2021 02 26 CSIRO Questions / archived / read-only

 
  • Part of: Points on Climate Change
  • Summary
    • The government has repeatedly stated it relies on CSIRO for advice on climate change. We asked CSIRO for logical points to support their assertion that the current rate of temperature rise is unprecedented for 10,000 years.
    • By logical point we mean a statement that is supported by text quoted from a specific page in the cited reference. References should ideally provide the raw and intermediate data and associated logical reasoning for review and potential duplication of the calculations or analysis steps.
    • The following analysis of CSIRO's letter 2020 October 28 shows that it contains no scientific logical points and relies instead upon unsubstantiated assertions, irrelevant citations and 3 allegedly flawed papers. CSIRO responded to some questions on notice about 2021 06 03.
    • Conventions used in this document;
      • Direct quotes written by CSIRO are in green.
      • Direct quotes from a paper cited by CSIRO are in blue.
  • Examples of unsubstantiated assertions
    • The conclusion that the rate of temperature change today is unprecedented in the past 10,000 years is supported by many studies and multiple lines of evidence.
    • Without links to Logical Points in some of the studies and lines of evidence this is an unsubstantiated assertion.
    • There are no peer-reviewed published studies that contradict this conclusion, to our knowledge.
    • Without listing the databases searched and the search terms used this is an unsubstantiated assertion.
    • The most recent reconstruction of global temperatures during the Holocene (Kaufmann et al., Scientific Data, 2020) is consistent with that of Marcott et al. (2013)
    • Without links to Logical Points in both studies this is an unsubstantiated assertion.
    • In relation to claims made in blog posts regarding the integrity of the Marcott study, and the questions raised regarding this research, it should be noted that there are currently 265 [>640, as of October 2020] published papers in the peer-reviewed literature citing Marcott et aI (2013),
    • Citations in no way validate a reference - Appeal to the Majority - Argumentum ad populum
    • CSIRO reaffirms the scientific rigour of the Marcott et al. (2013) study and the conclusion that the rate of recent warming of global mean temperature is unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.
    • Marcott 2013 did not contain the conclusion that the rate of recent warming of global mean temperature is unprecedented in the past 10,000 years. It did not contain any "conclusions" at all. Marcott 2013 did have "our results indicate" but nothing about measured centennial rates of temperature change during the 10,000 years
    • and there is no published study that draws the temperature reconstruction into question for the period for which sufficient proxies are available (~11,300 BP to 1800 CE).
    • Without listing the databases searched and the search terms used this is an unsubstantiated assertion.
  • The allegedly flawed papers
    • Marcott 2013
      • The conclusion drawn by CSIRO and by the Marcott study is based on a comparison of recent temperatures, as measured by instruments, to past temperatures inferred from proxy data. Neither Marcott, nor CSIRO, make any conclusions based on the "uptick" part of the proxy temperature record. This approach is used because the best information we have about recent temperatures are those made by instruments measuring temperature (thermometers measure temperature more accurately than tree rings, ice cores, or plankton preserved in sediments).
      • Marcott's Gain Function Plots show no response is possible for events shorter in duration than 300 year periods such as the current 40yr warming from 1970 as alleged in Mann 2008.
        • Mann 2008 shows about 0.9deg in 40years which is a small fraction of a 300 year period.
        • Q Does CSIRO understand Gain Function Plots? The ratio of output to input by frequency band.
        • Q Is CSIRO aware of the Gain Function Plots in Marcott 2013?
        • Q Is CSIRO aware of Marcott's statement about the Gain Function Plots: The results suggest that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, *with essentially no variability preserved at periods shorter than 300 years***,
        • This means that any temperature changes whose duration is less than 300 years will not be seen.
        • See Appendix - Marcott 2013 Gain Function Plots
        • Q Can CSIRO see that, on the basis of the Gain Function Plots, Marcott's process cannot detect any changes with periods of less than 300 years?
      • Marcott 2013 contains illogical reasoning comparing short term minimums and maximums to long term means.
        • Q If a daily minimum and maximum temperature are known, can the day's temperature be declared unprecedented by comparing it to the annual mean temperatures for 100 years? Can CSIRO see that this would be absurd?
        • Our results indicate that global mean temperature for the decade 2000–2009 (34) has not yet exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene (5000 to 10,000 yr B.P.). These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3). In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution under both the Standard5×5 and high-frequency corrected scenarios. Global temperature, therefore, has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century, reversing the long-term cooling trend that began ~5000 yr B.P.
        • Q Can CSIRO see that the above statement contains this absurd logic and is misleading?
    • Lecavalier 2017
      • Proxy data was used when more accurate thermometer data was available from multiple Arctic sites.
        • From CSIRO Letter 28 October 2020 to Senator Malcolm Roberts: The conclusion drawn by CSIRO and by the Marcott study is based on a comparison of recent temperatures, as measured by instruments, to past temperatures inferred from proxy data. Neither Marcott, nor CSIRO, make any conclusions based on the "uptick" part of the proxy temperature record. This approach is used because the best information we have about recent temperatures are those made by instruments measuring temperature (thermometers measure temperature more accurately than tree rings, ice cores, or plankton preserved in sediments).
        • We agree with CSIRO's opinion and have replaced the proxy data in Lecavalier 2017 by instrumental temperatures from GHCN Arctic stations after 1937.
        • Dr Lecavalier provided his very useful datasets by personal communication which enabled us to duplicate some analysis and to splice our All Arctic dataset instead of the short 2009 proxy. We would be happy to provide this data to CSIRO subject to Dr Lecavalier's permission.
        • Fig. 3.(C) Rate of temperature change based on the Gaussian filtered Agassiz temperature reconstruction |100%
        • Rate of temperature change based on the Gaussian filtered Agassiz temperature reconstruction with our All Arctic series replacing the short 2009 ice core. There is nothing unusual in the 100 year trends and recent trends are not unprecedented.
        • See Appendix - All Arctic Thermometer Series
      • In Lecavalier 2017 Error estimates were not carried through the Gaussian filter or the 100yr running means. This is a fundamental omission. The plot as drawn by Lecavalier implies no uncertainty.
        • Fig. 3.(C) Rate of temperature change based on the Gaussian filtered Agassiz temperature reconstruction
        • Shows the error estimates of the filters included. Filtering makes the plot look cleaner but the error estimates can grow rapidly and should not be omitted. This shows the possibility that recent rates of change of temperature may actually be cooling.
      • There was no mention of Heteroscedasticity in the Methods.
        • The paper presents data from ice cores drilled from the Agassiz Ice Cap in the Canadian Arctic. From the ice cores, past temperatures can be inferred by a complicated process with varying degrees of uncertainty. Raw temperatures at 25yr intervals were available from two cores: 1997 and 1999 (apparently used but not mentioned) . The 1984 and 1987 cores yielded 1yr data and the short 2009 core yielded 1yr data but with higher variance than 1984 and 1987.
        • Lecavalier's raw data showing the difference in variance between the cores.
        • There was no mention of Heteroscedasticity in the Methods. The sigma bounds on the 25yr temperature would likely be significantly greater if heteroscedasticity had been considered.
        • The plot of centennial rates of temperature change does not contain sigma bounds. If ARCH methods were used then the sigma bound would likely have been very wide and the impact much reduced.
      • Do you expect the apparent warming of the last 100 years to continue?
        • Is the Lecavalier 25yr temperature data serially correlated?
          • Durbin Watson statistic: 0.072 < 1.76 Serially correlated Ljung Box lags=10 Max pValue 0.0 <= 0.05 Serially correlated Serially correlated OLS model inapproprite
        • Does serial correlation effect the interpretation of least square means?
          • An ARIMA model was fitted to the data and showed good residuals and error bounds on the forecast. Therefore these ice cores give very little indication of what the future temperatures of the Agassiz Ice Cap might be.
      • What length and rate of warming would CSIRO consider normal when exiting a Little Ice Age and 3 solar minimums?
        • End of MWP Medieval Warm Period LIA Little Ice Age SM Sporer solar minimum MM Maunder solar minimum DM Dalton solar minimum
    • Kaufman 2020
      • Does CSIRO stand by Kaufman 2020 as supporting a recent unprecedented rate of change of temperature?
      • Did CSIRO look in the public domain for prima facie evidence of issues with Kaufman 2020?
      • Is CSIRO aware that the recent uptick occurs only in the Antarctic latitude band and no other latitude band?
      • Is CSIRO aware that Kaufman 2020 disagrees with PAGES 2k 2013 Antarctic reconstruction which has no uptick?
      • Is CSIRO aware that only one of the 16 proxies in the Antarctic latitude band showed the uptick and that was a borehole and the other 15 more reliable methods (including ice cores) did not?
      • Is CSIRO aware that the original borehole LawDome Dahl-Jensen1999 paper did not show an uptick?
      • Is CSIRO aware that the error in importing the Dahl-Jensen borehole data was to miss the first data point and to load the remaining data points in the reverse time order?
      • We agree that when erroneous upticks are removed from Marcott 2013 and Kaufman 2020 they are consistent with the conclusion of no unprecedented recent temperature changes.
      • What due diligence did CSIRO do on this paper before submitting it to the Senate and misleading the Senate?
      • Is CSIRO concerned that Kaufman 2020 passed peer-review in Nature?
  • The irrelevant or contradictory citations in CSIRO's letter 2020 October 28 which have not been addressed by 2021 06 03
    • North Report 2006
      • This report directly contradicts CSIRO's position.
      • Did CSIRO read the North Report 2006 before citing it?
      • Why did CSIRO include a report published in 2006 among references published after Marcott 2013?
      • Does CSIRO stand by their statement that NR 2006 was correctly cited among the references that were published after Marcott et al. (2013), ....and support the conclusion that recent rates of warming are unprecedented [e.g. 1-5].
      • Is CSIRO aware that the North Report states on p118 Very little confidence can be assigned to statements concerning the hemispheric mean or global mean surface temperature prior to about A.D. 900 because of sparse data coverage and because the uncertainties associated with proxy data and the methods used to analyze and combine them are larger than during more recent time periods.
      • Does CSIRO explain the citing of the North Report to be incompetence, negligence or a deliberate attempt to mislead the Senate?
    • IPCC AR5 WG1
      • This is an irrelevant citation as the Summary for Policy Makers contains no reference to rates of temperature change in 10,000 years. There is no reference to Holocene or 10,000. Most citations are for the last 1,000 years.
      • Can CSIRO explain the inclusion of this irrelevant citation?
    • PAGES 2k (2013)
      • This is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years and cannot support claims of what is in unprecedented over 10,000 years?
      • Q Can a paper covering only the last 2,000 years support claims of what is in unprecedented over 10,000 years?
      • Q Why did CSIRO cite it?
    • PAGES 2k (2017).
      • This is an irrelevant citation as it covers only the last 2,000 years and cannot support claims of what is in unprecedented over 10,000 years?
      • Q Can a paper covering only the last 2,000 years support claims of what is in unprecedented over 10,000 years?
      • Q Why did CSIRO cite it?
  • 2020 10 28 CSIRO letter
    • 28 October 2020 Senator Malcolm Roberts PO Box 6100 Senate Parliament House Canberra ACT 2600 Dear Senator Roberts
    • CSIRO acknowledges your letter received by email on 19 October 2020 regarding Senate Budget Estimates questions.
    • Your questions are addressed below.
    • 1. Do you stand by CSIRO's implied claim that Marcott and Lecavalier are the best evidence CSIRO has for showing that the rate of temperature change today is unprecedented in the last 10,000 years?
    • The conclusion that the rate of temperature change today is unprecedented in the past 10,000 years is supported by many studies and multiple lines of evidence. There are no peer-reviewed published studies that contradict this conclusion, to our knowledge.
    • The most recent reconstruction of global temperatures during the Holocene (Kaufmann et al., Scientific Data, 2020) is consistent with that of Marcott et al. (2013) and provides further support to the conclusion that recent rates of temperature change are unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.
    • With regard to Marcott et al. (2013), we responded to your questions about this study in our reply of August 2017:
      • In relation to claims made in blog posts regarding the integrity of the Marcott study, and the questions raised regarding this research, it should be noted that there are currently 265 [>640, as of October 2020] published papers in the peer-reviewed literature citing Marcott et a I (2013), and there is no published study that draws the temperature reconstruction into question for the period for which sufficient proxies are available (~11,300 BP to 1800 CE).
      • We further note that reference [1] derives a 12,000-year record of Arctic temperatures that extends to the year 2009 CE, with 25-year resolution, and concludes that the recent rate of Arctic temperature change is unprecedented in the entire Holocene.
      • CSIRO reaffirms the scientific rigour of the Marcott et al. (2013) study and the conclusion that the rate of recent warming of global mean temperature is unprecedented in the past 10,000 years.
      • Studies published after Marcott et al. (2013), using a variety of data sets and analysis methods and covering various time periods, support the conclusion that recent rates of warming are unprecedented [e.g. 1-5].
      • The conclusion drawn by CSIRO and by the Marcott study is based on a comparison of recent temperatures, as measured by instruments, to past temperatures inferred from proxy data. Neither Marcott, nor CSIRO, make any conclusions based on the "uptick" part of the proxy temperature record.
      • This approach is used because the best information we have about recent temperatures are those made by instruments measuring temperature (thermometers measure temperature more accurately than tree rings, ice cores, or plankton preserved in sediments).
      • There is no scientific evidence in any other climate variable to support the supposition that there may have been periods of rapid warming and cooling in the past that were missed by Marcott's reconstruction method, nor has a plausible physical mechanism been identified that could have driven such spikes in warming and cooling. In addition, it can be demonstrated that the Marcott method could have detected periods of rapid warming/cooling in the past, had they occurred.
  • Appendix - Marcott 2013 Gain Function Plots
    • We composited a Standard5x5 global stack from these synthetic records and calculated the ratio between the variances of the stack and the input white noise as a function of frequency to derive a gain function. The Gain Function plots from Marcott 2013 SI [img: screenshot-science.sciencemag.org-2018-02-21-17-26-04.png] The results suggest that at longer periods, more variability is preserved, with essentially no variability preserved at periods shorter than 300 years, ~50% preserved at 1000-year periods, and nearly all of the variability preserved for periods longer than 2000 years (figs. S17 and S18). Without filling data gaps, our Standard5×5 reconstruction (Fig. 1A) exhibits 0.6°C greater warming over the past ~60 yr B.P. (1890 to 1950 CE) than our equivalent infilled 5° × 5° area-weighted mean stack (Fig. 1, C and D). However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.
  • The merchant bankers of London had alre
  • Appendix - All Arctic Thermometer Series
    • Rate of temperature change based on the Gaussian filtered Agassiz temperature reconstruction with our All Arctic series replacing the short 2009 ice core. There is nothing unusual in the 100 year trends and recent trends are not unprecedented.
    • We checked this using our software to reproduce the Gaussian filter and 100yr trends on the Lecavalier 25yr data. A close match has been achieved thus verifying our software.
    • GHCN stations included in our All Arctic series. Latitude > 67N; StartYear <= 1937; EndYear >= 2008; YearsMissing <= 10
    • Our All Arctic series started from 1829 with only one station. The number of stations was fairly stable after 1935 and only this section was spliced into Lecavalier's data.
    • The average latitude of our All Arctic series was fairly stable after 1935 which was the period used.
    • Our All Arctic series has monthly resolution but was reduced to 1yr resolution by averaging. It was in terms of absolute temperatures while Lecavalier's short core used using anomalies. Our data was adjusted down by 1 degree to match the short core up to 1940
    • This shows Lecavalier's short core and our All Arctic series, both at 1yr resolution, compared to the same period of Lecavalier's 25yr series before and after the replacement..
Loading page ...

Print options

Expand or collapse list branches

Want checkboxes? Change the list style

List style:

Display or hide list attributes

x

Expand & collapse ec

Import im

Examples and details

Word count wc

Current selection
Words: #{js-wc-sel}
Characters with spaces: #{js-cc-space-sel}
Characters without spaces: #{js-cc-sel}
The whole list
Words: #{js-wc}
Characters with spaces: #{js-cc-space}
Characters without spaces: #{js-cc}

List view options oo

  • hc
  • hf
  • sd
  • List style
  • om

Any email, forwarded to this address, will appear in beginning of this list.

Send an email to yourself and add the sender to Contacts for future use.

  • The email subject becomes the list item's text.
  • The email body becomes the list item's note.
  • All attachments from the email are attached to the list item (PRO only).
  • In the subject, you can also add #tags, ^due dates, and @assignees with Checkvist's smart syntax.

You can also set up voice integration on mobile devices