Climate warming study put on hold

12 Jun, 2012 07:28 AM

A WIDELY reported study that found the past half-century in Australasia was very likely the warmest in a millennium has been ''put on hold'' after a mistake was found in the paper.

Led by scientists from the University of Melbourne, the study involved analysis of palaeoclimatic data from tree rings, coral and ice cores to give what was described as the most complete climate record of the region over the past 1000 years.

It was peer-reviewed and published online by the Journal of Climate in May, but was removed from the website last week at the authors' request after the discovery of a ''data processing issue'' that could affect the results.

Study co-author and climate science professor David Karoly said one of the five authors found the method of analysis outlined in the paper differed to that actually used.

The Climate Audit blog - run by Canadian Steve McIntyre, who has challenged the validity of palaeoclimatic temperature reconstructions - claimed credit for finding the issue with the paper. Professor Karoly said the authors uncovered the problem before Climate Audit blogged about it.

He said the data and results were being reviewed.

''This is a normal part of science,'' he said.

''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 rechecked.''

Date: Newest first | Oldest first


R.Ambrose Raven
12/06/2012 8:52:56 PM

Don't get your hopes up with data errors. In 2008, inflows to Perth's dams were a quarter of their pre-1974 level. Average over 1911 to 1974 was 338GL a year, 1975 to 2000 173 GL a year, 2001 to 2009 92GL a year, 2010 just 11GL. Rainfall into Perth dams in 2010 was about the lowest on record – and Perth has been here since 1829! But we are told that the climate isn't changing; since it isn't changing it can't be driven by global warming, Perth's rainfall isn't vanishing, and we all live happily ever after.
13/06/2012 6:46:14 AM

Did not seem to be that hot.
Bill Pounder
13/06/2012 10:38:48 AM

Ah, hem, that's 0.09C over a 1000 years. Not even one degree C. I suppose that's what happens when you "talk" to trees and "chew" coral. "Worse still, proxies were selected with positive or negative correlation. In other words, some were used 'upside-down'." 012/6/7/another-hockey-stick-brok en.html Steve McIntyre: 8/gergis-et-al-put-on-hold/
Ian Mott
13/06/2012 11:32:44 AM

More spin from Karoly. If one of theiir own authors found the problem then how come they were all bluster and spite, refusing to supply data and all the usual climateshonk MO, before Karoly finally opted to come clean? The pile of climate crap passed all the way through "peer review" (aka mates rates) and it took a sceptic to find the flaw.
13/06/2012 12:44:31 PM

Not just boorish and ill-mannered, Pott shows profound and willful ignorance of how the scientific process operates. Maybe Pott operates in a shonky environment of "mates rates", but 'that's not how science works. Peer review picks up errors in scientific papers before they are published, but doesn't detect every error, or refute every theory. When they are published, papers are open for criticism from all sides. The recent Gergis climate paper seems to have contained errors, but we would be wise to wait for the corrected version before passing judgment.
Ian Mott
13/06/2012 7:16:45 PM

Always a good laugh from nico but this one is a classic. "Peer review picks up errors in scientific papers (tee hee) before they are published" (muuuaaahaaahaaa haa). And he apparently says it with a straight face.
14/06/2012 5:56:42 AM

About all I know about science is that a genuine result has to be observable and repeatable. Theres not much in the recent scientific reports that are either, especially when one considers the agenda based research concept and the fact that a lot of these "scientists" would be out of work if it werent for the theory of a.g.w. Oh, by the way, consensus isnt science, and computer modelling isnt a scientific result, ever.
14/06/2012 8:35:50 AM

More of the same from Pott, blissfully unaware of his own failure to understand the scientific process, and so feeling free to indulge in mannerless abuse. Bill, you are modest about what you know about science. Please have a look at the scientific literature, and you will find thousands (thousands) of scientific papers detailing observable and repeatable results, not just in a laboratory, but in the real world. But don't take too much notice of shonky journalists or denialist blogs.
14/06/2012 9:23:02 AM

Ian Mott continues his anti-science diatribe. His writing that "Peer review picks up errors in scientific papers (tee hee) before they are published" is a good laugh indicates this as well as indicating the man's ignorance of scientific methodology. Why doesn't he try to contact some scientists to see how the system really works - most of them would have had a paper modified or rejected as a result of the peer review - all to the benefit of knowledge accumulation
Bill Pounder
14/06/2012 9:36:06 AM

"Jean S observed in comments to another thread that he was unable to replicate the claimed “significant” correlation for many, if not, most of the 27 Gergis “significant” proxies." That was at Jun 5, 2012 at 4:42 PM 6/gergis-significance/ "’s interesting that Karoly says that they had independently discovered this issue on June 5 ", apparently, funnily enough almost down to the same second. Karoly, however, did say, "thank you and the participants at the ClimateAudit blog for your scrutiny". So there!
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6  |  next >


Screen name *
Email address *
Remember me?
Comment *


light grey arrow
I'm one of the people who want marijuana to be legalized, some city have been approved it but
light grey arrow
#blueysmegacarshowandcruise2019 10 years on Daniels Ute will be apart of another massive cause.
light grey arrow
Australia's live animal trade is nothing but a blood stained industry that suits those who