Click images for more details



Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > Latest Hockey Stick

Steve McIntyre has another post up at Climate Audit

There is a postscript too.

Aug 3, 2016 at 6:11 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I wrote "reference list contained no obvious reference to AUSTRALASIAN data" you come up with Neukom and Gergis 2011, which concerns southern continent reconstructions, not specifically Australasia.

The SI has

Australasia is herein defined as the land and ocean areas of the Indo-Pacific and
Southern Oceans bounded by 110°E-180°E, 0°-50°S. Our instrumental target was
calculated as the September-February (SONDJF) spatial mean of the HadCRUT3v
5°x5° monthly combined land and ocean temperature grid9,54 for the Australasian domain
over the 1900-2009 period.
Our temperature proxy network (Fig. S13) was drawn from a broader Australasian
domain: 90°E-140°W, 10°N-80°S (details provided in Neukom and Gergis). This proxy
network showed optimal response to Australasian temperatures over the SONDJF
period, and contains the austral tree-ring growing season during the spring-summer

Neukom and Gergis is Neukom, R. & Gergis, J. Southern Hemisphere high-resolution palaeoclimate records of the last 2000 years. The Holocene 22, 501-524 (2012)

In other words, the proxies used for Australasia by PAGES 2K are described in Neuko m and Gergis 2012, and Gergis 2012 was included in IPCC AR5 remains bollocks.

Aug 3, 2016 at 8:54 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

From Climate Audit,


The precise timing of Gergis’ data torture can be constrained by the publication of the PAGES2K compilation of regional chronologies used in IPCC AR5.  The IPCC First Order Draft had included a prominent graphic with seven regional reconstructions, one of which was the Australian reconstruction of Gergis et al, 2012 (cited as under review).  The AR5 Second Order Draft, published in July 2012 after the withdrawal of Gergis et al 2012, included a more or less identical reconstruction, this time cited to PAGES2K, under review.

Aug 3, 2016 at 11:32 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil Clarke,
you maintain that AR5 quotes PAGES 2K Consortium and not Gergis et al. 2012 and further (Aug 3, 3.10pm) that Neukom and Gergis 2012 does not contain "evidence of unusual late 20th century warming from an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millenium aka Gergis 2012 which had detrending issues that got everyone so excited". Clearly you believe Gergis 2012 and Neukom and Gergis 2012 to be different and the former to be more reliable.


The manuscript version of the PAGES 2K Consortium paper (my PDF titled "Accepted March 2013") indicates the Australasian reconstruction comes from ref 39, which is given as Gergis J et al. Evidence of unusual 20th century warmingfrom an Australasian temperature reconstruction spanning the last millenium, J. Climat.(in revision). Table 1 (Summary of continental scale proxy temperature reconstructions used in this study) gives Gergis (39) as the source of the Australasian reconstruction. There can be no doubt that the Australasian reconstruction in the PAGES 2K Consortium paper comes from the controversial unpublished Gergis et al.2012 paper.

In the PDF (a paginated version of the published paper) that has the additional data "published online 26 April 2013, things have changed. Ref 39 is now Neukom and Gergis 2012, The Holocene, 22, 501-524, and Table 1 now just refers to ref. 39.

So sometime between March 11 and April 26.the authors of the PAGES 2K paper realized they couldn't use the Gergis et al 2012 reference and substituted Neukom and Gergis 2012, which Phil Clarke assures us is different. Unfortunately the figure in both PDFs is exactly the same.

I reach 2 conclusions
1) the Australasian reconstruction in the published version of the PAGES2K paper is based on Gergis et al 2012, and its attribution to Neukom et al. 2012 is false.
2) since AR5 referred to the PAGES 2K paper, whose Australasian reconstruction was based on Gergis et al. 2012, the former were in effect relying upon the latter.

I surmise, but cannot prove, that the supplementary data (S1) was also changed in the March-April 2013 period, and therefore is unreliable.

What say you Phil, more scatological invective?

Aug 4, 2016 at 7:31 AM | Unregistered CommenterAK

GC The AR5 Second Order Draft, published in July 2012 after the withdrawal of Gergis et al 2012, included a more or less identical reconstruction, this time cited to PAGES2K, under review.

It was 'more or less identical' only on Planet McIntyre.

Aug 4, 2016 at 9:50 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

AK-I say you have McIntyre's gift for conspiratorial speculation. And the classic BH gambit of presuming to know what I think.

The issues with Gergis 2012, that led to its withdrawal were to do with the screening and selection of proxies. GC asserted that AR5 'included' G2012 even after it had been withdrawn, which is bollocks.

PAGES 2K did their own Australasian reconstruction and cited Neukom and Gergis 2012 for details of proxies used. It was the PAGES 2K curve that made it into the final version.

Aug 4, 2016 at 9:52 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke.
You do me honour by comparing me with Steve McIntyre, but I cannot accept the accolade.

But as to reading your mind, the only time I presumed to understand what you wrote was when I surmised you thought Gergis et al 2012 was different to Neukom and Gergis 2012 and the latter was superior in not having detrending issues. If I was wrong about that, please accept an apology. But please tell me what you intended to convey.

The fact remains that PAGES 2K falsely states that the proxy data was from Neukom and Gergis 2012, when in fact it came from Gergis et al. (2012). The former has 20 tree ring (+ coral and speleothem) proxy records, whereas the curve in the PAGES 2K paper is from only 14 tree ring records (+ 12 coral and 1 speleothem). Something is amiss.

So Phil. was AR5 referring to a curve in PAGES 2 K based upon Gergis et al 2012 with 14 tree ring proxy records, or upon Neukom and Gergis 2012 with 20? I know what I believe.

I also find it difficult to understand how Gergis could in 2012-2013 be trying to publish two Australasian temperature curves at the same time that you are suggesting differ from.each other.

Aug 4, 2016 at 12:09 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Phil Clarke, you have fellow Green William M Connolley's gift for trying to find fault with anything by McIntyre.

As AK notes, someone is trying to rewrite/amend Climate Science's history, around these issues

As a non-academic, and given your false claims throughout this post, why should anyone trust a Green?

Gergis 2016 should be added to the list of recycled failed attempts to prove Mann's Hockey Stick, which conflicts with your original assertion. Green Party Climate Balls.

Aug 4, 2016 at 12:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

AK - PAGES 2K made their own selection of which proxies to include, they cite N & G as the source of data. Not that difficult?

GC - As a non-academic, and given your false claims throughout this post

Name two.

Aug 4, 2016 at 1:52 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke
The MS PDF clearly shows the proxy data used was that of Gergis et al 2012. What part of that don't you understand? If PAGES 2K made a different selection from Neukom and Gergis (2012) then their paper doesn't identify this and falsely indicates the analysis was based on all the data in Neukom and Gergis 2012. You can't have it both ways. Something smells rotten about the Australasian reconstruction in PAGES 2K, and no amount of air freshener from you can hide it. What a pity the March 2013 version of the paper survives - so inconvenient.

Aug 4, 2016 at 2:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Phil Clarke, I refer to your opening post.

"Actually, it is the Gergis Australia study, Joelle and her team have corrected the various issue and resubmitted the study and it has been reviewed and accepted, in the face of the usual denier unpleasantness.

Conclusion:"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 (90% confidence based on 12,000 reconstructions, developed using four independent statistical methods and three different data subsets). Importantly, the climate modelling component of our study also shows that only human-caused greenhouse emissions can explain the recent warming recorded in our region."

Add it to the list.

Jul 11, 2016 at 10:46 PM | Phil Clarke

After that, it went downhill.

Aug 4, 2016 at 2:17 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

GC. Those claims are both 100% true.


Aug 4, 2016 at 2:30 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

The MS PDF clearly shows the proxy data used was that of Gergis et al 2012. What part of that don't you understand?

The proxy data is the same whichever study the proxy is included or excluded from. What part of that don't you understand?

Aug 4, 2016 at 2:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke
I would imagine that a study based on 14 tree ring proxies would reach different conclusions from one based on 20. I am also led to believe that proxy data, when left in the tender care of climate scientists, either gets lost (then is found again) or strangely mutates becoming colder in the past and decidedly warmer in the more recent. Forgive me for being suspicious.

In any case, it must be clear to all here that the original accepted version of PAGES 2K relied on the Gergis et al 2012 data base and, when it became clear that that source could not be used, Gergis, who orchestrated the Australasian reconstruction, used a short cut and substituted the Neukom & Gergis 2012 reference. More evidence of really shoddy work, or perhaps it was evidence of a simple "typo" of which she's apparently prone.

Any more bollocks?

Aug 4, 2016 at 3:07 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

What a simply amazing coincidence. Going to Steve McIntyre's blogs about Gergis et al. 2012 (of which I have no access) I discover that the paper employed 27 proxy data records. Guess what? PAGES 2K is also based on, wait for it, 27 proxy records. What, I wonder can we make of that? Could it be that the Neukom & Gergis 2012 substituted reference is spurious? Surely not? The paper is in Nature: Nature editors don't allow such shenanigans do they?

Aug 4, 2016 at 3:26 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Phil Clarke, which issues did she correct? The fact that the revised paper passed peer review, is a climate science integrity issue.

My respect for Steve McInytre, and those likened to him, keeps growing!

The lists of co-authors used by Gergis, and Neukom isn't really helping, since you wanted to bring Neukom and Gergis into the confusion.

Aug 4, 2016 at 3:36 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

McIntyre places the reconstructions used in the IPCC First and Second Order drafts side by side here

Along with the usual unpleasant insinuations. Ignoring those he is happy to assert that they are 'identical up to smoothing'

Is this assumption based on nothing more than an eyeballing not just the kind of thing he deplores in others? The kind of evidence-free assertion that a true 'sceptic' should dismiss summarily.

As a commenter points out,

 I don’t think that it’s a smoothed version of the original Gergis et al. curve, although it’s definitely missing pretty much all high-frequency information. For example, the prominent peak c.1310 of Gergis et al. is entirely missing; that is a low period in the PAGES curve. I suspect it’s a new reconstruction from the revised submission


Aug 4, 2016 at 4:10 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

AK, the coincidences continue. Neukom is one of the References for Pages 2K. So is Gergis. Pages 2K are working on an update snd I suppose McIntyre has given them some more updating to do.

It must be really tough being a Climate Scientist, when the only evidence you can rely on, comes from the integrity of close working colleagues. The Peer Review process in Climate Science seems to work on the same basis.

Time to reread "The Hockey Stick Illusion" by Andrew Montford.

Aug 4, 2016 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I now realize that essentially I'm reinventing the wheel and that Steve McIntyre did it so much better back in November 14, 2014 where he was able to show that the methodology employed by Gergis and others in the PAGES 2K paper was the same as the (at that time) withdrawn and still being revised 2012 paper. In other words when AR5 used the PAGES 2K paper they were using the same data sets and methodology as the Gergis et al 2012 paper. So when golfCharlie wrote that AR5 used Gergis et al 2012 he was technically incorrect (so tiny bollocks to him) but essentially was correct in everything else(so humungous bollocks to you!). Perhaps you need new instructions from your Principals, because apart from the tiniest detail, he's got you by the "short n'curlies".

Aug 4, 2016 at 4:20 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

Ho ho. Always suspicious when someone gives a date but no link.

In that post McIntyre was whining about 'self-plagarism' (really who gives a stuff?), but points out that in PAGES 2K

"All data were linearly detrended over the 1921-1990 period and AR(1) autocorrelation was taken into account for the calculation of the degrees of freedom"

Whereas the WHOLE POINT about the Gergis 2012 withdrawal was that, although the methodology stated that they had detrended before screening in fact they hadn't. So  the methodology employed by Gergis and others in the PAGES 2K paper was the same as the (at that time) withdrawn and still being revised 2012 paper. is well, you guessed it.

Oh and by the way, just because PAGES and Gergis 2012 had the same number of proxies does not mean they are the same ones (unless you want to indulge in McIntyresque 'assuming'), only 75% (20/27) the proxies in G2012 were also included in P2K.

GC believes that Hansen predicted a submerged Manhatten by now, that Gore made hundreds of millions from carbon trading and that the IPCC included Gergis 2012 in AR5. I recommend you do not join him in his fantasy world.

Aug 4, 2016 at 5:04 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil. Your barking, and I grow weary of such easy sport.

Aug 4, 2016 at 5:16 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

golfCharlie. Could you accept that AR5 did not quote Gergis et al 2012 but, in quoting PAGES2K, it was for all intents and purposes using its data and flawed methodology? If you could, it would cut Phil off at the knees, and it would be game, set and match (assuming Climateball has such scoring).

Aug 4, 2016 at 6:15 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK

AK 6:15, yes no problem! Was going to earlier, but too busy.

Aug 4, 2016 at 6:58 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

AK, your capitulation is understandable, however just for the record and for the sake of accuracy:

Gergis 2012 found 'observed temperatures in Australasia have been warmer in the past 30 years than every other 30-year period over the entire millennium', however the paper misdescribed its methods, stating the proxy data had been detrended prior to screening when it had not, and so the paper was withdrawn while the error was corrected. This study referenced in the first draft of IPCC AR5.

The PAGES 2K consortium of which Joelle Gergis is a member, published, as part of a global reconstruction, an Australian reconstruction, this had 20 out of 27 proxies in common with G2012, and they did correctly detrend and screen the data. The second order draft of IPCC AR5 uses this reconstruction, which again shows anomalous modern warmth. This the methodology and data of PAGES 2K is different from G2012. McIntyre claims, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, that the graphic shown in the 2nd draft is the same as the 1st. Funny kind of 'audit'.

The latest development is that Gergis and her team have fixed the detrending issue and republished, with conclusions unchanged.

Aug 4, 2016 at 8:21 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

phil Clarke. So silly to claim such a tiny victory and lose the war. And what capitulation do you claim? I only expressed weariness at having to argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge the bleeding obvious.

Aug 4, 2016 at 10:32 PM | Unregistered CommenterAK