Addendum to “A Mistake with Repercussions”

Von Storch et al. performed their pseudo-proxy test with two models: the ECHO-G model and the HadCM3 model. The results of both tests are compared in the figure. In the ECHO-G model (red lines) the performance of the pseudo-proxies is very poor, as the difference between the full and dotted red lines is huge. In the HadCM3 model (blue lines) however, the performance is much better – those results would not have served as a cause for dramatic headlines.

Figure: Test of proxy climate reconstruction method with two climate models, HadCM3 and ECHO-G. Solid lines show Northern Hemisphere temperature in the models (31-year running means), the dotted lines show simulated proxy reconstructions where the proxies are degraded with 75% noise. The error of the proxy method is the difference between the solid and dotted lines (arrows). For comparison, we show the Mann et al. 40-year-smoothed reconstruction for the Northern Hemisphere temperature (black) with its 95% confidence interval (grey), as shown in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (Fig. 2.21). (Note that results from both models are affected by the calibration error discussed in 2.) We thank Von Storch and coauthors for providing the data of their model experiments.

These rather different results of the two models should have raised a red flag – most scientists would in this situation have paused to investigate the cause of the difference, which could have pointed them to their detrending problem. Von Storch et al. instead show the HadCM3 results only in the online supplement, which very few readers look at. In the paper itself they only show the ECHO-G results where the pseudoproxies perform poorly; about the HadCM3 results we only learn that they are “similar”.

Page 3 of 3 | Previous page