Another ‘climate’ paper just out, and hyped by the warmy media (including the Mail, the Sydney Morning Herald, Deutsche Welle, and the Washington Post), is found to be statistically broken by the ‘internet peer review’ community. Bishop Hill here does some demolishing, with assistance from various others: Marotzke’s circularity
Based on media coverage of the paper’s contents, I expressed considerable concern over what the authors had apparently done. It seems, however, that my criticisms at the time were understated. It is in fact “worse than we thought”.
These uncomfortable facts are revealed in Nic Lewis’s analysis of the paper, which has recently appeared at Climate Audit. Nic, assisted by Gordon Hughes and Roman Mureika, has identified some glaring statistical errors in the paper, but these turn out to be just the tip of the iceberg, as I shall now try to explain. […] Read it all here.
I would have though Marotzke was better than this, being a long time ‘thermohaline circulation’ oceanic scientist, but then I see he is an IPCC lead author. Marotzke, Jochem [WorldCat Identities]
[…] Amusingly, Marotzke declared on the paper’s release that “The difference in sensitivity explains nothing really…I only believed that after I had very carefully scrutinised the data on which our graphs are based”. It appears that his scrutiny was not careful enough.
I think it’s fair to say that this is the last we will be hearing of Marotzke and Forster 2015.
Which brings me to the next paper, statistically reviewed by Willis at WUWT, it’s all carp.
There’s a new study out called Increase in mercury in Pacific yellowfin tuna by Paul E. Drevnick, Carl H. Lamborg, and Martin J. Horgan.