Australia’s Hottest: Withdrawn

THE last really sensational global warming story broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been withdrawn – but not by the ABC.  There has been not a word on the new development from the ABC or any of the other media outlets that originally reported on it.

The story made headlines around the world following a media release from the University of Melbourne and the endorsement of David Karoly:

‘The last 50 years in Australia have been the warmest.

The researchers from Melbourne University used 27 different natural indicators like tree rings and ice cores to come to their conclusion, which will be a part of the next United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change report.

The findings show that no other period in the last 1,000 years matches the temperature rises Australia and the region has experienced in the last 50 years.’[1]

Sounds like another hockey stick doesn’t it? Following scrutiny at Steve McIntyre’s blog ‘Climate Audit’ the paper how been withdrawn.[2] Dr Karoly advised Mr McIntyre thus:

Dear Stephen,

I am contacting you on behalf of all the authors of the Gergis et al (2012) study ‘Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium’

An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, which may affect the results. While the paper states that “both proxy climate and instrumental data were linearly detrended over the 1921–1990 period”, we discovered on Tuesday 5 June that the records used in the final analysis were not detrended for proxy selection, making this statement incorrect. Although this is an unfortunate data processing issue, it is likely to have implications for the results reported in the study.

The journal has been contacted and the publication of the study has been put on hold.

This is a normal part of science. The testing of scientific studies through independent analysis of data and methods strengthens the conclusions. In this study, an issue has been identified and the results are being re-checked.

We would be grateful if you would post the notice below on your ClimateAudit web site.

We would like to thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny of our study, which also identified this data processing issue.

Thanks, David Karoly

Print publication of scientific study put on hold
An issue has been identified in the processing of the data used in the study, “Evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millennium” by Joelle Gergis, Raphael Neukom, Stephen Phipps, Ailie Gallant and David Karoly, accepted for publication in the Journal of Climate.
We are currently reviewing the data and results.

If only they would now withdraw the next United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change report, the carbon tax, and…


1] Last 50 years were Australia’s hottest: study
Matthew Carney, May 17, 2012

2] Gergis et al Put on Hold, Steve McIntyre, June 8, 2012


18 Responses to Australia’s Hottest: Withdrawn

  1. John Sayers June 12, 2012 at 9:30 pm #

    sheesh – what are we going to do with these charlatans. Isn’t it finally over – Luke?

  2. spangled drongo June 12, 2012 at 9:52 pm #

    Climate desperados. Gotta come up with something big before Rio and AR5!

    Even Luke’s given up.

  3. hunter June 12, 2012 at 10:45 pm #

    Nor did they withdraw the totally false story about skeptics threatening academics, did they?
    Unethical media fabricating outright, or pushing stories fabricated outright by others is a big part of the credibility of the AGW movement.
    The implosion of this big leg of AGW extremism is important: How did so much money get spent on such a false report? How did such bad science get so far? What does this say about the other hockey sticks being used to sell AGW?
    But media is for the most part long past actual reporting. Instead they serve as an infomercial for AGW hype and deception.

  4. gavin June 13, 2012 at 7:13 am #

    Interesting read at CA. Yes SD, liked it too after dismissing the hangers on.

    What we have is a young science without the benefits of an agreed practice in numerical methods. This leaves the door open. But researcher’s intuition must be allowed and evolved through peer review or no new evidence will emerge.

    We can improve. A blog institute can hardly be formal enough though.

  5. Neville June 13, 2012 at 8:27 am #

    Well Gav Steve McIntyre and readers have broken 2 hockey sticks, so they haven’t done too badly.
    McIntyre should be given a million $ by grateful texpayers around the world. He has taken on these liars and fraudsters under the most trying of circumstances.

    But still the greatest con is the mitigation of AGW fraud, some how to be mitigated by flatlining OECD countries while non OECD countries emissions are soaring to historical levels.

  6. Minister for Truth June 13, 2012 at 8:50 am #

    But wait there is more…

    Now we have another breathless ABC stage managed announcement from the CSIRO et al, that we are definitely responsible for the warming of the oceans by 0.1c.

    “This paper’s important because, for the first time, we can actually say that we’re virtually certain that the oceans have warmed, and that warming is caused not by natural processes, but by rising greenhouse gases primarily.”

    And he described the evidence of global warming as unequivocal.

    “We did it. No matter how you look at it, we did it. That’s it,” he said.

    I didnt think that anything in science and GW science in particular was ever that certain, but to say that regarding only 01.c over the whole of the worlds oceans is just quite farcical.

    Then I realised what it was all about.

    In cahoots with the ABC, these nobs will say anything in the lead up to kick off of the idiot Carbon Tax and Rio.

    PS; Now that I know the few molecules (about 3 in 9m of air) that we humans have put into into the atmosphere can heat the oceans I am going to use Madams hair dryer to heat the pool

    Should do it in a flash according to these intellectual geniuses.

  7. cohenite June 13, 2012 at 11:32 am #

    This particular dog of a paper cost somewhere between $340,000 – $950,000 according to Jo Nova:

    The role of the ABC is egregious; typically they wheel in these papers with great fanfare and when the wretched things fall in the heap there is never any follow-up. I rememeber when the Steig paper on Anartctic warming came out in 2008 the ABC was falling over itself; but when Steig’s effort was revealed as the schomozzle it is again there was no follow up.

    And again, after the Gergis debacle the ABC has wheeled out another AGW ‘proving’ paper, this time by that serial offender Santer with a big Australian imput from the CSIRO. Again despite the ABC’s fawning the paper is a dog and is being picked to bits:

    This is peer review in action and your tax dollar at work. What a joke!

  8. Neville June 13, 2012 at 9:32 pm #

    There seems to be no stopping Steve McIntyre and this anti hockey stick graph could be his best job yet. Very, very inconvenient truth indeed.

  9. Bob Fernley-Jones June 14, 2012 at 3:05 pm #

    The only newspaper I buy is the Melbourne Age on a Thursday because of its “Green Guide” devoted to broadcasting and computer stuff etcetera. Thus I spotted this highly relevant report by Mark Scott, the MD and Editor-in Chief of the ABC on page 3.

    I sniffed around on Google and maybe the following in The Australian is what raised Scott’s ire about the accusation of “group think” in the ABC by The Australian

    The following is also of interest where the host of Media Watch (Jonathan Holmes) which should of course have no group-think membership….no agenda….total neutrality, rose in protest at the then Chairman’s address to staff, (Maurice Newman), notably on group-think on climate change:

    Interestingly, Mr Newman did not renew another 5-year term as chairman shortly thereafter, and it is tempting to think that he may have become disillusioned about banging his head on a brick wall.

  10. gavin June 14, 2012 at 6:17 pm #

    Had a look at McIntyre on Gergis @wuwt and decided the Law Dome info is not on the same page. Steve is pulling a swiftie and should be booted off this limp limb

  11. cohenite June 14, 2012 at 9:14 pm #

    Why did you decide that gav?

  12. gavin June 14, 2012 at 10:08 pm #

    Ice cores v tree rings v instrument record?


    The McIntyre argument uses an inappropriate time scale for the ice record when he should be explaining it’s sensitivity or fit re the overlap of other series used in the study

  13. cohenite June 14, 2012 at 10:31 pm #

    “Ice cores v tree rings v instrument record?”

    Dome is not ice cores but Oxygen isotope ratio cycles which can be located in ice or as calcite in ocean core samples.

    CO2 levels are also measured in ice cores in any event.

    The advantage the O2 proxies have over the tree rings is that they don’t exhibit the same divergence as tree-rings do with the instruments after 1960.

    How does that make the tree-rings more reliable than the O2 isotopes?

  14. gavin June 15, 2012 at 7:45 am #

    For a start, the ice method is not properly calibrated for the sensitivity required. Two, the ice is less likely to indicate surface temp as we go on with indirect 02 studies.

    Catch up on alternative studies for calibration via etc see project ASAC_3064 (cosmogenic beryllium isotopes (10Be and 7Be)

    See also black carbon studies and methane from boreholes

    CA et al are only on a jolly while NASA Goddard get their stuff together on Law Dome

  15. cohenite June 15, 2012 at 9:20 am #

    “the ice method is not properly calibrated for the sensitivity required.”

    Evidence, or is that just your conclusion?

    “the ice is less likely to indicate surface temp as we go on with indirect 02 studies.”

    Apart from not making sense – what are “direct O2 studies”? – again what evidence for that?

    From your link, which is about CH4, Methane isotopes, NOT O2, Oxygen, isotopes.

    In respect of the isotope analayse method, as it applies to CH4, your link says this:

    “Stable isotope analysis represents an excellent tool to investigate changes of in
    dividual CH4 sources and sinks in the atmosphere, because each type of emission/
    removal process is associated with a characteristic isotope signature”

    If the method is good for CH4, why isn’t it good for O2?

  16. Bob Fernley-Jones June 15, 2012 at 10:52 am #

    Personally I think that some of the assumptions about the assumed accuracy of oxygen isotope proxies, CO2 concentration, chemistry and molecular dispersion* etcetera in ice cores are a tad speculative. However, what strikes me as strange is that if there is any variation in accuracy with time, then intuitively it would be logical to assume a progressive decline in accuracy with time. Could you please study the Law Dome O18 graph and advise your wisdom on this:

    * Note; There is a classic quantum theory experiment where when two containers holding different gases, are connected with a tube, eventually both containers have identical gas mixtures. It is a bit more complicated and assumptive in ice cores, snow, and firn.

  17. Bob Fernley-Jones June 15, 2012 at 5:48 pm #

    In my last line above, it may have been a bit clearer for you if I had said:

    It is a bit more complicated than is asserted in the mainstream for ice cores and their predecessors firstly of snow then firn.

    And, for more, the random walk dynamics of gas molecules through micro and nano-fissures may well be affected by molecule size, mass, and distribution of molecular KE. Ho hum!

  18. gavin June 17, 2012 at 6:21 pm #

    Bob FJ; sorry, been too busy catching up with old chores to get back promptly. Truth is though, I would have to do an extensive read up on ice isotopes etc as this chemistry was never my thing. But be assured, it’s not mainstream at CA either.

    As for gas molecules doing their own thing, I had to be pretty slick with my silver soldering around liquid /vapor type thermometers. Fluid loss over time is directly related to vapor leaks through porous solder but totally immeasurable at any time by eye

    In the same period, the boss pulled my off a weekend job drilling an old disused but massive gasometer. Ideally, we were providing a new pressure monitor (taping) for it’s temporary reuse as upstream storage for Melbourne’s natural gas development. But residual coal gas in the steel shell (inner skin) and potential explosion made that little exercise completely uninsurable. Calculation’s had revealed a likely orbital body so he continued alone with a hand drill and a copper bits while earthed via both wrists to the railway line near by.

    Smart mechanics don’t weld empty fuel tanks or drums for the same reasons.

Website by 46digital