THE last really sensational global warming story broadcast by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) has been withdrawn - but not by the ABC.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 Following scrutiny at Steve McIntyre’s blog ‘Climate Audit’ the paper how been withdrawn.[2] Dr Karoly advised Mr McIntyre thus: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
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-05-17/study-says-last-fifty-years-were-australias-hottest/4016304/?site=science/memory&topic=latest
2] Gergis et al Put on Hold, Steve McIntyre, June 8, 2012 http://climateaudit.org/2012/06/08/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/
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.
Gavin,
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!
Gavin,
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:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/ld2_1kyr11.png?w=640&h=373
* 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.
"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?
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
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/12/9587/2012/acpd-12-9587-2012-print.pdf
CA et al are only on a jolly while NASA Goddard get their stuff together on Law Dome
"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?
Ice cores v tree rings v instrument record?
C'mon!
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
Why did you decide that gav?