circular climate stats … very fishy

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]

Montford concludes:

[…] 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.

scatterplot weight vs mercury tuna

Something Fishy about Mercury

Just 14 fish?

[…] They’ve built their entire claim of an increase in mercury on a mere 14 fish, 6% of the data, which are significantly lighter in weight than the other 94% of the sample. And as Figure 5 shows, it is likely that their adjusted mercury content is overestimated. Fourteen small-fry fish are all they have to hold up their claims? Really? This is almost to the level of the One Yamal Tree farrago.

How often does the statistics in climate science get things so wrong? A lot, it seems.

DSC00830Update, more statistical trickery uncovered over at Jonovas, following up another query.

It’s an epidemic.

C3 says:

Climate science fiction: For the last 10 year-period, the UN’s IPCC climate models predicted greenhouse global warming equaling a per century trend of 1.7°C.

a hiatus


About Tom Harley

Amateur ecologist and horticulturalist and CEO of Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Inc. (Tom Harley)
This entry was posted in Climate, comedy, Environment, science and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to circular climate stats … very fishy

  1. Pingback: circular climate stats … very fishy | pindanpost | Cranky Old Crow

  2. kim says:

    Nice picture of James Hansen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s