JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Gergis Australian hockeystick is back: How one typo took four years to fix

UPDATED: See below for Stephen McIntyre’s response, with details of emails showing that Joelle Gergis did not independently discover the problem but learnt of it from Climate Audit.

The Gergis hockeystick was heralded in the media for a week in 2012 before it was cut apart online and months later, quietly withdrawn.  Headlines raved that Australia was having the “hottest years in the millennium”. As I said at the time, it was all silly beyond belief – the whole study relied on two bunches of trees in Tasmania and New Zealand to tell us that the greater continental area was 0.09°C warmer now than it was in 1000AD.  If trees in yonder Tassie can tell the whole continental temperature to a tenth of a degree, who needs thermometers (especially the kind which need 2 degree corrections)? Why does the BOM bother today?

Part II of this sorry paper has arrived under this auspicious headline at The Conversation:

“How a single word sparked a four-year saga of climate fact-checking and blog backlash”

Still hurts eh?

Look out. The Scientific Saints have arrived!

According to Joelle Gergis, skeptics found just “one typo”, and in Gergis’ own words “Instead of taking the easy way out and just correcting the single word in the page proof, we”...“set about rigorously checking and rechecking every step of our study.”

As you would right? The typo was so trivial Team-Gergis went on to take four more years to do “…three extra rounds of peer-review” with “four new peer-reviewers”, not to mention “countless rounds of internal revisions made by our research team and data contributors.”

I bet Gergis wishes she had got that word right in the first place.

All up, the paper went through “nine rounds of revisions, and was assessed a total of 21 times.”  Gergis proudly says: “One reviewer even commented that we had done “a commendable, perhaps bordering on an insane, amount of work”.

Insane is the word. This is setting a new bar in scientific hair shirts. You would almost think Joelle Gergis felt guilty for something?

Welcome to a university-world dilemma: should I correct one word or do four years hard labour?

Then again, perhaps The Typo did matter?

UPDATE: It’s not a “typo”, it’s a “bug”. As Dean from Ohio adds: “A typo is in text, where it can usually be detected and autocorrected, as it were, by the reader. A mistake in software (computer code) is called a bug, not a typo, and can hardly ever be detected and corrected mentally because the information space of all possible program outputs is so vast. “

Gergis writes about the skeptics who found the typo/bug:

Enter the bloggers

It turned out that someone else had spotted the typo too. Two days after we identified the issue, a commenter on the Climate Audit blog also pointed it out.

The website’s author, Stephen McIntyre, proceeded to claim (incorrectly) that there were “fundamental issues” with the study. It was the start of a concerted smear campaign aimed at discrediting our science.

McIntyre’s helpful corrections (thanks to Nick Stokes and Jean S.) are associated with “a smear campaign”. In the same vein, an unkind soul might reply that the bloggers were only correcting what was a shameless self-serving media push to get alarmist headlines.

Note that McIntyre is described as a “website author”, just a blogger. They could have described him as a published scientific author with a track record of finding holes in these kinds of papers. (Are the editors at The Conversation feeling threatened by independent, unfunded citizen scientists?)

What bad luck for Gergis that she discovered the mistakes two days before McIntyre and co, but didn’t think to email the hockeystick expert himself, so he could help spread the word and correct the misinformation going out over the media. I’m sure McIntyre would have been interested, and happy to pass on her correction. (See his reply below, her claims are a “fantasy”).

The new graph of the last thousand years in Australia

Four years work, and one word typo corrected, this below is the new graph. Notice how modern times are as hot as 1300AD but only when instrumental records (the orange line) are compared to tree rings. One day, when Tasmania gets trees again, we will be able to compare tree rings to tree rings.

There may (hopefully) be other historic proxies involved this time, but a proxy is a proxy. If it works in 1300AD, why doesn’t it work in 2000AD?

Australia, Graph, Temperature for the last millenia. Gergis 2016.

If we just look at the black PCR construction it would appear that all the extra CO2 didn’t make much difference. The proxy record has shown more variability, and similar temperatures when CO2 levels were supposedly perfect.

How do we know that last bump after 1950 is supernatural?  Here’s the press release.

Climate scientists used natural climate indicators, such as tree rings, corals and cave records, in conjunction with climate modeling to delve a thousand years back into the region’s temperature history. –  Phys Org

“Analysis of  shows that the warming experienced since 1950 cannot be explained by natural factors alone, highlighting the role of human caused greenhouse gases in the recent warming of the region.”

So there you have it. Models that don’t work in this millennia, and don’t explain the bumps of the past millennia, also cannot explain the current bump. That’s modern science: you get 95% certainty and argument from ignorance in the same sentence.

Tell us how good peer review is again

Gergis was not happy that her paper was used to show how flawed peer review was:

Former geologist and prominent climate change sceptic Bob Carter published an opinion piece in The Australian claiming that the peer-review process is faulty and climate science cannot be trusted.

Then again, Bob had a point. Gergis used 300,000 dollars and took three years to produce a flawed paper. Bloggers corrected Gergis’ mistake for free in three weeks. Peer review had missed it completely in the first place, then took four years to get it right.

What about those error margins

As Mike E then pointed out in comments,  the error margin in 2012 was larger than the result:

“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.”

Still hopefully, they fixed “one typo” and the uncertainty estimates. Looks like the hottest 30 year period back then, and reported to hundredths of a degree, may not have turned out to be the hottest thirty year period of that era in the new study.

Not so unprecedented

The new press release even admits things have been just as warm in Australia all those years ago:

“Analysis based on the smallest subset of the palaeoclimate data network suggests that single 30-year and 10-year periods of comparable temperatures to late 20th century levels may have occurred during the first half of the millennium.

That’s a fundamentally different announcement to the headlines the paper scored in 2012:

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.”

Where is the honesty in the Gergis essay that the conclusions of the new version are quite different and the past headlines were wrong?

UPDATE: From Stephen McIntyre

Gergis’ account of events is a fantasy. Among other things, her claim to have discovered the error two days prior to Climate Audit is a fabrication. The issue of ex post screening was raised at Climate Audit on May 31, with particular concern over spurious regression between trends. Gergis et al was defended by a couple of commenters who pointed out that Gergis’ correlations were (supposedly) done using de-trended series. Jean S then checked this claim, pointing out  that their correlations failed with detrended data, from which we concluded that they had not done their calculation the way that they claimed. Jean S comment was posted on June 5 16:42 blog time (-5). This was 23:42 Swiss time (+2) and 7:42 am June 6 AET (+10).

Neukom sent Gergis an email notifying her of the problem at June 6 9:46 am AET (+10), June 6 1:46 am Switzerland (+2). Neukom, Gergis and Karoly then discussed the bad news.

Both at the time and in her recent article, Gergis claimed that they had discovered the problem “independently” of Climate Audit, but this is contradicted by emails showing that they had been reading Climate Audit and by the above timeline.

There are of course many other untruths in her article.

UPDATE #2:

From data that’s mangled and squeezed,
One tenth degree warming is teased,
As a trend to be claimed,
And on mankind is blamed,
To keep global warmists appeased.

– Ruairi

REFERENCE

Joëlle Gergis et al. (2016) Australasian Temperature Reconstructions Spanning the Last Millennium.  Journal of Climate . DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00781.1

 

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.1/10 (86 votes cast)
Gergis Australian hockeystick is back: How one typo took four years to fix, 9.1 out of 10 based on 86 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/zf7uzz9

321 comments to Gergis Australian hockeystick is back: How one typo took four years to fix

  • #
    Spetzer86

    Wasn’t Australia hellishly hot during parts of the 1800s, with thermometer data to back that up? Stories about moving people out of the cities because of the heat?

    322

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Got an email from a friend…significant global warming in canberra this morning as it snowed heavily….

      Oh no….now the dams are full..what shall we do…?

      82

  • #
    Dean from Ohio

    A typo is in text, where it can usually be detected and autocorrected, as it were, by the reader. A mistake in software (computer code) is called a bug, not a typo, and can hardly ever be detected and corrected mentally because the information space of all possible program outputs is so vast. These authors spin a lot for supposed scientists.

    “Let’s eat Grandma!” is a typo. Not reconciling km and mi in the landing software of a Mars “lander” is a bug, and a catastrophic one at that. The DETREND flag is a bug, and not all the embarrassment in the world will make it a typo.

    Where did these people learn to code?

    423

    • #

      Thanks Dean. Well said. Update added to the middle of the post. Link to your comment. Cheers. Good point.

      182

      • #
        MarloweJ

        Correction Jo. From the conversation article: “Following the early online release of the paper, as the manuscript was being prepared for the journal’s print edition, one of our team spotted a typo in the methods section of the manuscript.” It was “one of their team” wot spotted the typo and not the (evil, hating, baby eating pack of denying) skeptics as you claim. Please try to be accurate. (sarc)

        80

      • #
        Frank

        Jo,
        A good attempt trying to prove a negative.
        Again, if your posts had any substance they would have been submitted accordingly like any real scientist does. Instead, they languish here comforted by beliefs in a broken/ corrupt MSS that rejects your truth.

        561

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          A good attempt trying to prove a negative.

          Your’s or Jo’s Frank?

          If your comments had any substance, we might take them seriously, like any rational scientist would. And as for “publishing like a real scientist, that too is a strange argument to present. Publication of papers in Journals adds no veracity to the content of the paper. Einstein only published one paper, I understand, and didn’t enjoy the experience, so didn’t bother again. The last estimate I saw, was that only about 65% of all scientific papers were published in Journals. The other 35% are distributed via email. Much faster, much cheaper, and much more convenient.

          Oh, and while I have your attention, can you please explain to me (and the rest of us) what you mean by “Main Stream Media”, and how that is somehow our problem?

          382

          • #
            Frank

            A reference to your ‘can’t prove a negative’ excuse for the denier’s lack of evidence in the real scientific world.

            Publication in a reputable journal requires a successful peer review outcome, a hurdle you have yet to get over, quite a substantial observation I think which you haven’t addressed meaningfully.

            A bit grandiose comparing yourselves to Einstein ?, he was eventually accepted and didn’t claim that peer review and the scientific method were corrupt.

            Distributing ‘scientific papers’ via email means nothing without being vetted by recognised scientists with expertise in the relevant field (aka peer review),otherwise any dill could email their flat earth paper and claim cudos.

            I never said ‘Main Stream Media’, I said MSS which means Main Stream Science ( the real world) which IS your problem.

            340

            • #
              AndyG55

              You have NEVER been anywhere near any “main stream science”.

              Otherwise you would produce something other than EMPTY RANTS.

              Again, you show your total and abject ignorance of the purpose of peer-review.

              227

            • #
              Grant (NZ)

              Main Stream Science is not necessarily the “real world”. It wasn’t in Galileo’s day. It didn’t apply in Copernicus’ day either.

              In the real world (where I live) the coldest time of the day is just before dawn, which happens to coincide with the highest concentration of CO2 (locally can be as high as 1200ppm). Conversely, the hottest time of the day, late afternoon, coincides with when CO2 concentration is at its lowest (on a hot still day can be as low as 100ppm).

              This are the facts. Yet we are supposed to believe that a higher CO2 concentration means a higher temperature. MSSReal World. So we need to change MSS – not the other way round.

              234

              • #
                KinkyKeith

                Now that is science.

                Placing reality in front of everyone.

                But not the sort of detail that climate scientists want to engage with as it is way too real for comfort.

                62

              • #
                Bill Johnston

                Interesting point Grant.

                I wonder if climate scientists know that plants photosyntheise during the day and respire at night.

                Photosynthesis requires water though, so when its dry, there is less metabolism of CO2 and water (with sunlight) into glucose and oxygen; so CO2 is a trifle higher during (Australian) El Nino events. Worth remembering also that the methane cycle is most active when it is wet (methane is produced anerobically – think any kind of ruminant and any species of beetle, plus C in sediment and soil), and it reverses (methane is used preferentially by soil bugs as an energy source; resulting in CO2 production) when it is dry.

                Cheers,

                Dr. Bill

                81

              • #
                Grant (NZ)

                I could have done with a bit of warming this morning. It was -3.5 degrees when I got on the motorbike at 7:30am. A very still morning and I was thinking about all the foliage around me that had been respiring overnight and all the CO2 just hanging there in the air. If I was an evil CO2 molecule wanting to incinerate the world, I’d want to get the heavy lifting done while I had a lot of mates around.

                Funny thing is that yesterday the maximum temperature was 19.1 degrees C. And that was recorded at about 2:30pm after all that foliage had sucked heaps of the CO2.

                Wow. A 22.6 degree swing in temperature in a 24 hour period.

                81

              • #
                Ross Handsaker

                Grant

                Interestingly, the peak day temperatures, particularly during summer, always seem to coincide when water vapour (humidity) levels are at their lowest, yet we are told the “greenhouse” gases make both day and night temperatures warmer.

                31

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I never said ‘Main Stream Media’, I said MSS which means Main Stream Science ( the real world) which IS your problem.

              Sorry, I assumed that it was a typographical error on your part.

              Firstly, MSS appears 170 times on the Acronym Finder website, but does not include “Main Stream Science” as one of them. It does include Master of Space Studies, which might apply to you, seeing as how you appear to be on a different planet to the rest of us.

              But the most appropriate meaning, that describes your comments perfectly, is Municipal Sewage Sludge.

              I kid you not, and don’t take my word for it – look it up.

              244

            • #
              RB.

              Einstein did get very upset that his sole paper to be peer reviewed was rejected.

              “,otherwise any dill could email their flat earth paper and claim cudos.”

              Publishers still hired an editor to make a decision on whether to publish or not. One such publisher, G. & C. Carvill, made a decision to publish a Washington Irving’s piece of work A History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus. This started off what was to become the second most persistent myth according to the American Historical Society in 1949.

              That myth was that people thought that the world was flat before Columbus showed that it was a globe. Pure bunkum.

              81

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              Frank:
              I have read your reply and your ignorance is abundantly clear.
              Firstly, not proving a negative is certainly applicable. All you have to do is show that you aren’t Tim Flannery or some other believer in disguise. All we have to do is keep changing who we suspect you are. That is good ‘old climate responses.
              Secondly Einstein was peer reviewed once, and was rejected. He thought so little of the process that he refused to submit to peer review again.
              So much for you belief that peer review picks the top, rather it picks the mediocre and conformist.

              143

            • #
              Tim Hammond

              You appear oblivious to the research we are commenting on – peer reviewed yet so flawed as to be useless.

              So tell us again how peer review works so well?

              And that’s before we consider Ioannidis’ work, and what sites like Retractionwatch show, Climategate.

              It’s really getting very sad and pathetic when Alarmists continue to rant about peer review has been so thoroughly discredited. Those who love and respect science want science back. Only fools driven by political ideology talk about peer review as if its still sacred.

              193

              • #
                AndyG55

                “You appear oblivious”

                Yes, Fronk/Gronk is totally oblivious… to basically any rational thought.

                88

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                Tell you what, Tim. What say you write a paper on the flawed nature of peer review?

                James Bradley and I can peer review it for you, and I will write a different paper that will corroborate your original findings.

                You and James can then peer review my paper, and perhaps make a few suggestions regarding grammar, spelling, and such.

                James can then write a paper on the potential applications of what we have published so far, and you and I can peer review that.

                Of course, the whole thing could be a pack of rubbish. But hey, it will be peer reviewed rubbish, and therefore part of the gold standard.

                All we need is a little lot of funding.

                00

            • #
              James Bradley

              Frank,

              Just stating the obvious here…

              … but if your position is a given that current climate change is caused by humans then all your peer reviewed climate science is ‘trying to prove a negative’.

              71

            • #
              James Bradley

              Also Frank,

              Just adding the obvious here…

              …and if your position still holds then your position is therefore self defeating – that’s why CSIRO sacked 350 climate scientists.

              82

            • #
              ExWarmist

              The assumption that the peer review process is unbiased is demonstrably false.

              As per the Climate Gate emails.

              REF: #1

              The head of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, as a top expert in his field, was regularly asked to review papers and he sometimes wrote critical reviews that may have had the effect of blackballing papers criticising his work.

              Here is how it worked in one case.

              REF #2

              The termination of the Pattern Recognition journal ought to be PR gold for skeptics. Nothing like this happens to unskeptical scientists, ever. It’s a telling spectacle.

              A major science publisher gasped in horror that one amongst its scores of journals had “doubted the IPCC”, so the journal had to be axed forever. Oh the Crime! The over-the-top dummy-spit exposes the religious zeal in a supposedly scientific process. So much for the hallowed “Peer Review”. Fans of establishment science want us to believe it’s a gospel part of the scientific method, but it is neither intrinsic nor essential, and skeptics should not be fooled into thinking it is.

              REF #3

              With this perspective as background, one of the most damning aspects of the CRU emails was the behind-the-scenes efforts of the activist scientists to — in their own words — “redefine what the peer reviewed literature is.”

              30

            • #

              Frank writes,

              Publication in a reputable journal requires a successful peer review outcome, a hurdle you have yet to get over, quite a substantial observation I think which you haven’t addressed meaningfully.

              Really you believe that,being published makes it a good paper?

              There are many published papers in “reputable Journals” that were later found to be garbage,that managed to pass “peer review”. Surely you should acknowledge the fact that Peer review system is not that good. I think you are being badly mistaken here since you make it seem like being published is all you need to show it belongs in circulation for others to read.

              When a dog is given a false trail,it will go all over the place futilely looking for it,being unproductive and a waste of time leading others to perpetuate the error.

              You need to Visit RETRACTION WATCH to see that there are train loads of garbage papers that passed “peer review”,that later was removed.

              20

            • #
              Duster

              Frank, Frank, Frank – Your faith in the selfless peer reviewer is touching. The obvious ignorance it reveals about the reality of much of science is not.

              Publication in a reputable journal requires a successful peer review outcome, a hurdle you have yet to get over, quite a substantial observation I think which you haven’t addressed meaningfully.

              The utility of a “reputable journal” is relative. Quite frequently it amounts to nothing but a low-quality paint job for an argument to authority – “it was peer reviewed in a reputable journal” ergo it must be authoritative. That argument is quite as much a problem in logic as “proving a negative.” And, sociologically, as long as the review is anonymous there is no means of separating “peer” review from “pal” review.

              The problem in climate “science” is not that sceptics are trying to “prove” anything. It is that no climate “scientist” who has expressed a concern about anthropogenic global climate change has shown any sound evidence – that is data of any form – that “proves” that humanity is responsible for catastrophic climate changes, or in fact that there have been any such changes (due to any cause within the last century. That means that no climatologist (that term includes genuine scientists as well our putative climate “scientists”) has shown any evidence of any long term shift in climate. The changes observed all fall within natural variation over geological spans.

              41

          • #
            RB.

            Einstein only submitted one paper that was peer reviewed, rejected and sent him into a spin.

            31

          • #

            Another point about Einsteins papers were that they were not heavy on references, mostly because there were few relevant references to cite. The same is true for papers skeptical of CAGW since there are no relevant main stream climate science papers to build upon as all are mostly broken by extending other broken papers built upon bad assumptions. The worst assumption is a high sensitivity and every single main stream climate science paper I’ve seen presupposes this to be true. The fact that a high sensitivity is universally assumed, considered an immutable fact even as it can’t stand up to scrutiny is one of the many factors that contributes to why it’s impossible to get the broken science fixed through traditional channels.

            101

          • #
            cohenite

            Gergis is now a name to conjure with; if one didn’t know better, you’d think she was a closet sceptic. She could hardly do more for scepticism if she tried.

            11

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          Sorry, A colleague of mine has just pointed out that I have the percentages the wrong way round.

          120

          • #
            ROM

            I see that the Troll Duties Roster has assigned MarloweJ and Frank for Troll duties on this latest post of Jo’s.

            About time they made an appearance again as those on the Troll duty roster seem to have been very slack with their trolling antics on skeptic sites recently.

            Could it be that a tiny smidgin of doubt about that always impending, never proven or seen “climate change catastrophe” we have been force fed for a couple of decades might be starting to creep into the warmista’s psyche what with the Germans just having voted to substantially reduce their subsidisation of renewable energy and the post Brexit EU’ers now all falling down and around in arguing and fighting over who is going to have to reduce their Carbon emmissions more than the others and thereby losing out in the economic growth stakes.

            And nobody anywhere much now bringing up “climate change” in political circles and in public circles and the Greens missing out on any advances here in the Australia during the election and in the UK where they have been steam rollered by the legals over their anti fracking and in Germany where local councils and even States are banning building wind turbines or just banning building them anywhere near a pre-existing habitation and the german greens being wiped out in a couple of German state elections although they did OK in another German state election .

            Not a good time to be on a warmista Troll duty roster I suspect with the whole global warming / climate change theocracy starting to come badly unstuck just about everywhere.

            I am looking forward to the first books by warmista Trolls after they finally realise that it was all for nought and their lives of fearing the future were just all wasted away for no gain and at a big personal sacrifice of what could have been a life filled with hope and laughter in anticipation of a better future.

            Maybe a book title from an disillusioned Warmist troll like “Inside of a Warmist Troll’s Head “, a treatise for future inhabitants of this planet on how bad it was to always be so heavily loaded down with deep and constant fear for the future and with never even a smidgin of hope being provided by climate alarmist scientists despite how they might twist and alter and corrupt the computer printouts for the 100 years into the future of the global climate.

            May the warmista Trolls live in interesting times,
            Which I suspect they are now entering!

            174

            • #
              AndyG55

              As the sleepy sun, the dropping AMO, the coming strong La Nina, etc start to bite deeper, I expect there will be a rag shortage and an egg shortage.

              The rags being used to wipe all the egg off their faces.

              Scrub hard guys, leave the face red, to hide your embarrassment ;-)

              129

              • #
                OriginalSteve

                Well the not-playing-by-the-CAGW-fairy-story-rules snow in canberra this morning might help the egg-on-face freeze first, to allow easier removal?

                32

            • #
              Another Ian

              ROM

              For the model for that book maybe that universal “how to” one called

              “How to do it and not get it”

              Written by

              “One who did it, got it and can’t get rid of it”

              30

        • #
          AndyG55

          [Snip. No more about the anonymous "Frank" - you are right, but this thread is not about Frank. -- Jo]

          167

          • #
            • #
              AndyG55

              [SNIP]

              67

            • #
              Tim Hammond

              As is so often the case, Alarmists don’t understand science and how it works. You don’t need to publish, just to show that published research is wrong. If you don’t actually have a clue, why do you think you are so clever?

              51

              • #
                AndyG55

                My guess is that he is a far-left failed Arts student..

                …. they know EVERYTHING !!

                Except how to make a decent coffee.

                (Please stop making comments like this as it is detrimental to the topic which is about the Gergis hockeystick, NOT about Frank!) CTS

                109

              • #
                AndyG55

                “Alarmists don’t understand science and how it works”

                That is because they always look to one of the alarminati to do the “understanding” for them.

                They have ZERO rational thought processes of their own.

                98

              • #
                AndyG55

                sorry Jo, didn’t see the previous snips.

                me bad… again ;-)

                57

              • #
                Glen Michel

                Andy 2123. So true.

                41

        • #
          James Murphy

          The more people like “Frank” use phrases such as ‘like a real scientists does’, and act as though peer review is some sort of amazingly pure and clean process, the more I know that their level of scientific education, knowledge, and understanding is fast approaching zero.

          What would I know about it though, I’m just a geologist…

          182

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Geologists Rock! Or is that supposed to be the other way around? Like, “stoned geologists”?

            171

            • #
              Another Ian

              RW

              Either way the male ones might have a pair and a knowledge of sedimentary

              30

            • #
              James Murphy

              Well, if things keep going the way they are, it may not be too long before anyone with any real scientific background and integrity is indeed stoned – and not in a good way.

              11

        • #
          Manfred

          Instead, they languish here comforted by beliefs in a broken/ corrupt MSS that rejects your truth.

          Cripes Frank, I’d tread carefully before hiding behind the skirts of “MSS.” For one, climate science has become so intensely politicized it’s very unlikely that the activities of a majority of institutionally funded climate ‘scientists’ could be regarded to be free from ‘bias’. And have you tried getting funding for or publishing original research that highlights a ‘settled’ climate fact as a fallacy? You surely know resorting to an appeal to authority (“MSS”) is a red flag in any scientific lexicon? It’s up there with ‘consensus’, which I admit is a very fashionable word in post modern precautionary ‘science’ these days. I recently peer reviewed a submitted article out of existence when the authors claimed their objective clinical evaluation was arrived at by a mutual consensus. There are still a few of us trying out there.

          121

          • #
            OriginalSteve

            Has anyone noticed that whatever the Leftists touch, gets broken, distended and bastardised?

            PC = crippling of free speech and freedoms

            “alternatiove lifestyles” = promoting questionable and dmaging stuff

            “climate science” = wrecking the good science so they can drag science down to a murky political grease trap space and smear anyone who disagrees with badness….

            Leftism is a problem – nothing good seems to come out of it, have you noticed?

            52

            • #
              Dean from Ohio

              Progressivism poisons everything.

              42

              • #
                ExWarmist

                There is a certain stripe of human being who views everything as a transaction of power.

                People of this stripe are unable to evaluate any concept – except through the restrictive lens of power transactions.

                Anything they touch will be corrupted to the service of their own pursuit of favourable power transactions.

                The rest follows…

                31

        • #
          KinkyKeith

          Let’s be frank about this Frank.

          The main reason I put a red thumb was because I like round numbers.

          I got number 30.

          The other reason was that your comment does not reflect the reality of this site.

          Many of us are much better qualified than 97% of all climate scientists with degrees that include all the science stuff like numbers which many klimate scientists find very hard. Instead they do a climate science course often called “environmental science”. It’s a bit like a science appreciation course for those unable to handle real science which requires discipline.

          I know that paragraph is a bit muddled but it suits the level of expression of real climate scientists.

          Sorry about the length of this comment but my main point is that

          WE ARE THE MAINSTREAM. SCIENTISTS.

          And those who aren’t seem to be gifted with some other valuable skill.

          In short Frank, this is a very good blog to test your skills. Unfortunately you have been found out.

          KK

          112

        • #
          Leo Morgan

          @ Frank

          I confess I didn’t follow much of your comment.

          You said: “Jo.
          A good attempt trying to prove a negative.

          1) Tell me, what was the negative that you thought she was trying to prove?

          You further said: “Again, if your posts had any substance they would have been submitted accordingly like any real scientist does.
          2) Where did you propose Jo ought to submit her article?
          3) Why did you think that? After all, it’s not as if this post were an erratum of Gergis, it’s a demonstration that the reporting on it was incorrect.

          Finally you said “Instead, they languish here comforted by beliefs in a broken/ corrupt MSS that rejects your truth.
          4) What do you mean by your acronym MSS?
          5) What statement(s) in Jo’s post do you consider to not be true?

          I’d appreciate it if you’d use the numbers I put next to my questions with your replies, in order to make clear exactly which question you’re answering.

          Thanking you in anticipation.

          91

      • #
        Dean from Ohio

        :-)

        51

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Where did these people learn to code?

      Computer Seance 201 … the prerequisite for which, is Climate Seance 101

      221

      • #

        Apparently, they need some help with statistical analysis as well. Anyone who thinks we can estimate the average temperature 1000 years ago from a few tree rings with only a few tenths of a degree uncertainty when we can’t even do this for contemporary average temperatures extracted from continuous full coverage satellite measurements of planet wide LWIR emissions needs some help understanding what uncertainty means. When using dendrochronology to determine past temperatures, you must also account for the fact that not only are tree rings affected by temperature, they are similarly affected by increased CO2 levels and potentially many other factors.

        To see the sillyness, you need to look at this from an energy/power point of view. A 0.5C temperature range represents a difference in surface emissions (and surface input) of about 2.2 W/m^2 out of an approximate average of 385 W/m^2, which as a fraction of the whole is 2.2/385 = .0057 or an absolute accuracy of 0.57%.

        152

        • #
          wert

          +1 for mentioning CO2 adjustments on tree rings, but I do think tree rings can be reliably used to measure climatic variables. At the time we had a mile thick glacier here, trees didn’t grow. Now they do grow. So you can use the existence of trees as a crude measure of some climatic variables. However, 97% of science is useless crap, and sadly it appears this landmark paper is a pile of cow dung.

          The 97% folks would do much better just by acknowledging bugs found after the lousy peer review.

          51

      • #
        Kneel

        ” Where did these people learn to code?

        Computer Seance 201 … the prerequisite for which, is Climate Seance 101

        Anyone who codes for interactive use MUST assume that the user is BOTH an evil genius AND a complete moron – that is, you must assume that anything they enter is wrong and designed to screw with your system.
        Don’t assume it’s OK unless you can prove it wrong, assume it’s wrong until you can prove it’s OK.
        If the user wants to do something that you know is dodgy, you should only let them do it AFTER they acknowledge the risks in doing so.
        Log EVERYTHING.
        Etc.

        Maybe it’s because most of the code I write is for mission critical systems and/or required for invoicing purposes ($ involved!) that I am so anal about this sort of thing. I find it unacceptable that people suggesting changes in public policy and spending trillions of dollars are not held to the same standard.

        Mistakes happen – you should have procedures in place to catch them before they cost you big $. If you don’t, then you’re not truly serious about your work.

        141

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          If you want to feel serious about your work, consider the guys who program the targeting algorithms for the ICBMs. You would not want to confuse metric and imperial measurements on that little baby.

          60

          • #
            James Murphy

            I don’t know – near enough is probably good enough when you’re looking at exploding a 350 kiloton warhead? And besides – it’s not like there would be many people around to complain about the mistake…

            (forgive my facetiousness)

            20

    • #
      Bob Campbell

      “Let’s eat Grandma!” is not a typo. It’s an ambiguous statement – bad grammar.
      “Let’s rat Grandma!” is a typo.

      30

      • #
        AndyG55

        ““Let’s eat Grandma!” is not a typo. It’s an ambiguous statement – bad grammar.”

        lol.. I see what you did.. ! ;-)

        12

  • #
    AndyG55

    The change in tree rings from about 1940 onwards coincides with the increase in atmospheric CO2

    Nothing to see here, folks. !!

    CO2 has no effect on tree growth, right?

    297

    • #
      Robert O

      I have not read the paper, but assume the tree rings would come from the endemic pines, more likely Huon pine, was Dacrydium franklini, or King Billy pine, Athrotaxus selaginoides. The former is found in the valleys of SW Tasmania while the latter is found in the sub alpine environments of western Tas. Specimens of both species have been recorded with ages of 700 years plus, whereas the longevity of the eucalypts is only 300 years plus.

      There are old fallen logs of both species, particularly of Huon pine since it is fairly resistant to rot, from which it is possible to extend the range of growth patterns much further than one lifespan.

      As has been pointed out the pattern of growth rings depend on many factors apart from temperature and these studies can only give a general trend.

      I cannot see much evidence of the medieval warm period in the graph but the little Ice Age seems to be more prominent.

      31

      • #
        AndyG55

        CO2 was apparently not high during the MWP, hence the trees don’t reflect that warmer period properly. CO2 was probably the main limiting factor in the growth.

        Cold, on the other hand, stunts growth and will always show up in tree rings.

        Now that we have warmed slightly and naturally and have also fed the trees with slightly increased CO2 since before mid 20th century, they may actually be showing a proper spurt in growth due to that increased CO2.

        107

        • #
          Bill Johnston

          I wonder if the tree-ring data is homogenised to agree with the temperature data or vise-versa?

          Cheers,

          Bill

          51

  • #
    AndyG55

    And of course, the instrumental data is, what? GISS?

    GISS is not instrumental data, just an AGW concoction, and bares very little resemblance to the real instrumental data.

    228

  • #
    handjive

    “comment deleted”

    Quote: The Conversation The Cul-De-Sac

    60

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Yeah, it’s impossible to engage over there.They are enthralled with Glikson and Karoly basting Gergis with their scientific love juices.Grovelling sycophants before their graven idol.( take your pick)

      152

    • #
      Bulldust

      I used to think the echo chamber at The Drum was bad, but they have nothing on The Conversation. Those people are completely sold on their omniscience. Critical thinking in Aussie academia is dead if The Convo is anything to go by…

      Also, love the way they play the victim card … toughen up princesses. Maybe climate change should be accompanied by trigger warnings and instructions how to get to the nearest safe space. The mind boggles… is the current crop truly this fragile?

      203

      • #
        Clyde Spencer

        It has been my experience that at least on the topics of climate and gun control, which I follow closely, The Conversation has such a strong left leaning that I suspect one leg is much too short. I offered the editor a piece I had written that was counter to their usual stance. Because I’m no longer in academia (retired), I expected a polite “No thank you” brush off. However, I didn’t even get the courtesy of a reply. I think that The Conversation is giving Aussies a bad name.

        151

      • #
        RobbertBobbert GDQ

        Bulldust and Glen Michel,

        I have posted the following at The Conversation.

        ‘…Joelle,

        …It turned out that someone else had spotted the typo too…’

        And a Typo took 4 years to correct.

        Ms Gergis did not notice it prior to publication.

        None of your colleagues or co-authors noticed it prior to publication.

        Karoly did not detect it prior to publication.

        Peer review did not notice it throughout the peer review process.(Wow)

        The Publisher did not notice it and went ahead and published.

        And to correct the ‘Typo’ it took 4 years.

        Lucky it wasn’t a sentence at issue or we would be waiting till the Sea Level has risen a few metres or 2100.

        Whichever comes soonest….’

        I wonder how long it takes to have it moderated or for the poison pens (keyboards) to come out with their vitriol.

        The Conversation has received 6 million in Federal and State funds (Victoria) from 2012 up to 2017 and is a front for the Academic and Artistic Left to propagate its establishment, conformist agenda.

        141

    • #
      Kneel

      They have it so wrong, it’s not funny.

      If you are so convinced that “she” is the “bad person” with “wrong ideas”, then you should be encouraging the publication of their opinion so that all the world can see for themselves how dumb it really is. If you’re right, they will be laughed at in public. If you’re wrong, you learned something about the world (maybe that its full of idiots, but anyway…)

      Freedom of speech means I have as much right to insult your beliefs as you do to insult mine. If you won’t stand up for my right to say what I think, why should anyone protect your right to do the same?

      If you won’t consider that you may be wrong, by the time it becomes obvious you will be in a world of hurt.

      91

    • #
      KinkyKeith

      Sounds like a bit of pier review.

      20

  • #
    el gordo

    ‘…a planet that has never been hotter in human history.’

    Shades of Yamal, I want a second opinion.

    140

  • #

    In another forum, a PhD student at RMIT, studying psychology, was seeking participants for a survey and was offering a ‘reward’ for those who completed the survey.

    The ‘reward’ was posted as a ’1 in 4′ chance to win a cinema voucher. I asked how is a lottery ticket a reward and, more importantly, how did they calculate that participants would have a ’1 in 4′ chance of winning?

    This was quickly changed to ’1 of 4′ cinema vouchers. Ah, the humanities! Damn those mere technicalities!

    130

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Good grief!

      They offered them lottery tickets for cinema vouchers? All I ever got offered, as a student, was a share in a bag of greasy fish and chips.

      60

      • #

        I’d be happy with the greasy fish and chips. It’s akin to the bid in the hand. :)

        40

      • #
        tom0mason

        ¯
        So Rereke Whakaaro you admit were approached and paid off by Big Oil
        Big Cooking Oil Company that is!

        Also I bet the greasy fish and chips was cooked in a coal fired fryer …

        :)

        90

        • #
          Len

          Fush and Chups for RW.

          80

        • #
          JoKaH

          When I visited one of those old Abbeys in Europe I was surprised to find a fish shop tucked away in a corner so I went up and asked for a small bag of chips. However the chap behind the counter said he was the fish fryer and I would have to go along and get them from the chip monk.

          160

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          OK, I admit it. I am an addicted to cooking oil, and have been a regular user of cooking oil for some time. I have attended no-fat support fry-up groups, and low cholesterol sleep-over nights, but none of them seem to work.

          I cannot abide uncooked bacon, and raw “fried” eggs, so I always lapse by lunchtime. It is horrible, I suffer terrible withdrawal symtoms if I can’t have any deepfried chips.

          I know I need help. I am on a well oiled slippery slope.

          130

          • #
            ROM

            Off topic and on a more serious note, Rereke

            Around my early 70′s my sugar levels were quite OK and then they started to increase quite quickly and I was on the edge of being classed as a diabetic.
            I was still walking my three kilometres each night in about 37 minutes and doing a fair bit of physical work during the day.
            [ turned 78 the other day and still can and do! ]
            My weight was still around the same as always over the last few years, ie; too heavy!

            My Doc gave me a very solid rap over the knuckles and told me to get myself in order or I would be a diabetic before much longer with those increasing sugar levels.

            Much contemplation followed on my part and then the lights went on!

            My brekky often / mostly is a good helping of oven or pan cooked sea food and some chips or a cooked steak and eggs and etc.
            Yeh I know.
            A lot of you will be starting to fell a bit ill at the thought of fish and chips for brekky but its only about 12 hours removed either way from the common evening standard and it gets my energy levels up for the day to where I rarely eat much for the rest of the day until a light or moderately sized evening meal.

            Well I had brought myself one of those nice little deep fryers and had begun to cook my brekkie and some other my other eats in that deep fryer and its oil and was thoroughly enjoying my deep fried tucker.

            Hmm!
            I finally figured out after much going through any changes that I might have made to my lifestyle and about when my sugar levels began to climb and get into the high risk diabetic zone that the new deep fryer might be at the heart of my looming diabetic problem.

            Out went that new but already well loved deep fryer and in a few weeks my sugar levels slowly began to come down and settle back to around what they had been for years past and still are some half a dozen years later.

            OK!
            Thats what has applied to myself personally only and may not apply at all to others.
            But I look around here and see and hear of so many with diabetes and then look at the long line of cars and well stocked car parks around the fast food joints around the major meal times and wonder just how much of our society’s diabetic problems are connected to those fast food establishments and the way in which the fast foods are being cooked.

            50

            • #
              Graeme No.3

              ROM:
              you could be the saviour of the IPCC. Write this up with a one point graph and blame global warming for the problem. Then apply for a Government grant for more research e.g. does the type of restaurant you eat in relate to the problem in any way. Obviously you will need to travel (first class) overseas to various expensive hotels etc. so pad the amount accordingly. I am not sure if you should include a picture of Michael Mann as that mightn’t help your credibility, but Tim Flannery may give you a useful quote as most Australian politicians still seem to think he is an expert.
              Perhaps a picture of model(s) in bikinis ( for the media) and claim the fish were “proof” that the Great Barrier Reef is in danger – that seems a surefire way of getting funding.

              30

              • #
                ROM

                Graeme No.3.

                Stop giving me ideas!

                Although the bikini bait might get me interested!

                Slaps fingers hard!
                Old decrepit buggers like me are supposed to be well past that sort of thing!

                Sigh!
                If only they knew or perhaps it is just as well that they don’t!

                20

      • #
        ExWarmist

        I got paid $10 to participate in a pain tolerance experiment.

        I clearly went cheap and should have held out for more…

        (Mind you I now have an acquired aversion to electric shocks…)

        (Actually it was about “how long can you hold your hand in a slurry of icy & water” – which as it turns out is very painful, very quickly).

        20

  • #

    So many things affect tree growth. Hasn’t anybody told them that?

    I’m one of those who couldn’t care less which horse is winning the sluggish two-horse race where we might or not be warming a bit lately. Likewise with the sluggish sea level rise which has been going on for over two centuries (this time). So I really don’t care if this has been the warmest 60 years in a millennium.

    But trees? Those suckers can slow their growing due to drought, cloud, cool, volcanism, shading, fire/disease/bird/animal/insect influence…take your pick. Sometimes they have growth problems in good rainfall years because of the wrong rainfall pattern. Sometimes the dormant season is warmer and the growing season is cooler. Shouldn’t all this be screamingly obvious? (It was to the initial researchers on bristlecones in the 1950s…but maybe they were scientist-type scientists who couldn’t see the activism for the trees.)

    323

    • #
      Glen Michel

      Try and tell them that.What discrimination does one get from dendrochronology? Soil type? Rainfall? Temps! Possibly. This paper is what defines modern science: work yer way back from a conclusion(politically motivated,of course) and fill in the rest with tendentious research.

      102

    • #

      ‘What good is that wood?
      That wood is no good.
      Would you graph that
      wood? I don’t think I
      would.’

      H/t Brad Keyes.

      70

  • #
    Robber

    Where is the tree ring data from 1900 to 2015 so we can see the current trend?

    81

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      Carefully hidden as in Hide the Decline and Mike’s Trick.

      52

    • #
      tom0mason

      Here is some data of Chinese origin that looks at the last 368years to the present. Looks very different from the hockey-stick presented above.

      A 368-year maximum temperature reconstruction based on tree-ring data in the northwestern Sichuan Plateau (NWSP), China
      Liangjun Zhu, Yuandong Zhang, Zongshan Li, Binde Guo, and Xiaochun Wang

      http://www.clim-past.net/12/1485/2016/

      01

      • #
        tom0mason

        Also there is –
        1200years of warm-season temperature variability in central Scandinavia inferred from tree-ring density
        Peng Zhang1, Hans W. Linderholm1, Björn E. Gunnarson2, Jesper Björklund3, and Deliang Chen

        C-Scan suggests a moderate MCA warm-peak during ca. 1000 to 1100CE in central Scandinavia and a LIA lasting from the mid-16th century to the end of the 19th century. During the last millennium, the coldest 10- and 30-year periods occurred around 1600CE in central Scandinavia. The warmest 10- and 30-year periods were found in the 20th century. C-Scan indicates lower temperatures during the late MCA (ca. 1130–1210CE) and higher temperatures during the LIA (1610–1850CE) than G11.

        Some differences in multi-decadal to multi-centennial variability between C-Scan and other MXD-based temperature reconstructions from Fennoscandia were found, suggesting regional differences of summer or warm-season temperature evolution, possibly linked to varying infuences of atmospheric circulation patterns. However, this needs to be further investigated.

        Their graph shows some up-tick in temperature for the 20th century but nothing outrageous for the 1200 year period.
        http://www.clim-past.net/12/1297/2016/

        01

  • #
    el gordo

    For the lurkers, its just a coincidence that CO2 happens to be rising sharply at the same time as temperatures. Note that CO2 was at rock bottom during the MWP, if you get my drift.

    http://www.biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpg

    111

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      The posh way of saying that, is that correllation does not imply causation. To show causation, you have to be able to describe the mechanisms whereby the multitude of factors are all inter-connected, and demonstrate that relationships are always consistent, without exception.

      This is somewhat of a problem for Climate Seance, which is why they do science by press release, and “pal review”.

      222

  • #
    AndyG55

    Let’s play the “instrumental data” game.

    Here are 3 sets of unadjusted data sets , mostly unaffected by UHI

    https://s19.postimg.org/45upf9vub/WILCANNIA_REIDST_AS_Average_Mean_Temperature_Jan.png

    https://s19.postimg.org/4pv19zn1v/DENILIQUIN_WILKINSO_AS_Average_Mean_Temperature_Ja.png

    https://s19.postimg.org/thunh848j/AMBERLEYAMO_AS_Mean_Temperature_Jan_Dec_1895_2015.png

    As one can see, There is basically zero warming since 1950

    That means that the little CO2 cause tick up from 1950 should actually be flat from 1950 onwards

    https://s19.postimg.org/e5plv673n/gergis_corrected_with_real_dataa.png

    137

  • #
    AndyG55

    And , of course if you remove tree rings from the global reconstruction you get

    https://pcc15dotorg.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/non-tree-ring.gif?w=1000

    128

  • #
  • #
    ianl8888

    The key problem with the original Gergis paper was that the authors claimed they had NOT cherry-picked their data, so their conclusions were remarkably robust.

    When McIntyre pointed out that indeed the data was cherry-picked, thus making the conclusions unremarkably tremulous, the junior author involved checked this then emailed Gergis et al to the effect that McIntyre was correct. The paper was then withdrawn through a series of shell games.

    The entire episode is embarrassing to a scientist.

    221

  • #
    Ruairi

    From data that’s mangled and squeezed,
    One tenth degree warming is teased,
    As a trend to be claimed,
    And on mankind is blamed,
    To keep global warmists appeased.

    320

  • #
    Neville

    Ken Stewart’s June update shows that OZ has the fastest cooling trend in the lower trop compared to the rest of the world.
    Also the south polar region has cooled slightly since Dec 1978.And the Calvo et al study found that southern OZ has been cooling for at least 6,500 years.
    https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/the-pause-update-june-2016/

    92

    • #
      TdeF

      I was musing that the Southern hemisphere was mainly water, except for Antarctica, twice the size of Australia and as big as South America. Then I realised that with ice up to 4km thick, Antarctica is covered with an entire ocean as deep as average. So below the tropic of Capricorn, the Southern 1/3rd of the planet is almost all water. No wonder the weather is different, 25C colder. We Australians are living next to a giant refrigerator which never gets above -25C. (The North pole can get to +13C)

      122

      • #

        Even at the equator, anything at 4 km elevation will be cold based on a nominal lapse based on a lapse rate of about 10C per km.

        I also believe that a big difference between hemispheres and what contributes to their significantly different response is the circumpolar current. This has 2 effects, one is to add some separation between the cold Antarctic and the rest of the hemisphere and the other is that it encompasses nearly the entire snow belt and snow falling on ocean melts and doesn’t contribute to reflection, while snow falling on N hemisphere land does. These contribute to why the difference between average winter and summer temperatures is so much larger in the N hemisphere than it is in the S hemisphere.

        81

        • #
          TdeF

          Interesting. Not following though that the snow (reflecting the sunlight) in the Northern Hemisphere would make it warmer than the Southern Hemisphere at the same latitude. I would have expected the reverse.

          30

          • #
            TdeF

            Also it has been a puzzle that the poles are actually say 25-40km lower than the equator. Naively you would think the water would be 40km deeper. So perhaps the atmosphere is thicker at the poles too. This sort of generalization without explanation is why I distrust arguments of obvious and it is a puzzle that people plot world temperatures at 1000AD without any idea of the temperature at the South Pole or even the Southern or Arctic or South Pacific oceans, maybe 1/2 the planet not on the record and without any trees or coral or anything much. Still when you do not have any facts, generalization has to do, even to a tenth of a degree.

            30

          • #

            More surface snow in winter makes the N hemisphere colder and the higher fraction of land makes it warmer in the summer. The peak to peak swing in the monthly average temperature is larger in the N, but the yearly hemispheric averages are relatively close to each other.

            30

            • #
              TdeF

              The yearly ‘hemispheric’ averages are relatively close to each other?

              Not at the poles!

              North Pole South Pole
              Summer 0° C -28° C
              Winter −40° C −60° C

              By the way, you can see why the ice extent is so unpredictable at the North Pole in summer with the average hovering about 0C. So the variation in ice extent means almost nothing, despite the emotion. This is what scientists would call a coincidence.

              40

              • #
                TdeF

                Or to put it another way, the South Pole in summer is comparable to the North pole in winter. Colder than your freezer.

                40

              • #
                tom0mason

                I believe you may have to look at these general geographical differences to account for the weather/climate differences —

                The North pole being mostly sea connected to warmer but relatively slow moving oceans currents. The Arctic ice floats free on this body of water, moving wherever ocean currents and wind drive it. The Arctic is, in the main, surrounded by high cold land masses.

                In contrast the South pole is a very large high land plateau that is permanently frozen except for those geologically active volcanic areas.
                This vast land mass continually accumulates snow and ice over it. This snow and ice builds up and spread on the land until its weight and the weather assists in its release, and allows the ice to slowly slide from the high land to the surrounding deep oceans. These oceanic waters around the Antarctic are relatively fast moving. Ocean movements and temperature, and the prevailing weather affect the sea ice formation, movement, and extent around this continent.

                The temperature differences seen at the poles are, in the main, a product of their local geographies affecting and affected by the local ocean currents and weather patterns.
                Thus the Arctic has a fairly dynamic temperature record, with relatively warm temperature variations being quite common in the (watery)Arctic records compared to the Antarctic’s permanently below freezing land mass.

                51

          • #

            Tdef,
            The yearly average temperatures of each hemisphere, which extends from the equator to each pole are relatively close to each other. Obviously, Antarctica is colder than the N pole owing to topological considerations, however; neither pole contributes much to the average which is dominated by the tropics.

            30

            • #
              TdeF

              Cannot see how the average could be dominated by the tropics. Agreed it does not change but from 0 to 23.5 degrees is only 1/4 of the hemisphere.

              The polar area or arctic circle is also 23.5 degrees as defined by the axis tilt. So the temperate zone is half the total and should dominate any average. South of the Tropic of Capricorn, Australia dominates this latitude but it is still mainly water. That is why it appears Australia has a disproportionately high input to global (land) temperatures and the homogenization of our temperatures is so important to the IPCC.

              30

              • #

                Tdef,

                You can’t just apply a geometric average to the temperature based on latitude, you must geometrically average emissions across area and convert the result to an equivalent temperature using the SB equation. Given the T^4 relationship between temperature and power, the 1/4 of the surface latitudes in the tropics are emitting far more than the 1/4 of the latitudes at the poles, moreover; on an area basis, the 23.5 degrees of latitude at the equator represents a much larger fraction of the total surface area of the planet then the 23.5 degrees at the poles.

                The requirement for power averaging is obfuscated by consensus climate science claiming that the output of the system is temperature, rather than power and then justifying temperature linearity by asserting that over a small range, temperature is approximately linear. The problem is that across the planet, the temperature varies over a very wide range and this assumption is no longer valid.

                30

              • #

                Tdef,

                To put some numbers to this, the 23.5 degrees of latitude at the equator represents about 40% of the planets surface area (sin 23.5 = .398). The 66.5 degrees from the equator to the polar circles represents 92.7% of the planets surface (sin 66.5 = .917) leaving only 8.3% of the surface between the poles and polar circles. Considering that the average emissions of the S pole are about 200 W/m^2 and in the tropics the average emissions are about 350 W/m^2, the tropics contribute 1.75 times more per unit area towards planet emissions than the S polar region. Multiplying these effects, the S hemisphere tropics have an influence on the global temperature that is more than 8 times larger than that of Antarctica.

                30

            • #
              TdeF

              Agree. Your numbers are right. I was working roughly on division by latitude, not sin(latitude). So about 40% equator, 40% middle latitudes, 20% arctic (yes,18%).
              I cannot agree that emissions should be factored so simply into importance of areas for effect on climate.

              Even if it were the most important figure and ignoring heat transfer by the ocean currents which have 400x the heat capacity, at present the Arctic is in 24 hour sunlight, for example so double those emission figures for the Arctic. This whole business of calculating a single world temperature is hard to understand for a planet with such dramatic differences from pole to pole and night and day and summer and winter. The climates of the North and Southern hemispheres are dramatically different outside the tropics and certainly at the poles.

              30

              • #

                The average emissions of 200 W/m^2 in the Antarctic is a yearly average and includes the fact that the Sun is in the sky 24 hours a day during the summer and that it is below the horizon during the winter, so no need to double it. Also, considering that the Sun never gets above 23.5 degrees to the horizon reduces the incident power.

                To understand why emissions must be treated as I say, consider looking at the Earth from space. All you see are W/m^2 attenuated by distance and integrated over the emitting area, which is the entire surface. The system is mostly linear to power, thus the property of superposition applies and it doesn’t matter whether joules are being emitted at the equator or at the poles, the sensor measuring them reacts in the same way.

                The only legitimate way to consider the global average temperature is to convert temperature to W/m^2, add W/m^2 over the surface, divide by the area and then convert back to temperature. This results in an equivalent temperature which is the temperature of an ideal black body that would emit the same amount of power. While this may not have a 100% correspondence to surface measurements by thermometers, when applied to smaller regions, the resulting equivalent temperatures have been shown to be quite representative of the actual surface temperature, especially related to changes. That is, when the equivalent temperature increases by 1C, the surface temperature does as well.

                50

  • #
    TdeF

    You do not have to be Poirot or Inspector Barnaby to notice people give themselves away in their language.

    “It was the start of a concerted smear campaign aimed at discrediting our science.”

    This is the language of the person who fancifully believes they alone own the truth, their truth, their science. There was a time when you had facts, analysis, hypothesis and argument and peer review perhaps. Now everything proponents of Global Warming believe they exclusively have the truth, their truth. Anyone who disagrees is therefore discrediting their exclusive truth. That is religion. It is not how science works or the language of a scientist. Science is not a thing to be owned simply by making an argument.

    212

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      I agree, TdeF.

      I have been conducting a world-wide search for the person known as “everybody” who knows “everything”. It is “everything”, that I want to get my hands on.

      61

    • #
      tom0mason

      TdeF,

      Independent validation methods, and verification of measured observations to prove a hypothesis in the real world (not a computer simulation), is passing into the history books of old scientific methods.

      Today science, especially ‘climate science™’, is all about rendering pretty images from computer models instead of the rigorous application of reason, logic and imagination. Vast arrays of computer simulations of computer generated statistical ‘data’ is replacing meticulous measurements of real world observations.
      Science is fast moving from being a dynamic search for the truth of nature, and becoming a static list of arid and immutable laws. Laws enforced as truth by a consensus of elites within the scientific academies, and power hungry paymasters of ‘New World Order’ bureaucratic leaders of the misanthropic ‘Green’ persuasion.

      41

  • #

    star comment Gergis’ account of events is a fantasy. Among other things, her claim to have discovered the error two days prior to Climate Audit is a fabrication. The issue of ex post screening was raised at Climate Audit on May 31 (https://climateaudit.org/2012/05/31/myles-allen-calls-for-name-and-shame/), with particular concern over spurious regression between trends. Gergis et al was defended by a couple of commenters who pointed out that Gergis’ correlations were (supposedly) done using de-trended series. Jean S then checked this claim, pointing out https://climateaudit.org/2012/05/31/myles-allen-calls-for-name-and-shame/#comment-336480 that their correlations failed with detrended data, from which we concluded that they had not done their calculation the way that they claimed. Jean S comment was posted on June 5 16:42 blog time (-5). This was 23:42 Swiss time (+2) and 7:42 am June 6 AET (+10).

    Neukom sent Gergis an email notifying her of the problem at June 6 9:46 am AET (+10), June 6 1:46 am Switzerland (+2). Neukom, Gergis and Karoly then discussed the bad news.

    Both at the time and in her recent article, Gergis claimed that they had discovered the problem “independently” of Climate Audit, but this is contradicted by emails showing that they had been reading Climate Audit and by the above timeline.

    There are of course many other untruths in her article.

    523

    • #

      Thanks Steve, the article at The Conversation is bizarre. Not only is poor Gergis digging herself in deeper to fantasy-land, and advertising it to all and sundry, but she’s showing just how much the blog criticism hurt her in 2012, and what a small, underdeveloped character she still is. Probably even stranger is that none of The Conversation editors, nor her senior advisors had the wit or wisdom to give her better advice. Can none of them spell “magnanimous”, “grace” and “honesty”?

      I feel sorry for her to be surrounded by no one with maturity or even just marketing sense. No one said “Stop Digging?”

      424

    • #
      AndyG55

      Welcome, Stephen.

      And I big thanks for trying your best to keep the b******s honest. :-)

      207

  • #

    Re hockey sticks and Mann, “Litigation is
    a waste of time I should be spending on
    frontier science.” – Brad Keyes. )

    https://climatenuremberg.com/2015/10/01/found-in-translation-internatl-reax-to-hughes-et-al-s-shenanigans-p

    71

  • #
    stan stendera

    Sounds like to me that this Gergis person got he panties in a wad and is lashing out.

    82

    • #
      stan stendera

      Drat. he = her.

      21

      • #
        ROM

        Stan Stendera @ # 19.1
        .

        Try “Its” and you cover every contingency.

        Sounds like to me that this Gergis person got he its panties in a wad and is lashing out.

        92

        • #
          Another Ian

          ROM

          “Try “Its” and you cover every contingency”

          Yes – seems these days you can’t tell from just looking at the outside

          53

        • #
          stan stendera

          Not a bad idea [snip] ED

          22

          • #
            stan stendera

            Years of coming here and finally my second snip. I take solace in the notion that the snip may imply I said worse then I did.

            21

        • #
          Rereke Whakaaro

          … you cover every contingency.

          I do not want to know anything about, nor have anything to do with, Gergis’s “contingency”.

          Such things should not be contemplated, especially by those of us who have fragile sensibilities.

          31

  • #
    handjive

    Clouds!

    SMH, 12 July, 2016: Global warming tidings get an added boost after cloudy climate issue cleared up

    “The world’s storm tracks are shifting polewards and clouds are rising higher in the atmosphere, two trends that are likely to exacerbate global warming, US scientists say.

    New analysis of satellite data for the 1982-2009 period by California’s Scripps Institution of Oceanography has resolved what the researchers say is one of
    the biggest uncertainties involving climate science.”
    ~ ~ ~
    ABC Science Online, 06 Oct 2000
    Clouds won’t counter global warming
    Don’t count on clouds to come and rescue us from global warming, says a NASA researcher, who claims that the minimum amount of warming predicted by scientists should be revised upwards by half a degree Celsius.
    ~ ~ ~
    Climate researchers still have a lot of work to do when it comes to understanding clouds, says (Kevin) Trenberth, who believes the state of the science is still like that old Joni Mitchell song Both Sides Now, in which she sings, “I really don’t know clouds at all.
    ~ ~ ~
    May 25, 206: A new discovery about how clouds form may scale back some of the more dire predictions about temperature increases caused by man-made global warming

    “That’s because it implies that a key assumption for making such predictions is a bit off.
    “What this will do is slightly reduce and sharpen the projections for temperature during the 21st century,” said researcher Jasper Kirkby.
    Nonetheless, he added, “We are definitely warming the planet.”
    Kirby works at the European Center for Nuclear Research, or CERN.
    He is the lead author of one of three studies on the topic released Wednesday by the journals Nature and Science.

    60

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Thanks hj,
      I found it interesting that Peter Hannam wrote that article and used the words:
      “…has resolved what the researchers say is one of
      the biggest uncertainties involving climate science.”
      I consider him to be a fully paid up member of the “science is in” club, so his admission of any uncertainties amazed me. And he didn’t apologise to the people he and his paper have smeared for years for expressing similar ideas. But that doesn’t surprise me at all.
      Cheers,
      Dave b

      90

  • #
    Trev

    I just left a comment on the Convo website – it will be deleted but what the hell. I was not abusive just a little, well, dismissive of all their hard, planet saving good deeds. But, you should see the echo chamber of congrats, commiserations from Karoly, Glikson and the rest in the comments after this article. It is nauseating and kind of pathetic, really, to see these folk organising their wagons in a circle.

    202

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      Poof. It’s gone like whiff of smoke.
      Do you think the resubmission of the study for publication should be referred to as the re Gergis take?

      101

    • #

      Please Trev, keep copies of your comments.

      103

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        The irony – it burns :-)

        32

        • #

          :- ) Still whining about a site you pay nothing towards, which has published 600 of your comments (this is 601) and where you get personal replies, explanations, and answers to help you overcome the misunderstandings you get from other sites.

          But thanks for giving me the opportunity to brag.

          53

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          TwinOtter
          You aren’t allwed to burn – it releases CO2

          22

        • #
          AndyG55

          YAWN !!!!!!!

          23

        • #
          Graeme No.3

          TwinOtter
          You aren’t allowed to burn – it releases CO2

          22

        • #
          Analitik

          Harry, the only irony is how the moderators at The Conversation (and lots of other left leaning sites) cannot stomach dissent so they disappear comments that don’t fit in with their world view.

          Here, you get to air your views, even if almost all of us have no great regard for them.

          32

          • #
            AndyG55

            Harry really doesn’t belong in the “dissent” category.

            He has never produced one iota of anything but rant.

            The “childish troll” pigeon-hole would be about as high as he could ever reach.

            23

    • #
      Trev

      Yup all gone ‘removed by moderator’ even after I got a comment. And No Jo I did not take a screen snap will do next time. The Convo do not like dissent.

      123

      • #
        Gary in Erko

        You should get an email from the moderator with your comment included. Keep that. It will also include a vague list of reasons why it was possibly deleted, none of which give any definite clue.

        63

  • #
    Keith l

    Ok. But you cannot deny that those polar bears are suffering dangerous bleaching.

    150

    • #
      TdeF

      When you’re white, you’re white.

      50

      • #
        AndyG55

        Hey, don’t be racist !! ;-)

        96

        • #
          ROM

          Well sorry folks but you are talking about “Black” skinned Polar Bears [ Ursus maritimus ] which is their real skin colour so be careful you don’t have a Polar Bear which being “black” but very white coloured on the outside, doing an Andrew Bolt type free speech criminalizing act and taking you to court under section 18C.
          [ /sarc ]

          All that apparently “white” underlying fur with its guard hairs protecting the underlying fur are actually clear fibres and act as a good camouflage in the Arctic Ice fields as well as conducting some heat down to the black skin which is underlain with up to 11 -12 cm’s of insulating fat.

          91

          • #
            Rereke Whakaaro

            Black on the inside, and white on the outside?

            Hmmm? Polar bears are obviously closely related to Licorice Allsorts. Who knew?

            90

        • #
          AndyG55

          The follow him here…

          they follow him there…,

          the little red thumbs follow him everywhere..

          Like little puppies :-)

          So glad to see I have your attention :-)

          96

    • #
      Glen Michel

      I’m gonna use that one Keith! Hee haw!

      21

      • #
        Glen Michel

        Oh I’ve lapsed and let on to everyone that I’m a …ummm, Donkey. Hee haw. Back to my Malbec.

        21

  • #
    Neville

    Here are over 30 PR studies that look at correlation between temp and Co2.
    Temp always leads Co2 and sometimes by many thousands of years. At the end of the Eemian inter-Glacial ( 120,000 years BP) temp fell rapidly but Co2 levels stayed the same for another 6,000+ years. Sort of stuffs up their theory of mitigating their so called CAGW.
    Little wonder Hansen called Paris COP 21 just BS and the F word.

    http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/co2climatehistory.php

    91

  • #
    markx

    … as the manuscript was being prepared for the journal’s print edition, one of our team spotted a typo in the methods section of the manuscript….

    …we made a mistake – a single word in a 74-page document. We used the word “detrended” instead of “non-detrended”. Atoning for this error involved spending four extra years on the study….

    …From the original submission on 3 November, 2011, to the paper’s re-acceptance on 26 April, 2016, the manuscript was reviewed by seven reviewers and two editors, underwent nine rounds of revisions, and was assessed a total of 21 times – not to mention the countless rounds of internal revisions made by our research team and data contributors. …

    It is nice to see serious scientists go to such extreme lengths to correct such a minor issue.

    Would it have saved a bit of time if they’d just whacked a yellow highlight through the changed word before they sent it back for rechecking? ;-)

    51

  • #
    markx

    … as the manuscript was being prepared for the journal’s print edition, one of our team spotted a typo in the methods section of the manuscript….

    …we made a mistake – a single word in a 74-page document. We used the word “detrended” instead of “non-detrended”. Atoning for this error involved spending four extra years on the study….

    …From the original submission on 3 November, 2011, to the paper’s re-acceptance on 26 April, 2016, the manuscript was reviewed by seven reviewers and two editors, underwent nine rounds of revisions, and was assessed a total of 21 times – not to mention the countless rounds of internal revisions made by our research team and data contributors. …

    It is nice to see serious scientists go to such extreme lengths to correct such a minor issue.

    Would it have saved a bit of time if they’d just whacked a yellow highlight through the changed word before they sent it back for rechecking? ;-)

    41

  • #

    I get the impression that very many people today have no idea what numbers mean.

    There’s no sense of proportion; of magnitude; not even of relative magnitude. Numbers are treated like words that attempt to describe feelings.

    People cannot do simple arithmetic. Or perhaps they refuse to do it because when the did it before, the results made them feel bad about their beliefs.

    Thus it’s no wonder that we appear to be at the early stages of idiocracy.

    141

    • #
      Manfred

      For example, it seems few have the bawls to talk about absolute risk. It’s only ever about relative risk, and its associated hyperbole that make easy bedfellows of coercion and control. Unadulterated risk mongering is conducted in the knowledge that the truth of absolute values is simultaneously too instructive, too easily appreciated and usually dismissed.

      21

    • #
      Grant (NZ)

      That’s why Excel charts and PowerPoint slides are de rigueur. It means the feeble minded can look at pictures which disguise the real truth.

      “If a picture paints a thousand words, why be so verbose?” Grant (NZ)

      31

  • #

    There are lots of expensive “typo’s”. Like NASA crashing into Mars.

    102

  • #
    pattoh

    The Climate Rap on the Hungry Beast was a career apogee:-

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiYZxOlCN10

    http://bunyipitude.blogspot.com.au/2012/10/karolygate-i.html

    I want my 8 cents back.

    70

  • #
    tom0mason

    If we accept that it is useful to mix proxy data, from variable quality samples and provenance, with modern instrumental data, what does it show us? What I see when looking at the graph above is that all significant rises in temperature are followed by a plunges to long cold periods.

    In particular these*…
    ¯
    Oort minimum ~1050
    Medieval maximum ~1100 – 1250
    Wolf minimum ~1280 – 1350
    Spörer Minimum ~1460 – 1550
    Maunder Minimum ~1645 – 1715
    Dalton Minimum ~1790 – 1820

    *approximate values
    – WARNING —
    Date periods from proxies may appear different from reality.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    So based on this we should assume that a plunge to a colder climate is probable as we now have every indication that this planet has stopped warming and is now in an extended ‘no new warming’ (of some 20 years or so).
    IMO it is not logical that AGW will just reappear and keep warming the planet up as some insist. However the caveat is that climate is a chaotic system so it just might go warm again before the plunge but that most assuredly will not be because of any atmospheric CO2 level variation.

    90

  • #
    tom0mason

    “Four years work, and one word typo corrected,…”

    That is money for old rope!
    Would look good on a CV, eh?

    71

  • #
    manalive

    Reading Gergis’s attempted justification on The Conversation site, it seems she and her colleagues don’t understand the fundamental flaw in her work (and others notably Mann et al.)
    She claims that “both raw and detrended data have been used in similar studies, and both are scientifically justifiable approaches” but as Steve McIntyre and others have pointed out the problem is the “screening fallacy”, assuming trees which approximate the alleged thermometer record are therefore better proxy ‘thermometers’ for the entire 1000 years than other trees which don’t.
    It is circular reasoning and inevitably results in ‘hockey sticks’.

    102

    • #
      RB.

      assuming trees which approximate the alleged thermometer record are therefore better proxy ‘thermometers’ for the entire 1000 years than other trees which don’t

      assuming trees that approximate the alleged thermometer record when it was dodgy but deviate from it before the more reliable satellite era …

      91

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s more than 20 recent PR SL studies from Co2 Science. These studies don’t show any impact from Co2 since 1950, but seem to show the rate of SLR is essentially unchanged since 1900.
    In fact the fastest rate of SLR occurred from the late 1840s to about 1870.
    http://www.co2science.org/subject/s/summaries/sealevelglobal.php

    81

  • #
    el gordo

    South east Australia gets pummeled by Antarctic blast or perhaps its just a ‘cold air outbreak.’

    http://www.bom.gov.au/fwo/IDY65100.pdf

    41

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      It has been between 3 and 5℃ all day, with a little snow and more hail, mixed with rain.
      If Global Warming exists please send sample in plain brown envelop A.S.A.P.

      101

  • #
    Konrad

    Gergis and Karoly don’t get it.

    After Steve McIntyre exposed Mann’s “hockey stick” as a product of short centring data prior to principal component analysis, it was Game Over.

    Anyone now claiming to produce a “hockey stick” from proxy data will be subject to the most intense scrutiny if they dare claim -
    A. Current temperatures are unprecedented.
    Or
    B. Current temperature trends are unprecedented.

    Short centre data? Overweight “approved” proxies? Re-date sediment core tops? Throw out all proxies on the continent you are looking at? It doesn’t matter what tricks are now tried, everyone now knows to check for the pea under the thimble when a climate botherer tries to claim temperatures today are higher than RWP or MWP, or that the LIA never happened.

    Gergis and Karoly can writhe and flex like weasels on meth amphetamine, but there is no way out. The Internet record is permanent. As is their undying shame.

    162

  • #
    Egor TheOne

    All this comes back to the one inescapable conclusion ….
    CAGW = BS (The theory of everything climate)

    Should be very clear to ‘the Frank’ as he seems quite expert in the 2nd part of the above equation (BS)!

    81

  • #
    Geoff Sherrington

    Here is a transcript of an email I copied at the time of the Gergis et al paper being rescinded:
    ……………………….
    From: John Chiang [jch_chiang@ xxxxxx]
    Sent: Saturday, 9 June 2012 9:04 AM
    To: Joelle Gergis
    Cc: John Chiang
    Subject: Fwd: Error in our JCLI-D-11-00649 submission

    Dear Joelle:

    After consulting with the Chief Editor, I have decided to rescind acceptance of the paper – you’ll receive an official email from J Climate to this effect as soon as we figure out how it should be properly done. I believe the EOR has already been taken down.

    Also, since it appears that you will have to redo the entire analysis (and which may result in different conclusions), I will also be requesting that you withdraw the paper from consideration. Again, you’ll hear officially from J Climate in due course. I invite you to resubmit once the necessary analyses and changes to the script have been made.

    I hope this will be acceptable to you. I regret the situation, but thank you for bringing it to my prompt attention.

    Best regards,
    John.
    ……………….

    I hope that this helps keep retelling of the 2012 story accurate.
    Climate Audit has provided plausible evidence that they discovered the reason for the paper’s withdrawal and advised the authors, who then went on to claim that the authors had discovered it.

    Here is a comment on Real Climate at the time. It was then that Steve McIntyre and others had publicised a rebuttal to the Antarctic temperature paper of Steig et al. in Nature.
    ……………..
    Why (thank him)? How extraordinary to expect that generous social scruples be gifted to ClimateAudit and its endless innuendo, insinuations, aspersions.
    Perhaps when/if McIntyre & Friends learn the value of keeping a civil tongue they might be accorded punctilious civility?
    Juvenile coup counting.
    ……………..
    Geoff.

    142

  • #
    Gary

    So far behind, she thinks she’s in front.

    81

  • #
    ren

    Winter and spring – Negative IOD and La Niña
    Some negative IOD events, but not all, occur during the same year as a La Niña. In contrast, negative IOD events rarely occur in the same year as an El Niño with 1993 the only recorded case of this happening since 1958. The relationship between La Niña and the IOD is complicated, with the level of dependence of the two phenomena an area of active research.
    Since 1958, four negative IOD events have occured during the same year as a La Niña. The four negative IOD/La Niña years are 1964, 1971, 1974 and 1975. As four years is a small sample size, mean rainfall deciles for total winter-spring rainfall has not been plotted. However, the maps below are included so that rainfall patterns from each individual year can be viewed separately.
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/IOD/negative/
    http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/monitoring/iod1.png

    80

  • #

    Yeah, I know off topic.

    Funny that these two things are happening at the same time eh!

    First came the balloon, then a glider, then powered flight, then on now to fast jets.

    Now we’re back to solar planes and, umm, balloons.

    That wonderful solar plane took off from Southern Spain on the last leg to Cairo, and will take around 51 hours.

    Some Russkie took off from WA in a balloon to fly solo around the World. He will travel across the whole of Australia in almost less time than the solar plane will take for that short flight to Cairo. He hopes to make it around the World in his balloon in 13 days.

    It took a year to fly around the World in the solar plane.

    Oh my, how far we’ve come!

    The costly balloon adventure will be infinitely cheaper than this solar plane trip.

    I think the word I’m looking for is irony.

    Tony.

    141

    • #
      Analitik

      It took a year to fly around the World in the solar plane.

      Umm, not quite ;)

      Solar Impulse 2 began its circumnavigation flight in March 2015 and had a 10 month layover in Hawaii after cooking its batteries during the leg from Japan. Currently, Solar Impulse 2 is still flying on its 2nd last leg from Seville, Spain to Cairo, Egypt. After this, it still has to undertake the last flight to Abu Dhabi complete the circumnavigation.

      The circumnavigation will take more than 16 months – a yacht or even a 17th century Argosy would be far superior in every way.

      100

      • #
        tom0mason

        As the experience of the Wright brothers taught us…

        We just need to subsidize this technology more to make it go faster and make solar flight cost effective.

        Isn’t that how it works these days?

        90

    • #
      Robert O

      Quite interesting because it is a hot air balloon with heaps of gas bottles. I don’t know what height it will go to, but previous attempts used helium balloons with pressurised gondolas to get into the jet stream.

      70

      • #
        Robert O

        A slight correction, the balloon is a dual helium/hot air balloon with a sealed gondola for flying at 10,000 m. in the jet stream. It allows for more weight and control, and obviously one doesn’t want to jettison helium.

        40

    • #
      tom0mason

      Ah, I get it –

      The balloon will take advantage of the trade winds, …

      …solar planes will float on blasts of subsidy.

      :)

      40

  • #
    thingodonta

    I really wish it wasn’t so, but one has to say that science is not immune from all the political shenanigans and basic human failings that characterizes our species.

    100

  • #
    Analitik

    Did anyone else know that Clive James was a sceptic of climate change?
    He wrote a nice poem about it back in March!

    “Imminent catastrophe”: a poem by Clive James

    70

  • #
    Sven

    Another completely untrue statement in the Gergis’ article is that they could have just changed the “typo” but instead of that THEY decided to “set about rigorously checking and rechecking every step of our study.”
    Whoever remembers the saga, that is not what happened. Gergis et al did want to get away with a change of a word but the editor did not accept that and so they were forced to go back to square one.

    81

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    Jo Nova.

    “If trees in yonder Tassie can tell the whole continental temperature to a tenth of a degree, who needs thermometers (especially the kind which need 2 degree corrections)? Why does the BOM bother today?”

    What a stupid thing to say.

    You really do not understand temperature reconstructions, do you?

    228

    • #
      James Murphy

      Do you understand temperature reconstructions…? If so, please share your knowledge.

      Of course, I mean share your actual knowledge, rather than telling me to look it up, or pointing me towards wikipedia or similar dross, in your usual supercilious, arrogant, and intellectually impotent manner.

      182

      • #
        AndyG55

        I don’t think the brain-dead twit even realised Jo was making a bit of a joke. DOH !!

        ie poking a bit of fun at the ridiculous accuracy claimed by this farce of a study.

        136

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          AndyG55.

          “I don’t think the brain-dead twit even realised Jo was making a bit of a joke. DOH !!”

          So you are saying Jo Nova’s writing is a joke – it would explain many things.

          You know what Andy Pandy, I think this is the most intelligent point I have seen you raise.

          27

          • #

            Be my guest Harry. Go right ahead and point to the study of how Port Hedland temperatures correlate with the last 50 years of that batch of trees in Tasmania.

            93

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Jo Nova.

              “batch of trees in Tasmania.”

              Why are you fixated on trees? It was a multi-proxy study.

              If you think the tree proxy is no good, publish a rebuttal study! That is what scientists do if they think there is a problem with a study. And show how your “tree problem” affected the results of the Gergis study.

              27

              • #

                So what proxies do they have for 1200-1400.

                In the last study (which is only “one word” different) they had two batches of trees.

                61

              • #
                tom0mason

                Harry why are you fixated on CO2 being a problem?

                Warmth is good, CO2 is good — no problem!

                31

          • #
            AndyG55

            YAWN !

            63

          • #
            Graeme No.3

            TwinOtter
            How can you discern intelligence?

            52

            • #
              Rereke Whakaaro

              I have been studying Harry Twinotter.

              The lights are definitely on, but for most of the time, nobody seems to be home.

              72

          • #
            AndyG55

            “the most intelligent point I have seen you raise”

            Certainly the only one you have ever understood. !

            63

            • #
              AndyG55

              And even then you didn’t figure out that just this little part was a joke..

              Your comprehension skills are those of a manic depressive 5 year old in the middle of a tantrum.

              63

    • #
      el gordo

      In the trade we call it irony.

      91

    • #
      el gordo

      Harry this is what Gergis believes.

      ‘Overall, we are confident that observed temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium…’

      Looking at the temperature spike in the 13th century it was clearly less than 30 years, so I strongly recommend you come up with a convincing argument that CO2 keeps conditions warmer longer.

      122

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        el gordo.

        “‘Overall, we are confident that observed temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium…’”

        Yes, correct, the graph does show that, I am glad you agree.

        “Looking at the temperature spike in the 13th century it was clearly less than 30 years, so I strongly recommend you come up with a convincing argument that CO2 keeps conditions warmer longer.”

        I am having trouble understanding what you are getting at here. If you want an example of CO2 keeping conditions warm for more than 30 year, look at the recent instrumentation record. I believe Gergis spliced that onto the end of the reconstructed curve.

        38

        • #
          AndyG55

          “I am having trouble understanding……ANYTHING”

          There, fixed it for you.

          “If you want an example of CO2 keeping conditions warm for more than 30 year, look at the recent instrumentation record”

          Now provide some proof that it was CO2 what did it.

          BET you can’t.

          What will you do when temperatures start to drop? Blame that on CO2 as well?

          The alarminati are already trying that one, because they know a cooling trend is coming. Please try to pay more attention to what your priests are doing and saying.

          And be VERY GRATEFUL that conditions are remaining slightly warm… for now, anyway.

          54

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Drive-by snark – nothing more.

      113

    • #
      Annie

      Hello Harry! Your turn on troll duty eh?

      102

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Annie.

        “Hello Harry! Your turn on troll duty eh?”

        Accusing me of being a troll on this blog is like accusing Indianapolis 500 drivers of speeding. I think you are suffering from conspiracist ideation.

        A good blog is determined by the quality of it’s Moderation.

        Why don’t you head over to HotWhopper to comment, the trolls are better managed on that blog.

        (No a good blog is determined by the QUALITY OF THE COMMENTS people make,which you rarely provide.If everyone was here to discuss the topic in a mature civil way,Moderators would never be needed.There would be no one in Moderation bin to waste Mods time on) CTS

        38

        • #

          A good blog is determined by the quality of it’s Moderation.

          Others say a good blog is determined by the quality of its blogging…

          But we always knew you didn’t read the posts.

          75

        • #
          AndyG55

          YAWN !!

          53

          • #
            AndyG55

            In case you hadn’t realised , Harry..

            You are BORING meaningless twit with ZERO to offer rational discussion. !!

            54

        • #
          Analitik

          At HotWhoppers, comments that Miriam (or Sou as she likes to call herself) disagrees with get disappeared to maintain the consensus.
          Here, you get to air your views, even if almost all of us have no great regard for them.

          Which blogger behaves with greater integrity?

          73

  • #
    Uncle Gus

    I’ve asked this before, but I’ve never got an answer. Michael Mann’s hockey stick was derived by cherry-picking data and using inappropriate statistical methods. This is not seriously disputed any more, by anyone.

    Yet dozens of climate scientists insist that he was right *anyway*.

    HOW DID HE KNOW? If he didn’t get the “right” answer from his data or his analysis of that data, where did he get it from? Divine inspiration? Hyper-intelligent aliens? A crystal ball? Where?

    Or did he just sort of *know* somehow…?

    112

    • #
      Manfred

      Ah ha! This is a very good point often made about schonky skience. A little persistent patience on the research side ‘finds’ enough facts to fit the experimental premise. It’s intellectual reverse engineering. It appears that ‘Hide the Decline’ Mann skipped the first inductive reasoning bit (facts acquired through observation leading to laws and theories) and made the intentional leap to predictions and explanations deducted from the established green house gas theory and it’s eco-leftist partner, runaway global warming. Then, one searches for a cluster of ‘facts’ that supported the appearance of inductive reasoning, a bristlecone pine, and hey prestissimo!

      91

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      If you submit the data to sufficient torture, it will confess to anything.

      “How do you carve a statue of an elephant? You get a very large piece of stone, and chip away at all the bits of stone that do not look like an elephant”.

      So it is with climate science. You collect vast quantities of data, and then focus on the data that supports your hypothesis.

      You should try it. It is quite a surreal experience.

      Just don’t try it with your tax return. Tax Departments worldwide just don’t get post-modern science.

      92

      • #

        Rereke Whakaaro
        July 13, 2016 at 12:43 pm

        “So it is with climate science. You collect vast quantities of data, and then focus on the data that supports your hypothesis. “You should try it. It is quite a surreal experience.”

        That fits academic meteorology to a T….. Never bother to have a falsifiable conjecture/hypothesis of any sort as science requires. Instead make as many nonsense hysterical/historical measurements as you can.
        Model global convection with built in mandatory CO2 atmospheric elevated temperatures, using finite element analysis, which simply cannot do compressive fluid dynamics with its inherent continuum dynamics. Back-cast from that model, and homogenize all the hysterical data to fit the back-cast. Forecast to predict atmospheric CO2 catastrophe. PROFIT :-)
        All the best! -will-

        62

    • #
      ExWarmist

      Clearly Nature whispered in Michael Mann’s ear – Nature never hides her secrets from the self-anointed, as they often tell us.

      52

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      Gus.

      “Michael Mann’s hockey stick was derived by cherry-picking data and using inappropriate statistical methods. This is not seriously disputed any more, by anyone.”

      Ummm yes it is. Multiple investigations cleared the MBH98 of the accusation of professional misconduct. It’s results have since been replicated.

      You really do need to get your facts up to date.

      312

      • #

        And you really do need to learn to substantiate your bluster. Score of studies show the MWP was real. Scores of models can’t explain why.

        124

        • #

          Five days later, he fails to substantiate his statement: “Ummm yes it is. Multiple investigations cleared the MBH98 of the accusation of professional misconduct. It’s results have since been replicated.’

          he goes on to say: “You really do need to get your facts up to date.”

          Still after Five days your “facts” are still invisible.

          I see that he replied here today just down below……,HMMMM.

          20

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            Sunsettommy.

            “Still after Five days your “facts” are still invisible.”

            So you want me to produce citations and references, but not Gus? He made the first claim without evidence, and I responded to it without evidence.

            03

            • #

              This is what Gus writes,that you complain about:

              “I’ve asked this before, but I’ve never got an answer. Michael Mann’s hockey stick was derived by cherry-picking data and using inappropriate statistical methods. This is not seriously disputed any more, by anyone.

              Yet dozens of climate scientists insist that he was right *anyway*.”

              He states what is well known based on several investigations,The Wegman and NAS report,which were done under other oath at the Senate hearings and from the M & M 2005 paper exposing the statistical flaws of the hockey stick paper.It has been all over the internet for a while too.

              If you have been paying attention,you would know what he is talking about. Meanwhile you made a statement that no one else here knows about,something Jo points out that you didn’t back it up with.

              Harry writes:

              “Ummm yes it is. Multiple investigations cleared the MBH98 of the accusation of professional misconduct. It’s results have since been replicated.”

              You answered him without any supporting evidence. You claim “multiple investigations“,get called on it by two people, you still fail to answer it with evidence of alleged multiple investigations actually existed.

              I think you ran off at the mouth……..

              20

      • #
        AndyG55

        “Multiple investigations”.. by his fellow alarmista….

        you left out the FACTS again, didn’t you… as usual.

        85

      • #
        Uncle Gus

        Yes, and OJ Simpson was found Not Guilty…

        In fact, I didn’t accuse anybody of “professional misconduct”. If anything, I accused Mann of doing lousy science, but mostly I accused the science itself. That’s how it works in real science. Facta non verba. Deeds not words. It’s the work, not the personalities, and the work has been pretty radically debunked.

        Or was there another reason why that Hockey Stick graph stopped being the poster boy for the IPCC?

        31

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Uncle Gus.

          “and the work has been pretty radically debunked.”

          Oh sure, debunked by a couple of retired businessmen with links to the fossil fuel industry. That is radical.
          [Oh you agree then that they debunked the work?] ED

          “Or was there another reason why that Hockey Stick graph stopped being the poster boy for the IPCC?”

          “poster boy” nothing like a little hyperbolic rhetoric, eh? Makes up for a lack of facts.
          [useless fluff] ED

          Considering the hockey stick graph was extended and appears several times in the latest IPCC report, I have no idea what you are talking about.

          [which is maybe why the IPCC is so well respected by those of us that are skeptical? ] ED

          (He doesn’t know that the Wegman and NAS reports have stated that the Hockey Stick paper is wrong) CTS

          03

          • #
            Harry Twinotter

            “[which is maybe why the IPCC is so well respected by those of us that are skeptical? ] ED”

            Yes, small groups of very special people who are skeptic.

            “(He doesn’t know that the Wegman and NAS reports have stated that the Hockey Stick paper is wrong) CTS”

            Was it the Wegman Report that plagiarized material from other sources, including Wikipedia? It has been a while since I read up on the hockey stick wars.

            “[Harry doesn't seem to know anything about science, or politics, or even how to frame a logical arguement. He probably thinks that Conservation of Energy is a Greens initiative -Fly]”

            Ohhhhhh more ad hominems from the bully-moderators. It is stuff like this that confirms Jo Nova’s blog as a laughing stock in the skeptics world. No wonder you clowns do not use your real names, the internet has a longgggg memory.

            [So Harry, I presume that you would not object, if we collated all of your complaints, and off-topic comments, and ad hominem remarks, and personal attacks, and your attempts to take the conversation away from the topic being discussed, and other instances where you performed like a boor who has gate-crashed a party? As you say, the internet has a long memory, and people will remember that it was you, who uninvited, tried your damnedness to disrupt this blog. -Fly]

            12

            • #

              Harry, plagiarized material doesn’t change the conclusions nor make them wrong. This is another failure of reasoning on your part.

              If you don’t like that I took 3 days to give you a customised detailed reply then I’ll give you 100% of your money back. Any chance of you admitting that the Wegman report shows the hockeystick was worthless. Any chance you will thank me for taking the time to do your homework and helping to correct your ignorance?

              41

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                Jo Nova.

                “Harry, plagiarized material doesn’t change the conclusions nor make them wrong.”

                Did you really really say that? If I took a response like this to Hot Whopper the posters there would have a field day.

                03

              • #

                See Harry, this is what makes your comments such a waste of time.

                Plagiarism — do I have to spell this out — is the act of copying without permission. If I plagiarized the theory of relativity, would that make it wrong? Don’t rush to answer. Think…

                But thanks for behaving exactly as predicted — no manners, no honesty, didn’t read the detail of my reply, ignored the documented errors in the paper you defend, offer no evidence to support your claims. Empty puffery and bluster all the way. Righteous Indignation! Scoff! Scorn!

                Now we have Harrys-law: debunking something through it’s inferred effect on Hot Whopper posters. Count the degrees of separation from actual observations of anything related to the climate — one, not the climate, two, not “experts” (you keep telling us that matters?), three, not even observations (it hasn’t happened yet).

                30

              • #

                The NAS report basically agreed with the Wegman report too.

                “CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
                DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.
                CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–
                DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
                CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.
                DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
                CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.
                MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.”

                Still we have many warmist/alarmists ignoring several under oath investigation conclusions because it conflicts with their cult.

                20

          • #

            Harry, lucky for you, I’m back. As far as your moderation complaints go, one of the basic requirements on this site is that you need to be able to self-censor. Despite repeated requests you never improve, you require snipping too often, almost never substantiate your gross exaggerations and sweeping claims, and are a burden on the volunteer mod team, and my time. (And readers here are only seeing Harry’s best comments, which we always publish).

            When I bother to correct you, you rarely (if ever?) have the honesty to admit it, thank us, or acknowledge your error.

            You repeat the same points later as if we haven’t already had this conversation. That’s what bores the mods so much.

            Regarding the hockeystick, before you started commenting here we have chopped the issue to death. You could have looked that up and found that out, instead I do your homework (see below). Now’s your chance to thank me for saving you any more embarrassment putting the Harry Twinotter name in support of one of the worst modern scientific studies ever published. the studies that “replicate” the hockeystick rely on one cherrypicked tree in Yamal, read the data upside down, or use the same flawed method. Scores of studies show the medieval warm period was significant, global (see the boreholes) and … yawn.

            http://joannenova.com.au/2010/10/is-the-western-climate-establishment-corrupt-part-6-the-hockey-stick/
            From wegman:

            “ In general, we found [Mann’s methods] to be somewhat obscure and incomplete* and the criticisms [by their main critics] to be valid and compelling.

            … It is important to note the isolation of the paleoclimate community; even though they rely heavily on statistical methods they do not seem to be interacting with the statistical community.

            … Moreover, the work has been sufficiently politicized that this community can hardly reassess their public positions without losing credibility.

            Overall, our committee believes that Mann’s assessments that the decade of the 1990s was the hottest decade of the millennium and that 1998 was the hottest year of the millennium cannot be supported by his analysis.”

            http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/zombie-hockey-stick-dies-again/

            Each one of these points is enough to cast grave doubts on the Hockey Stick.

            The Hockey Stick uses the wrong type of proxy – tree rings. Trees grow faster when it’s warmer, and when it’s wetter, or when the tree next-door falls down and a herd of manure-making cows move in. Almost all other types of proxies disagree (like ice cores, ocean sediments, corals, and stalagmites). Over 6000 boreholes, hundreds of studies, as well as recorded history show the world was warmer 1,000 years ago. (See here for the refs.)
            Even among tree rings, the Hockey Stick uses the wrong type of tree – Bristlecone pines – which appear to grow faster as CO2 rises, regardless of the temperature.
            It uses the wrong type of averaging. The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was centered over the last 150 years instead of the entire millenia. McIntyre and McKitrick showed that this would produce a hockey stick even if it were fed random numbers instead of tree ring data.
            The data is massively incomplete, spatially autocorrelated, the signal is weak, and the number of covariates greatly outnumbers the independent observations.
            The data has been calibrated with a short period of temperature records that are themselves substantially processed with smoothing, adjustments, discontinuities and imputation of missing data, all of which may introduce errors.
            Assuming that tree rings are not so bad, that bristlecones are not misleading, and that the calibration data is not in error, McShane shows that during the last 150 years the most random of “fake” data (white noise and brownian motion) has more predictive ability than the proxy data, and that uncertainties are huge, and neither real (nor fake data) has any meaning over the last 1000 years.

            51

      • #
        Uncle Gus

        Hang on just a cotton-picking minute… How do you “replicate” a statistical analysis?

        Steve McIntyre has already shown that if you use different methods on Mann’s data, you get a different result. That’s what all the fuss was about in the first place. And if you use the *same* methods – I don’t even know what to call that. It’s not even a con-trick, because everyone saw you palm the ace…

        And if it’s done with fresh data – that just exactly illustrates my point! Mann used the wrong data and the wrong methods, and got the right answer. Never mind how did he do it. How did he KNOW?

        You know what? I’m not even really a denier. But when I see this kind of BS it’s no wonder I can’t take climate change seriously.

        To paraphrase GK Chesterton; I still believe in global warming. But the older I get, the less and less I believe in warmists…

        21

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Uncle Gus.

          I said replicate the results. This is part of the scientific method, you replicate the experiment to confirm the result. Better still, you replicate the result by using an equivalent experiment, instead of duplicating the actual experiment.

          “And if it’s done with fresh data – that just exactly illustrates my point! Mann used the wrong data and the wrong methods, and got the right answer. Never mind how did he do it. How did he KNOW?”

          I do not agree with your claim, and the groups that examined MBH98 do not agree either. Nice try at a Conspiracy Theory that MBH “knew” in advance the results, that is tinfoil hat stuff.

          13

          • #

            Actually their replications means they were ALL wrong as clearly stated here:

            CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that. It looks like my time is expired, so I want to ask one more question. Dr. North, do you dispute the conclusions or the methodology of Dr. Wegman’s report?
            DR. NORTH. No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.
            CHAIRMAN BARTON. I understand that you can have the right conclusion and that it not be–
            DR. NORTH. It happens all the time in science.
            CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, and not be substantiated by what you purport to be the facts but have we established–we know that Dr. Wegman has said that Dr. Mann’s methodology is incorrect. Do you agree with that? I mean, it doesn’t mean Dr. Mann’s conclusions are wrong, but we can stipulate now that we have–and if you want to ask your statistician expert from North Carolina that Dr. Mann’s methodology cannot be documented and cannot be verified by independent review.
            DR. NORTH. Do you mind if he speaks?
            CHAIRMAN BARTON. Yes, if he would like to come to the microphone.
            MR. BLOOMFIELD. Thank you. Yes, Peter Bloomfield. Our committee reviewed the methodology used by Dr. Mann and his coworkers and we felt that some of the choices they made were inappropriate. We had much the same misgivings about his work that was documented at much greater length by Dr. Wegman.

            LINK

            If one paper (Dr. Mann’s) is demonstrated to be bad,then logically ALL the others will be bad too as they are claimed to be replications.

            31

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              Sunsettommy.

              “If one paper (Dr. Mann’s) is demonstrated to be bad,then logically ALL the others will be bad too as they are claimed to be replications.”

              No they do not.

              03

              • #

                OK Harry, what kind of error would make everything that depends on it moot?

                How about if its verified that the sensitivity is actually less than the lower limit assumed by the IPCC?

                What if the math (arithmetic) error that led to the idea of significant amplification by positive feedback is exposed?

                How about if evidence acknowledges the conflict of interest at the IPCC, which requires CAGW yet has been allowed to become the gatekeeper for what is and what is not climate science?

                What if the Earth fell into another ice age?

                How about if all the doom and gloom predictions never come to pass? (Oops, this has already happened)

                Based on your uninformed comments, I don’t think any evidence will convince you about the truth, but feel free to offer what would.

                What would convince me that you are right and I am wrong is any convincing analysis supporting the presumed sensitivity with first principles laws of physics, which to date, does not exist.

                31

              • #

                He he, you are the one who said his paper was REPLICATED by others.I showed that two reports,The Wegman and NAS stated he used bad statistical methods as I quoted for you. They state that he is wrong with the math used in the paper.

                Therefore if the ORIGINAL paper is shown to be wrong,then all replicated papers will be wrong too, since they are based on the original papers claims.

                Surely you can’t be that silly?

                21

              • #
                Harry Twinotter

                co2isnotevil.

                Subject change, yawn.

                This thread is about the MBH98 hockey stick. Go Gish Gallop elswhere.

                03

              • #

                Harry,
                It’s entirely relevant. You disputed Sunsettommy’s assertion that when a paper is found to be erroneous, all subsequent papers that depend on the error are also erroneous. My query was to establish what criteria you would accept to make this assertion valid?

                31

              • #
                Rereke Whakaaro

                The reliance on Gish Gallop, proves that he does not have an answer for co2isnotevil.

                All of the questions asked are directly related to the topic at hand. It is not a Gish Gallop.

                31

          • #
            Uncle Gus

            No, my dear old, it would be tinfoil hat stuff if I really believed he had access to secret knowledge.

            What I believe is that he had access to a subculture of professional climate alarmists who *needed* the Hockey Stick to be true. It’s possible you don’t remember the desperation of the times. Mann’s paper was pretty much the *only* evidence supporting the CAGW theory. Everything else was computer simulations and hot air.

            You know what’s happened to your lot? You’ve got old and hidebound, while still seeing yourselves as the Johnny Rottens of climate science. You can’t let go. That’s why you can’t see my point. IF MANN WAS WRONG, THEN ANY FURTHER WORK “REPLICATING” HIS RESULTS IS SUSPECT.

            And if he was right, prove it. Don’t get together a committee to award him a medal. Prove McIntyre wrong, and show the world the proof. Just doing more junk science in the same vein just doesn’t cut it.

            11

      • #

        What “investigations” were they, Harry?

        21

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Sunsettommy.

          “What “investigations” were they, Harry?”

          I am surprised that you are commenting about the Hockey Stick wars without even knowing the details.

          National Academy of Science report
          National Research Council (North Report)
          Juckes et al 2007
          Lee, Zwiers & Tsao 2008

          There were many US Congress hearings on the matter, too many to reproduce here. I recommend you look them up. If you cannot be bothered, just watch this entertaining video instead:
          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vys9wUl3rZ0

          03

          • #
            Uncle Gus

            Was that the same Congress that once set pi to exactly 3, to make calculations easier? Or was that the Senate? I misremember.

            (Yeah, before you start, I know it’s apocryphal. I know at least three version of that story. I also know why they still tell it. We’re not talking about scientific geniuses here.)

            11

          • #
            Uncle Gus

            Both my most recent replies have been voted down – by just one person each! Guess who.

            I claim both ears and the tail, Harry!

            11

  • #
    AndyG55

    Saw a great comment on WUWT.. can’t find it now though.

    Went something like this.



    Tree ring show “climate” not temperature.

    They indicate that the “climate” has been improving since 1950.

    157

    • #
      AndyG55

      As I alluded to way near the top of the thread, the “reconstruction” might be correct, but the outcome indicates “growing conditions” not just temperature.

      CO2 levels were apparently quite low through the MWP, and as proven by many experiments, this would be a strong limiting factor on tree growth.

      The cold of the LIA would have limited their growth even further.

      Only when the warmth of the recovery from the LIA combined with that boost in aCO2 provided by human industrialisation did the trees really start to grow properly.

      This is the main issue with using tree rings as a proxy, warmth is just one aspect needed for growth, they also need water and nutrients, and by far the most important of those nutrients is CO2

      177

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      Tree rings record the amount of water available in the soil for each specific year.

      You (or they) might argue that there is an inverse relationship between soil moisture and soil temperature, but it is hardly a robust one, relying as it does on evaporation rate.

      72

      • #
        AndyG55

        Not just the water, but the OVERALL growing conditions.

        Water availability, sunshine, temperature, CO2, other trace nutrients, competition, predators (foragers and insects)

        I’m sure there would be many other things as well.

        85

        • #
          David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

          Agree Andy, but I’d add:
          latitude, altitude, location (as in bottom of gully, or on a ridge top), aspect (direction of any slope) and general climate (!).
          Cheers,
          Dave B

          51

        • #
          AndyG55

          “latitude, altitude, location”

          Those thing tend to be rather constant for most species of trees; :-)

          What we are looking at here is things can change over the life of the tree, thus affecting the relative tree ring size and composition.

          64

      • #

        More CO2 in the atmosphere allows trees to grow faster with less water and higher temperatures. Here in the tropics, tree growth goes dormant for three months due to the cold during winter. Yes, it can get as low as 0C in the river valleys of the North and Central Kimberley plateaus. Many seeds wont even germinate at this time of year until at least a 16C to 20C minimum is reached.

        51

  • #
  • #
    pat

    JO – YOU GET MENTIONED IN THIS TYPICALLY NASTY READFEARN PIECE…

    12 Jul: Guardian: Graham Readfearn: US senators detail a climate science ‘web of denial’ but the impacts go well beyond their borders
    Australians have been both helpers and victims of the fossil fuelled web of climate science denial being detailed in the US Senate
    By the middle of this week, about 20 Democratic senators in the US will have stood up before their Congress to talk about the fossil fuelled machinery of climate science denial…
    Australia has long provided personnel and contributors to the efforts of several of the key groups being named in the US Senate.
    The late Dr Robert Carter, once of James Cook University, was an advisor and active contributor to several of the groups, including the Heartland Institute and the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI).
    Malcolm Roberts (the wannabe One Nation Australian Senator) and bloggers ***JoNova and her husband David Evans have all written reports for the SPPI that claim human-caused climate change is some sort of elaborate hoax.
    Retired Australian meteorologist William Kininmonth is also an SPPI science advisor.
    https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/jul/12/us-senators-detail-a-climate-science-web-of-denial-but-the-impacts-go-well-beyond-their-borders

    12 Jul: Junkscience: Senate Democrat attack on climate skeptics generates threat of physical violence against skeptics
    “Protests won’t do it, rational presentation of the science won’t do it, articles like this in the Guardian won’t do it, and neither will any amount of talking from senators. The evil is simply too entrenched.”
    From the Guardian: (COMMENT WHICH IS LATER DELETED – READ THE IT ALL)…
    http://junkscience.com/2016/07/senate-democrat-attack-on-climate-skeptics-generates-threat-of-physical-violence-against-skeptics/

    80

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

      Mahatma Gandhi

      81

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      On reflection, it is interesting that Readfearn has gone into attack-dog mode, trying to name and shame those with opinions contrary to his own.

      He has obviously run out of arguments, let alone run out of real scientific evidence that will stand up to scrutiny.

      The phrase, “web of denial” is intended to imply a covert conspiracy, but the technique has been so over-used, that that it is now a leading competitor for the “Whatever…” award.

      I actually feel quite sorry for Graham. He used to be a good journalist.

      91

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Hello again Andy,
      I agree that those attributes might be close to constant across a forest, and absolutely constant for a given tree, but not across a reliable sample in a moderately large area.
      Gullies, even on my place, can go from near flat to quite steep within a hundred metres or so. And an east/ west line can go from west facing to east facing across a rdige line in the same distance. With the same sort of trees along the line.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      20

    • #
      David-of-Cooyal-in-Oz

      Hello again,
      My 48.3 above is misplaced. My error. Sorry.

      For being insulted by a US Democrat Senator Jo deserves a Congressional Medal of Honour. Well done. And wear it proudly.
      Cheers,
      Dave B

      41

  • #
    theRealUniverse

    My gosh theres a peak at the MWP(medieval warm period)! for heavens sake, must be correct then. Well even looks lower during the LIA (little ice age).
    Climate scientists are rather like geographers (Im not knocking geographers) compared to geologists..well loosely. As Astrophysics and other disciplines dont consider AGW real then that about sums it up. ;)

    31

  • #
    Steve Richards

    $300,000 to fix one word!

    A clear example to explain: “But why would scientists say temperatures are rising when they aren’t”.

    31

  • #
    pat

    sloshing with Revkin:

    12 Jul: NYT Dot Earth: Andrew C. Revkin: Ahead of the Election, Americans’ Climate Concerns Slosh
    Fresh analysis from a research group tracking voter views on global warming shows the country’s range of attitudes sloshing more than surging…
    Since 2008, the “Six Americas” survey by researchers at Yale and George Mason University has provided a valuable running view of the range of American views on climate change and related issues. A new analysis in the context of the election, drawing on data from March, shows we’re going back in time, in essence…
    You might initially get excited reading the opening lines in the section of the Yale report on voting plans…
    But read on for a dose of reality:
    “Among the Concerned, half (53 percent) consider environmental protection to be very or extremely important, and more than 40 percent consider clean energy and global warming the same. Among the remaining segments, however, global warming is the least important issue of the 23 assessed, and only a third or fewer say environmental protection and developing clean energy will be very or extremely important in their vote.”…
    Incidentally, the climate and energy factor in the presidential election will be a central focus of this week’s installment of “Our Warm Regards,” a new podcast on climate science and communication spearheaded by Slate’s blogging meteorologist Eric Holthaus and including the paleoecologist Jacquelyn Gill (focused on past and future climate impacts on ecosystems) and yours truly…
    http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/ahead-of-the-election-americans-climate-concerns-slosh/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog Main&contentCollection=Climate Change&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

    20

  • #
    pat

    13 Jul: Australian: Andrew Burrell/Rosie Lewis: Federal election 2016: Rising minor parties leave Greens in shade
    The Greens’ vote in the Senate has fallen in every state apart from Queensland, leaving the minor party facing the possible loss of three of its 10 senators once all ­ballot papers have been counted.
    Nationally, the Greens have suffered a 0.9 per cent swing against them in the Senate as other minor parties have risen in popularity, led by One Nation (up 3.8 per cent), the Nick Xenophon Team (1.3 per cent) and Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party (1.8 per cent).
    The party’s vote in the Senate peaked at 13.1 per cent in 2010 but has fallen to 8.3 per cent so far in this count…
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/federal-election-2016/federal-election-2016-rising-minor-parties-leave-greens-in-shade/news-story/6f1a84d351fc25a7eb23ab4a85ff2621

    30

  • #
    BruceC

    Scathing comment left at the Convo by Brandon Shollenberger – (two hours ago – 4:50pm NSW). I doubt it will remain there for much longer. If your lucky you may see it before it gets deleted (currently still the last comment).

    More on his blog; http://www.hi-izuru.org/wp_blog/2016/07/the-gergis-saga-continues/

    31

    • #
      amfile

      All comments now taken down on this The Conversation posting? Brandon’s comment final nail in coffin?

      00

  • #

    Facebook meme that’s been floating around for some weeks seems appropriate:

    Programming is like writing a book…
    Except when you miss a single comma on page 126, the whole thing makes no sense.

    40

    • #
    • #

      Bernd,
      The GCMs, all 121, are written in Fortran, as no-one has converted the HiTran database into any real database! Sorry for that! It was the late 1960s. What did/do we know?
      There is no possible recovery from this political crap! Starting over would require unacceptable admissions of gross stupidity/incompetence from the highest levels of government! Starting over with the finest compressible fluid dynamics model of this planets atmosphere/oceans, would not likely be any better! Earthlings simply have no clue of even proper questions to ask!
      All the best! -will-

      21

  • #

    joanne, this thread is so all over the place!
    http://theaimn.com/from-serial-pest-to-senator/#comment-475191
    Miriam English July 13, 2016 at 10:36 pm

    “Well, you unintentionally clarified the waters for me and I’m very pleased that you did. I genuinely hope you awaken more people to the genuine threat of climate change when they catch on to the purpose behind your antics.”

    You are very welcome!. Always glad to point out the abject stupidity of those with much less than average intelligence! I especially like those with much belief in self-correctness, but with no demonstrated ability to think whatsoever!!!

    30

  • #

    Though-out history intentional personal insult was conventionality handled via duel of the individual participants! Once politics and electioneering arrived such deliberate, hateful,insult became part of the political process, such was now to be decided by vote of the Euro/Au/US-peons, no longer via individual duel! Do you have a problem with that? Why?
    In the US now we have Mam Ginsburg is correctly and properly calling correctly, the essential characteristics of both “The Donald”, and of “The Hillary”, Not one News Pundit would ever ask the honest lady, who would be worse as president for the US country? They are simply to frightened of an honest answer!
    All the best! -will-

    10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Willie Soon et al. have produced another paper that will more knicker knotting

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    ARTHURB.ROBINSON,NOAHE.ROBINSON,ANDWILLIESOON
    Oregon In stitute of Sci ence and Med icine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junc tion, Or egon 97523 [artr@oism.org]

    in the conclusion we have –

    Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the at -
    mosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and nat ural gas
    from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for con -
    version into living things. We are living in an in creasingly lush en vi-
    ronment of plants and animals as a re sult of this CO2in crease. Our
    children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and an imal
    life than that with which we now are blessed.

    10

  • #
    tom0mason

    Willie Soon et al. have produced another paper that will more knicker knotting

    Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
    ARTHUR B.ROBINSON,NOAH E.ROBINSON,and WILLIE SOON.
    Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 [artr@oism.org]

    in the conclusion we have –

    Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2in crease. Our children will therefore en joy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed.

    20

    • #
      Egor TheOne

      ‘A lush green co2 enriched planet’

      Amen !

      10

      • #
        ren

        A negative Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) pattern has established in the Indian Ocean.

        Current weekly IOD index values are the lowest in at least the past 15 years. Climate models predict the negative IOD pattern will persist and develop through the southern winter and spring.

        A negative IOD typically brings above-average rainfall to southern Australia during winter-spring, with cooler-than-average daytime temperatures across southern Australia, and warmer day and night-time temperatures in northern Australia. Find out more about the Indian Ocean Dipole.

        In the tropical Pacific Ocean, sea surface temperatures have continued to cool in recent weeks. With all ocean and atmospheric indicators near normal, the tropical Pacific Ocean is in a neutral El Niño–Southern Oscillation (ENSO) state.

        However, a large volume of cooler than normal water below the ocean surface suggests La Niña remains possible in 2016. Recent observations, combined with current climate model outlooks, have left the Bureau’s ENSO Outlook unchanged at La Niña WATCH. This means the likelihood of La Niña forming later in 2016 is around 50%.

        Typically during La Niña, winter-spring rainfall is above average over northern, central and eastern Australia. If La Niña does develop, climate models suggest it is unlikely to reach levels seen in the most recent event of 2010–12—one of the strongest La Niña events on record.
        http://media.bom.gov.au/releases/278/negative-indian-ocean-dipole-emerges-as-pacific-ocean-remains-neutral/

        00

  • #

    I looked at the withdrawn Gergis paper back in 2012. When it was claimed that the paper would be resubmitted with corrections in a few short weeks, I posted on the hurdles that needed to be overcome for it to be a credible temperature reconstruction. As you can see from the summarized comments below, they are not advanced science, just basic issues of statistics and geography.

    1. Too few proxies for such a large area. Just 27 for > 5% of the globe.
    2. Even then, 6 are well outside the area. Gergis’s table makes three appear inside the area.
    3. Despite huge area, there are significant clusters – with massive differences between proxies at the same or nearby sites.
    4. There are no proxies from the sub-continental land mass of Australia.
    5. Need to remove the Palmyra Proxy because (a) it has errant readings (b) fails the ‘t’ test (c) > 2000km outside of the area, in the Northern Hemisphere. (try finding Palmyra Atoll on a world map. It is in the Northern Hemisphere and nearer to North America than Australia)
    6. Without Palmyra the medieval period becomes the warmest of the millennium.

    10

  • #
    Mickey Reno

    Oooh, Gergis’ bogus, BS claims about this really chap my ass. She’s lying about discovering “the error” two days before Jean S. posted the detrending mistake on Climate Audit. After he posted that he had found the major procedural error in the paper which potentially invalidated their conclusions, one of the paper’s co-authors sent Gergis an e-mail a couple of hours later, telling her the bad news. The paper then remained on-line but the editor of the journal in which is was about to be published said that it’s approval had been revoked and that he considered it rejected if not actually retracted.

    Steve McIntyre’s criticism of that paper was NOT part of the paper’s retraction. His criticism of that original paper was based on Gergis’ need to severely cherry-pick from among all the available SH temperature proxies to find a few that would produce the so-called Southern Hemisphere hockey stick. I don’t know why, if you have a whole series of alleged temperature proxies, you would not use ALL of them in a long-term SH meta-analysis. But Gergis, et. al. justified a careful selection of their subset by saying some of the proxies did not accurately reflect the modern temperature record. So basically, their paper did the “heroic” service of regurgitating the modern temperature record, with the tacit presumption that the slope of that trend could accurately be projected backward for a millennium or two. What a bunch of hooey. I’m sorry that Gergis is lying and dissembling about the Jean S. error, and still not addressing the bigger issue of cherry picking among the available proxies.

    00