-gate.
'ARC Centres of Excellence for Climate System Science'
Is that a hard or soft 'c' in ARC?
Depending whether subject matter or location are more to your tastes; I suggest "Upsidedown Gate" or "Down under gate".
@Mike Jackson
I think that the majority of posters on this blog are knowledgable, intelligent, have a sense of humour and many are well qualified in one field or another. All can write serious posts or sarcastic posts or even belly laughing funny posts and I think that the blog is the blog. Changing the blog to somehow "look better" to others is not a path we should follow imho. Any observational comparisons made of the differences between RC and BH would, I believe strongly favour BH.
Mike have you tried leading any MPs gently by the hand? Mine is on the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee. I do tend to get argumentative from time to time but truly I have been tiptoeing around the subjects of energy and CO2 links to CAGW and getting nowhere. They have all been given a briefing which includes (amongst other things) the CO2 in a test tube thing and are confident they know "quite a lot". Give them any factual information that goes against what they have been told and they do not want to know. Write to a minister and you get no response, they really are not interested.
My MP was an army officer and that gave me hope that he would be a no BS, give me the facts kind of bloke but sadly not. Before the last election Cameron said things like; we know whose money we are spending, defence is the first duty of any government and we dont believe in big government. Likewise my MP said on his web page "There needs to be a lot more plain speaking in parliament".
Now he keeps his head down, does not want to rock the boat and saddest of all he shows no interest in reading about his subject outside the "education" given by government experts.
Shub
"Cook used the instrumental record of a place called 'Hokitika'?"
There's gold in them thar hills. In the 1860s Hokitika was one of NZ's largest population centres.
Jun 9, 2012 at 3:57 PM | Don Keiller
Hi Don
I'm here! Happy to chip in if you think I can contribute - is there something in particular I can help with?
Cheers
Richard
PS. I'm not associated with RealClimate, and have no "story" to get "correct"!
Unregistered CommenterZT
If no news organization covers this error freely admitted by the paper's authors (and missed by the paper's peer reviewers) - then this shows clear media bias (given the air time and column inches dedicated to the paper's now suspect conclusions).
Did you tell the press? Did McIntyre tell the press? Did Anthony Watts tell the press?
Each and every green NGO sends out numerous press releases, all Universities have a media relations unit that tells the press about their work. The press do not go out looking for stories ... they have more than enough people sending them stories not to have to worry.
If no one tells them, why on earth would they cover the story.
As far as I know the Scottish Climate & Energy Forum (scef.org.uk) were the only people to contact the (Scottish) media. So, lets not start blaming the media for not covering a story which no one else is telling them about!
Scottish Sceptic what chance do you think there is of 'the Teams' BBC bag boy , Mr Black , actual given this coverage ? Let alone the Guardian which was more than happy to promote this paper but say nothing about ti being pulled .
Its not just telling the press , its getting past the gatekeepers in the press to the public .
Jun 9, 2012 at 6:41 PM | stephen richards
Hi Stephen
The March-April-May 3-month outlook actually said:
and
So yes there was no forecast of the very wet April, but it didn't exactly say "dry sunny and warm" like you seem to be remembering either - and indeed it was rather low in confidence.
Also the guidance for this type of forecast clearly states:
Anyone who has been paying attention will know that the concerns over drought were not just to do with the 3-month outlook - the relatively dry conditions over previous months played a large part.
By pretending that the 3-month outlook was some sort of definitive forecast upon which major decisions hinged, which then went wrong, you are simply setting up a strawman. The seasonal forecasts are known to be of low skill, and the only people who shout about them are people like you who just want to look for "failure". Yes, the barbecue summer press release of 2009 was an almighty cock-up, but nobody is over-selling seasonal forecasts any more, OK? :-)
Cheers
Richard
Hokitika is a small town on the west coast of NZ's south island.
Of interest is this:
link
Richard Betts
I see that the latest Metoffice blog informs us that
'In Europe, and especially the UK, the predominant wind direction is westerly.'
Yes.
Richard Betts
I do not doubt for one minute that the March April May "outlook" was exactly as you describe it. However the rest of us only remember what the tv and newspapers tell us which we assume comes from the Met Office. Those predictions were indeed for dry weather and drought.
You are not able to predict weather because neither you nor anyone else on the planet currently understands all the variables involved. Until someone solves the Navier-Stokes Equations nobody will be able to produce a real time dynamic model of our atmosphere. Your new super computer simply puts your hand into the pockets of people who can not afford to pay, takes their money and gives you a new toy. You do not seem to think that this is bad thing.
Who wants to bet that scientist/s at Realclimate were among the reviewers of this paper?
At RealClimate comment 58, moderator Jim replies to post:
Now this is comical.
1. Regional Curve Standardization (RCS) is used to remove the age/size effect. They never call that detrending.
2. Steve's "screening fallacy" is a no-brainer, and already well documented at various places. It's so well known that the detrending is specifically implemented -- and this is true for this very paper (gergis 2012) -- to counter it! (though jury's still out on effectiveness)
I think we can safely say that everything which has been poublished by the team and their disciples and that has been subject to peer/pal review is a load of utter bollocks. For lots of reasons - probably the main one being that they are a bunch of idiots.
The issue of Hokitika are based on the methodology used to infill temperature data from stations on the other side of the country due to lack of data.
The claim by NZCSC is that NIWA are not following peer reviewed process of Rhoades and Salinger, and this is the subject of a pending court case. According to commenters above, the Hokitika temp series has been used to validate the tree ring series.
@Scottish Sceptic
...and there was I thinking that journalists might want to report the facts!
Richard Betts:
Not no story - because all stories are eventually connected :) But for what it's worth I agree that you should not feel pressure to defend or condemn on one that's still in motion in the southern hemisphere, outside your specialism. Not yet, anyway. Come AR5 final version, this could get interesting.
The Golden Shield of Truth has reflected the image of the Gorgon back on itself. The journal taken out, the reviewers taken out, 3 years ' work and $AU 300,000 wasted, the career of Karoly damaged.
The elimination of the MWP was essential because after it was shown in 1997 that [CO2] lagged T by 800 tears, this was needed to calibrate CO2 climate sensitivity against post industrial warming.
The Shakun paper was an attempt, also still-born, to reverse calibration back to ice ages; it failed too.
Is it the case that present CO2 climate sensitivity is near zero and the IPCC has got virtually every aspect of the heat generation and transfer wrong? http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2012/06/07/mdgnn-limits-on-the-co2-greenhouse-effect/#more-6600
Jun 10, 2012 at 7:14 AM | spartacusisfree
it was shown in 1997 that [CO2] lagged T by 800 tears
-------------
I love it ! The tears will flow forever with their BS ... ROTFLMFAO
Forgive me if I am way behind the times...been happily watching the windmills of Central Scotland resolutely refusing to go round for a few day...and I may have missed something.
But I just posted this at CA.
'Forgive me if I am being over-simplictic, but I think I took the gist of this discussion as that the Australian guys fell into a fairly simple methodological trap and our gallant researcher JeanS was able to spot this before all the Kings Horses and All the Kings Men of the Climate Establishment noticed. Cue much embarrassment all round in the Augean Stables. Especially from the lady with the entirely unnecessary and credibility-limiting/ending ‘We call this ‘research’ and we will not entertain any more correspondence’ remarks.
If I have understood correctly, would it not be a good idea for the Climate Auditors to do a quick check of every other possible paper that may have used the same method…and fallen into the same trap?
Since every published scientific paper is, in theory at least, capable of being reproduced and replicated, there should not be any procedural obstacles placed in the way by the authors or their colleagues. And if there are it would be instructive to have them all documented in public….a website like this one would be a good place.
The climate establishment do not seem to have done a very thorough job on ‘peer-reviewing’ this paper…it seems likely that there are others. Many readers here (me included) have long called for science to be done properly and openly, not shoddily stitched up behind closed doors. Here is a golden opportunity to demonstrate in practice what it would mean.
Happy to lend my skills (A level Maths a long time ago, Science Masters (not much stats, lots of experiments ), and a bit of practical project management to such an endeavour.
We could always call it ‘research’ :-) '
Any takers?
Well, how about HasteGate:
Publish in haste (to meet that IPCC deadline) and repent at leisure. But it also captures the speed with which the CA mob found problems with it.
RE: David says:
"At RealClimate comment 58, moderator Jim replies to post:
Until Steve McIntyre addresses this "Screening Fallacy" issue (as he calls it), with conclusive, detailed analysis, he just doesn't have a case, period."
Multiple choice answer:
A. Jim is thick
B. Jim is telling porkies
How can anyone not understand the "Screening Fallacy"? And its so easy to demonstrate with a spreadsheet and random number generator. Try to publish on this and journal editors are likely to reject on the grounds that this effect is known and the paper adds little to science...
Richard - aren't you being a wee bit selective here?
The "money quote" I remember came from the next three month outlook issued on 23.3.12 for April/May/June, which included:- "....... given the current state of soils and groundwater levels in these areas, drought impacts in the coming months are virtually inevitable.
I'm sure you'll point out in defence that this opinion was attributed to the Environment Agency, but nevertheless - the Met Office selected it for inclusion in it's concise and widely read "Three Month Outlook" and therefore must be held responsible.
This also neatly illustrates a common problem in the "climate alarmism industry" where institutions pick out and emphasise each other's most extreme statements - thereby stoking up the general atmosphere of alarm, while still allowing themselves to duck out of direct responsibility.
I appreciate that you come here, almost uniquely amongst your fellows, carrying the banner for free and open discussion - but that makes it even more disappointing when you select your data to try and make a point.
If climate science is really going to embark on the long road back to credibility - the cherries are going to have to be left on the trees for a while.
Anonymous: Hastegate has merits but how about Deadlinegate? The IPCC AR5 report was clearly the key target for this.
Foxgoose; the problem is that all these agencies are hung up on The barbed wire fence of the amazing climate models where exaggerated heating is offset by exaggerated cooling, none of which is based on correct physics. So, to justify their mortgages and power plays they're frantically latching onto every possible favourable [to their case] statistic.
It's a bit like an inverse Fry's Five Boys' Chocolate Bar: they're now at the Pacification stage, soon becoming Desperate: http://www.flickr.com/photos/topcat_angel/2343618575/
After a pleasantly restless night - contemplating the many excellent suggestions so far - I've come back to the comment you made earlier Richard.........
The Gergis paper was carefully crafted with the best skills "climatology" has to offer, carried aloft to massive acclaim from the cheerleading crowd, hurled at the intended enemy while the tribal elders at Rea Climate howled for the kill.......... and then gracefully turned around (spurred by a gentle breeze from the CA crowd) and decapitated its creators.
It just has to be BOOMERANGATE
Jun 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM | Foxgoose
Hi Foxgoose
No, I'm not being selective, I showed the March-April-May outlook because that's what Stephen specifically mentioned.
The April-May-June outlook is here, and yes it says:
and
So, as I said, the antecedent conditions led to concern over drought.
You say these outlooks are "widely-read" but that's not the intention - the only people advertising them online are climate sceptics! They are several layers down in the Met Office website and are there for the use of people who know how to use them (and how not to), and they are not highlighted on the top-level website or given other prominence.
Of course I suppose we could not make them available at all, but then when they turn out to be "right", we'll just get accused of not warning people! We can't win :-)
Cheers
Richard