gergis et al is withdrawn

[mamooth]

The deniers have all been very silent about the Gergis paper being republished.

Post-1950s warming in region unmatched in 1,000 years

We understand why you're so upset, deniers. You weren't able to censor the science or bully researchers. And it's not like you have any other tactics to fall back on.

 

[boedicca]

The AGW Cult could at least have the decency to do an Emily Litella:

 

[westwall]

The deniers have all been very silent about the Gergis paper being republished.

Post-1950s warming in region unmatched in 1,000 years

We understand why you're so upset, deniers. You weren't able to censor the science or bully researchers. And it's not like you have any other tactics to fall back on.

It has been? Why then did you post a link to a 2012 report?

Post-1950s warming in region unmatched in 1,000 years
May 16, 2012 10.47pm EDT

 

[Billy_Bob]

The deniers have all been very silent about the Gergis paper being republished.

Post-1950s warming in region unmatched in 1,000 years

We understand why you're so upset, deniers. You weren't able to censor the science or bully researchers. And it's not like you have any other tactics to fall back on.

The paleo record says otherwise... but you all ignore that.. Why?

 

[mamooth]

Gergis et al (2016). Conclusions of the paper are the same as in the 2012 article.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00781.1

That is, it's yet another hockeystick.

 

[westwall]

Gergis et al (2016). Conclusions of the paper are the same as in the 2012 article.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00781.1

That is, it's yet another hockeystick.

It should be fun to see how long before this "study" too is demolished.

 

[Crick]

Care to make any wagers?

We'll give it a deadline - say three months - and whoever loses has to stay off USMB for a week.

 

[flacaltenn]

There's nothing "to demolish" It's the same old claims being made that are NOT SUPPORTED by the clarity and resolution of the proxy data. Tacking on the modern instrumented readings is a hoax in itself because ALL these authors know DAMN well that 50 year spike would not be represented full scale in the proxy data.

And it's fairly easy to control the later proxy data by "selection" of proxies. to force an apparent match-up to the modern era measurements. Just as means are adjusted in the proxies.

Same ole, ole. Trees and mud bug shells are NOT thermometers with .1deg accuracy and LINEAR response -- unadulterated by OTHER variables.

 

[Old Rocks]

Gergis et al (2016). Conclusions of the paper are the same as in the 2012 article.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00781.1

That is, it's yet another hockeystick.

Should be demolished at about the same time as we enter your 'cooling'. Sometime west of never.

By the way, how about some more predictions of the cooling. How soon, and how far down? After all, I stated that the next strong El Nino was going to set records, and it surely did. So, at the next strong La Nina, are we going to set records for global cooling? Or are we going to set records for warmth in a strong La Nina? LOL



It should be fun to see how long before this "study" too is demolished.

 

[Old Rocks]

• Home >
  
• JCLI >
  
• August 2016 >
  
• Australasian Temperature Reconstructions Spanning the Last Millennium

Next Article

Australasian Temperature Reconstructions Spanning the Last Millennium


Joëlle Gergis
School of Earth Sciences, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaRaphael Neukom
Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, and Institute of Geography, University of Bern, Bern, Swiss Federal Research Institute (WSL), Birmensdorf, and Institute of Geography, University of Zurich, Zurich, SwitzerlandAilie J. E. Gallant
School of Earth Sciences, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of Melbourne, and School of Earth, Atmosphere and Environment, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, AustraliaDavid J. Karoly
School of Earth Sciences, ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Abstract
Multiproxy warm season (September–February) temperature reconstructions are presented for the combined land–ocean region of Australasia (0°–50°S, 110°E–180°) covering 1000–2001. Using between 2 (R2) and 28 (R28) paleoclimate records, four 1000-member ensemble reconstructions of regional temperature are developed using four statistical methods: principal component regression (PCR), composite plus scale (CPS), Bayesian hierarchical models (LNA), and pairwise comparison (PaiCo). The reconstructions are then compared with a three-member ensemble of GISS-E2-R climate model simulations and independent paleoclimate records. Decadal fluctuations in Australasian temperatures are remarkably similar between the four reconstruction methods. There are, however, differences in the amplitude of temperature variations between the different statistical methods and proxy networks. When the R28 network is used, the warmest 30-yr periods occur after 1950 in 77% of ensemble members over all methods. However, reconstructions based on only the longest records (R2 and R3 networks) indicate that single 30- and 10-yr periods of similar or slightly higher temperatures than in the late twentieth century may have occurred during the first half of the millennium. Regardless, the most recent instrumental temperatures (1985–2014) are above the 90th percentile of all 12 reconstruction ensembles (four reconstruction methods based on three proxy networks—R28, R3, and R2). The reconstructed twentieth-century warming cannot be explained by natural variability alone using GISS-E2-R. In this climate model, anthropogenic forcing is required to produce the rate and magnitude of post-1950 warming observed in the Australasian region. These paleoclimate results are consistent with other studies that attribute the post-1950 warming in Australian temperature records to increases in atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations.

Looks like the whackadoodles here are wrong again. My goodness, it must be nice to be 100% at something. Again, real scientists doing real research, not paid shills like Jo Nova flapping yap.

 

[Crick]

There's nothing "to demolish" It's the same old claims being made that are NOT SUPPORTED by the clarity and resolution of the proxy data. Tacking on the modern instrumented readings is a hoax in itself because ALL these authors know DAMN well that 50 year spike would not be represented full scale in the proxy data.

And it's fairly easy to control the later proxy data by "selection" of proxies. to force an apparent match-up to the modern era measurements. Just as means are adjusted in the proxies.

Same ole, ole. Trees and mud bug shells are NOT thermometers with .1deg accuracy and LINEAR response -- unadulterated by OTHER variables.

That sounds like a collection of weasel words. When mainstream science doesn't "know", they say so. When the evidence points in a given direction, they say so. If deniers don't know, they just claim that it must be as they wish it was.