Marcott2013

Discussion in 'Environment' started by IanC, Mar 14, 2013.

  1. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,462
    Thanks Received:
    580
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +694
  2. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,177
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +615
    More junk science from climate science. Apparently you can't be a climate superstar if you can't make a hockey stick magically appear from nothing. Even marcott admits that the "blade" of his hockey stick isn't statistically signifigant.

    Q: If it isn't, why put it there?

    A: Because the media won't research....don't know enough to ask the question...aren't intestested in the answer. The media will run with anything that seems to promote the agenda whether it is actual science or not.
     
  3. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,462
    Thanks Received:
    580
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +694
    apparently his PhD thesis didn't have an uptick. And he has called the uptick "not robust". Retraction coming soon I wager.
     
  4. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,177
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +615
    A retraction doesn't matter. Idiots like thunder and siagon will be posting that rediculous graph till the hoax completely implodes and the present crop of climate scientists have taken to the tall grass in order to avoid justice.

    That idiot graph will take its place alongside mann's idiot graph and the fact that it has been completely discredited will be meaningless to the usefull idiots of the world. Look how they still defend man even though his work was found to be garbage.

    The question usefull idiots should be asking themselves if they have any active brain cells left is what sort of science actually pushes that sort of garbage through peer review for publishing?
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2013
  5. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,462
    Thanks Received:
    580
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +694
    there have been some very serious 'inconsistencies' pointed out for Marcott2013. how did they get past peer review and when will they be addressed by the authors?

    [​IMG]

    saigon- if you have some some articles defending M2013 I would certainly be interested in reading them. what is your opinion on yet another of the Team's papers being so slipshod?
     
  6. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,462
    Thanks Received:
    580
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +694
    I don't think the ordinary Joe understands the profound dishonesty involved with grafting cherrypicked high resolution endpoints on to low resolution proxy reconstructions. But 'useful idiots' like Old Rocks and Saigon just accept it without question.
     
  7. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,177
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +615
    Lucky for all of us there are some folks out there much smarter than the average Joe looking at this material.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/...-before-science-has-to-retract-marcott-et-al/

    McIntyre writes:


    The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service

    Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix did not use the published dates for ocean cores, instead substituting their own dates. The validity of Marcott-Shakun re-dating will be discussed below, but first, to show that the re-dating “matters” (TM-climate science), here is a graph showing reconstructions using alkenones (31 of 73 proxies) in Marcott style, comparing the results with published dates (red) to results with Marcott-Shakun dates (black). As you see, there is a persistent decline in the alkenone reconstruction in the 20th century using published dates, but a 20th century increase using Marcott-Shakun dates. (It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.)

    It is really time to stop playing nice with these people. This is deliberate fraud.
     
    Last edited: Mar 18, 2013
  8. IanC
    Offline

    IanC Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,462
    Thanks Received:
    580
    Trophy Points:
    140
    Ratings:
    +694
    RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

    a response from Marcott that manages to ignore all the pertinent questions brought up about his methodologies. at least he has publically admitted that the 20th century 'uptick' has no validity and should not have been a part of the paper.

    The Marcott Filibuster « Climate Audit

    McIntyre's response to marcott's FAQ. lots of links to related material.

    Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: Fixing the Marcott Mess in Climate Science

    Pielke,Jr brings up ethical questions about Marcott's paper, and what the author's, media and scientific journals should do to remedy this infraction and stop further gross misrepresentations from happening.
     
  9. SSDD
    Offline

    SSDD VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,177
    Thanks Received:
    360
    Trophy Points:
    85
    Ratings:
    +615

    Maybe marcott shoud be busted from PhD back to BS or maybe even AS till he can demonstrate that he actually knows enough to be labeled PhD.
     
  10. Old Rocks
    Offline

    Old Rocks Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    35,215
    Thanks Received:
    3,807
    Trophy Points:
    247
    Location:
    Portland, Ore.
    Ratings:
    +4,222
    RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

    Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

    A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; Welcome to AGU Online Services).

    Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?

    A: Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century. Other factors also contribute to smoothing the proxy temperature signals contained in many of the records we used, such as organisms burrowing through deep-sea mud, and chronological uncertainties in the proxy records that tend to smooth the signals when compositing them into a globally averaged reconstruction. We showed that no temperature variability is preserved in our reconstruction at cycles shorter than 300 years, 50% is preserved at 1000-year time scales, and nearly all is preserved at 2000-year periods and longer. Our Monte-Carlo analysis accounts for these sources of uncertainty to yield a robust (albeit smoothed) global record. Any small “upticks” or “downticks” in temperature that last less than several hundred years in our compilation of paleoclimate data are probably not robust, as stated in the paper.
     

Share This Page