Grant does statistics for a living, I could not improve on his exposition.

Jan 8, 2020 at 9:07 AM Phil Clarke

Did he Peer Review Gergis for Real Climate?

"Grant does statistics for a living, I could not improve on his exposition.
Jan 8, 2020 at 9:07 AM Phil Clarke"

If he was honest, he should pay the costs of those that have corrected his mistakes.

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/4/6/tamino-does-climate-audit-covers-josh-214.html?currentPage=2

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-tick/

All I “learned” from McIntyre’s “analysis” is that Marcott et al. had re-calibrated proxy ages, that McIntyre blamed the uptick on the re-dating process, and that he was happy to hint at the possibility of deliberate deception on the part of the authors. The references to McIntyre in my original version were to his insulting tone regarding this work, but I finally decided it was better to ignore that and comment on the science. It now seems that on the “dot earth” blog he chose to accuse me of having “shamelessly plagiarized” his ideas on why the exaggerated uptick occurs in the Marcott et al. temperature reconstruction. He’s wrong.

I didn’t read all his posts about the paper, for two reasons: first, there are so many, and I find them so full of sneering and thinly veiled innuendo that they’re sickening; second, there’s really very little to be learned from him. In my opinion he’s just not interested in understanding the science, he only wants to kill hockey sticks.

I’m hardly ignorant of the effect of station dropout (in this case, proxy dropout) on averaging temperature data, I’ve known about it since long before Marcott et al. was even published. If Steve McIntyre wants to claim that he identified proxy dropout as the reason for the extreme recent temperature uptick in the Marcott paper before I did, fine. It wouldn’t be the first time two different people had the same idea. I congratulate him on his insight. As for his assuming that I got the idea from him and didn’t credit him, it’s no surprise that he would assume the worst possible motives in others.

My opinion: perhaps if Steve McIntyre had been more careful in explaining himself, more interested in communicating reality than in demeaning the results, and less indulgent of his own sneering, people might refer to him rather than me when mentioning the impact of proxy droupout, and the “dot earth” blog might be referring to his posts rather than mine as “illuminating.”

Also my opinion: if Steve McIntyre were really interested in the science rather than just killing hockey sticks, he might have applied the “differencing method” himself and discovered that the uptick is still there (but reduced in size) when the impact of proxy dropout is dealt with, whether one uses the re-calibrated ages or the original published ones.

But that would require him actually to do some science.

Notice that I not only identified (quite independently) the reason for the exaggerated uptick, I also implemented a method to overcome that problem? Notice how I showed the result and compared it to Marcott’s reconstructions? Notice how I computed the result using both the re-calibrated and the originally published proxy ages? Notice how I did so for the same latitude bands as Marcott, and compared those too? Notice how I even did an area-weighting of those latitudinal results? Science.

Notice also that I disputed the reality of the exaggerated uptick in the Marcott et al. reconstruction without once even hinting that the authors had manipulated the data for nefarious purposes?

Also, Tamino charges for his professional consultancy, his blog posts we get for free.

Jan 8, 2020 at 1:57 PM Phil Clarke

Lying for Climate Scientists is so discredited these days. Any plans for the future?

One resolution: DFTT.

Notice that PC introduces himself, and ends up dominating the conversation in one Discussion after another, and furthermore has been doing this for many years. Already he has subverted this one and we are paying more attention to what he has written rather than the intention of originator of this particular discussion.
I hesitate to suggest any course of action, since I get accused of trying to manipulate you all, but why not set up a separate discussion, specifically to respond to PC's provocations, and simply refuse to respond within the discussion he is trying to influence or disrupt?

AK, I agree.

And another for Golf Charlie?

Phil Clarke, as a liar, representing the highly paid liars of Climate Science including the UN, IPCC, EU etc, do you think that telling more lies, and linking to more Hockey Teamster liars, really helps your case?

Try reading the title of this thread, and post something that doesn't prove that Climate Scientists ignore real evidence, relying on their dodgy abuse of statistics and computer programming to tell them what they want to hear.

On topic :

Radical R points to Jo Nova's page about the 1896 heatwave, Australian temperatures from newspaper reports pre-1910 and bemoans the BOM's not using readings from before that date.

But there's a good reason for that cutoff; it marks the widespread adoption of standard thermometers in Stephenson screens. A screen ensures the thermometer inside is measuring the air temperature, without being heated by direct sun or cooled by the breeze. We don't know where the instruments in many of the press reports were located, though many were at Post Offices, in verandahs and against stone walls.

Nova cites the press report from Bourke, which did not get a Stevenson screen until 1908. According to BOM:

A few colonial period temperature records provide evidence of an extreme heatwave across New South Wales in summer 1896, which was likely one of the ten hottest Januarys in southeast Australia in the last 150 years. However, significantly, these earlier data cannot be easily compared with modern recordings, since many observations were taken with non-standard instrument configurations, including exposure of thermometers to sunlight and long-wave radiation, for which little supporting documentary descriptions exist. In particular, detailed study has shown that extreme temperatures recorded at Bourke during the 1896 heatwave were likely suspect due to non-standard exposure, and likely around two degrees warmer than temperatures recorded with standard instrumentation.

Secondly, when people claim recent 'unprecedented' temperatures in Australia they are generally not referring to a small area undergoing a heatwave (the 1960 single site record has not been broken), but the country as a whole over a sustained period, December was the hottest month and the summer was the warmest summer, estimated as 0.5C warmer than 1896.

A state of emergency has been declared in New South Wales, Australia, amid fears a record-breaking heatwave will exacerbate the state's bushfire crisis.
The nation endured its hottest-ever day on Tuesday, but that record was smashed again on Wednesday - which saw an average maximum of 41.9C (107.4F).
Tuesday's 40.9C had eclipsed the previous record of 40.3C, set in 2013.

BBC

There is no doubt in my mind (as the originator - but not the owner - of this thread) that Phil Clarke is doing his best to divert it from its original intention (as AK suggests).

Leaving that aside, if Phil wants to start a discussion about Jennifer Marohasy and her criticism of the Australian BoM, then he is of course welcome. I would certainly prefer that to this thread being derailed.

As for his link to the Tamino blogsite, I make two comments:

1. Two articles by Marohasy have been referred to in the discussion. One that I put up here after I saw it mentioned by tomo on Unthreaded and thought it relevant; the second a follow-up by Charly. Phil has chosen to ignore both, and play the old ad hominem game by accusing Marohasy of being a liar by linking to an article criticising a third piece put on the internet by Marohasy. When I responded as follows:

"Phil, please offer your own (in your own words) critique of Jennifer Marohasy's critique of the Australian BoM's alleged fiddling of the data, then we can talk about it again. Links to alarmist websites without anything more really don't cut it."

Phil replied: "I can see how you would want to dismiss rather than debate this, but there it is"

The brass neck is astonishing! I posted a link to an article which Phil has ignored. Charly posted a link to an article which Phil has ignored. I asked Phil to critique the article I linked to, in his own words (he has, after all, ignored it) and his response is to suggest that I - not he - would rather dismiss than debate this. Truly unbelievable. But that, ladies and gentleman, is the world of the climate hysterical true believer, where black is white, and words mean what they intend them to mean, not what the dictionary says.

2. Neither Phil, nor I, nor I suspect anyone who contributes to this site is disinterested and unbiased and objective. We all sincerely believe what we believe, and mostly, I assume, do so, having given the matter a reasonable degree of thought after reading the available evidence. The problem with this is that the human condition means that we all seek out evidence which reinforces the conclusions we have arrived at, and tend to dismiss evidence which flies in the face of conclusions. I fear I do it, Phil does it, we all probably do it. With that in mind I read the article Phil offered as his evidence, and the Marohasy article it purports to dismiss, and did my utmost to read both with an open mind (while acknowledging that I probably failed). Having done so, I could only find Tamino's critique convincing if I wanted to believe in his critique. It failed to address a number of the arguments in the original article. If I were a judge hearing a case based on evidence of this sort, I would find that Marohasy was wrong to show a graph stopping short of the current date, but I would find some of her criticisms of the BoM's methodology to have merit and some of Tamino's defence of the BoM to be weak. But, as Tamino says, scathingly (I'm sure) throughout his piece - "Just my opinion."

Anyway, can we please get this thread back on topic. Phil, if you want to discuss BoM methodology, why don't you open a separate discussion thread?

Spot on, Mark.

"Unprecedented events/weather records?"

Info on weather observations:

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/wea.469

( Seems they weren't all idiots with their thermometers in direct sunlight. )

Here's work that seems to have value, despite having the name Gergis on it:

https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/gdj3.19

French schoolteacher lent me Le Roy Ladurie's book first book, I was on exchange trip. Been sceptical about talk of climate "extremes" ever since.

The flooding of the Thames (and elsewhere) that occurred in January 2003 did impact on my work at the time, and is one of the reasons why I had reasons professionally to find out more about the history of flood events. This included meetings with the Environment Agency etc. Summer 2003 was a scorcher, I know, it also impacted on my work!

I had had my doubts about the genuine science and evidence for man-made Global Warming, but the WEATHER of late 2002 through summer 2003 did make me suspend my scepticism.

Actual temperatures and rates of rainfall are not well recorded historically, but flood events are. Similarly, the last and first frost of each year are recorded by gardeners and farmers, but not how much below freezing the temperature actually got.

The last bit of snow Melting on a Scottish mountain is not sufficiently significant for a farmer to record. He just wants to know when the grass is growing again.

As a Country Bumpkin, I have learned bits of folk lore about weather in the past. Folk lore for seasonal weather Forecasting is rubbish! Gazing at clouds will aid forecasting upto 36ish hours ahead for farmers and sailors. I understand enough about weather to know it is complex, and that the British Isles are located in the wrong place for very accurate forecasts.

Work has taken me into Met Office sites, and into informal chats with Met Office employees, this included October 1987, before and after the gale of 15/16th

I still don't know whether CO2 can cause, or has ever caused any Global Warming, but history as recorded, as it happened, does not support the Hockey Teamsters

"Phil, please offer your own (in your own words) critique of Jennifer Marohasy's critique of the Australian BoM's alleged fiddling of the data, then we can talk about it again. Links to alarmist websites without anything more really don't cut it."

OK, Here goes.

Hardly a 'critique'. Marohasy states not one single verifiable fact. It is all just self-serving assertion. No references. For example she claims a BOM report 'vindicates' her, but provides neither the title of the report nor a link. Given that she is demonstrably capable of falsehood I am pretty certain if I were to do the homework necessary to dig it up I would find her guilty of 'inaccurate precis'.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/incorrect-claim-global-warming-mostly-natural-based-on-study-that-cant-support-conclusion-jennifer-marohasy-john-abbot/

Go on then Phil - do the homework - since most here won't take your word for much at all.

Well, quite. Marohasy we treat as Gospel.

Find me the BOM report and I promise to read and report on it.

Meanwhile, according to the new standard, please critique in your own words, this critique of Marohasy's scientific work.

It is highly significant for this study that all of the six proxies chosen had proxy temperatures that declined or were at best constant after 1975, underscoring a combination of proxy problems (e.g. dendrochronology) and the unrepresentativeness of the proxy choices. In the “Northern Hemisphere composite” (from [one] Icelandic lake), the temperature even decreases by a whopping 0.3 °C since 1980—yet from the authors’ description, one could be forgiven for thinking that this behaviour was somehow representative of the actual Northern Hemisphere temperature.

Rather than using the original data, the authors scanned the published graphs and used very low resolution versions of the data. From their graphs, it would seem that the resolutions they obtain are between 20 – 50 years (more on this later). This is a shame since in many cases the original data had annual resolution.

These geographic and temporal resolution issues are underlined since they turn out to be fundamental. For example, a dozen or so globally or hemispherically representative pre-industrial multiproxies exist, each based on hundreds or thousands of individual proxies—not just 6. They show that the pre-industrial global temperature series has decadal scale oscillations that are close to ±0.1 °C and this is supported by pre-1900 instrumental data. The true decadal global scale fluctuations are thus about ten times smaller than the local series analyzed by Abbot and Marohasy.

https://climatefeedback.org/claimreview/incorrect-claim-global-warming-mostly-natural-based-on-study-that-cant-support-conclusion-jennifer-marohasy-john-abbot/

Jan 8, 2020 at 11:40 PM Phil Clarke
I have been asking you for a few years to explain your support for Gergis, her Peer Reviewers, and all those that supported her Hockey Stick support act.

You can't.

Meanwhile, back in the real world of harvest prediction, the Ancient Egyptians trusted something more reliable for forecasting, genuine data:

http://www.irrigationmuseum.org/exhibit2.aspx
The Nilometer.
Joseph and his Technicolour Dream coat was more reliable than Mann and his bent stick.

Hi Golf Charlie,

Please explain, in your own words, your criticisms of Gergis et al 2016, and their relevance to the debate?

After all, it is only one of a myriad of lines of evidence, and not even part of the PAGES 2K reconstruction that so, so looks hockey-stick shaped.

Jan 9, 2020 at 12:09 AM Phil Clarke

Both Gergis papers have been exposed as Peer Reviewed lies and corruption. You said Gergis proved Mann. As what?

What does Gergis prove about those chosen to Peer Review Climate Science?

Grant Foster aka Tamino defended Gergis at Real Climate aka the lair of lying Hockey Teamsters.

If Gergis wasn't lying and none of the other was being deliberately dishonest, were they chosen because of their complete incompetence?

Meanwhile, back at the Thread .......
Hubert Lamb established the existence of the MWP and LIA using evidence gleaned from historical records. These have stood the test of time

Changes in weather that might be consistent with the end of the Little Ice Age that lying Hockey Teamsters have tried to erase from the historical record and Wikipedia.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennet_and_Avon_Canal
"Ice-breaking was stopped in 1857, and traders were further encouraged by preferential tolls to use the railway rather than the canal. In 1861 a new order prohibited any traffic on the canal at night, and, in 1865, boats were forced to pass through locks in pairs to reduce water loss... "

A brief summary of Phil Clarke's favourite lies and liars starts here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/08/the-climate-decade-that-was-failed-predictions-tour-de-paris-and-the-gretas/

Predictions, Tour De Paris, and the Gretas
Guest Blogger / 13 hours ago January 8, 2020
by Vijay Jayaraj

"As we step into a new decade, here’s a look at the climate drama that just ended.

The 2010s were dominated by the failure of doomsday prophecies, the adoption of a fantasy climate agreement, unexpected weather trends, and the beginning of the climate emergency cult movement that reminded many of the overpopulation hype of the 1970s and 1980s."

As Phil has declined to take up my invitation to set up a new discussion thread about the Australian BoM, I've done it for him. I've transferred all relevant comments from this thread to that new one. Please ensure all comments about the BoM are posted there, not here, if possible.

Please ignore all further comments about the BoM etc on this thread, and try to keep this thread in line with my original intention when setting it up. Distraction techniques are not appreciated! Genuine on-topic discussion always is.

Many thanks.

The Kennet and Avon canal is another interesting story that I don't know too much about. The ability to get goods to and from the ports of Bristol and London was hindered by lack of rain and the difficulty in creating storage reservoirs on permeable chalks and limestone.

"Canalising" a river with weirs and locks helped to stabilise flows and depths so they remained navigable throughout the year. Water shortage and silting up remains a problem to this day. Global Warming is blamed but increased extraction from boreholes, streams and rivers to supply an increased population has been far more dramatic.

The Whaley Bridge Dam retained the Todd Brook Reservoir. This was built primarily as a header tank for a canal. The failure of the dam had nothing to do with Global Warming, but a lack of maintenance, and bodged repairs. Failure of the Oroville Dam also occurred when it overflowed, something it was designed to do.

The history of the day to day "management" of Whaley Bridge probably depended on local knowledge, passed from generation to generation of dam keepers, employed by the Canal Company, to maintain water supply to the canal, opening valves and sluices when rainfall and/or water levels exceeded a certain level. This acquired knowledge was probably "lost" many decades ago.