Marcott2013

[IanC]

Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?

but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data

 

[SSDD]

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.

 

[IanC]

apparently his PhD thesis didn't have an uptick. And he has called the uptick "not robust". Retraction coming soon I wager.

 

[SSDD]

apparently his PhD thesis didn't have an uptick. And he has called the uptick "not robust". Retraction coming soon I wager.

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?

 

[IanC]

Read McIntyre’s latest here

Related articles

McIntyre finds the Marcott ‘trick’ – How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? (wattsupwiththat.com)
The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service (climateaudit.org)
Hiding the Decline: MD01-2421 (climateaudit.org)
The Hockey Stick, Broken Again (powerlineblog.com)
How Marcottian Upticks Arise (climateaudit.org)
Marcott’s hockey stick uptick mystery – it didn’t used to be there (wattsupwiththat.com)

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?

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?

 

[IanC]

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.

 

[SSDD]

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.

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.

 

[IanC]

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.

 

[SSDD]

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.

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

 

[Old Rocks]

If one reads the whole of the article, it seems that Marcott has been a good deal more honest than the people here cherry picking sentences in order to make the paper appear to say something it did not.



RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.

Q: Are the proxy records seasonally biased?

A: Maybe. We cannot exclude the possibility that some of the paleotemperature records are biased toward a particular season rather than recording true annual mean temperatures. For instance, high-latitude proxies based on short-lived plants or other organisms may record the temperature during the warmer and sunnier summer months when the organisms grow most rapidly. As stated in the paper, such an effect could impact our paleo-reconstruction. For example, the long-term cooling in our global paleotemperature reconstruction comes primarily from Northern Hemisphere high-latitude marine records, whereas tropical and Southern Hemisphere trends were considerably smaller. This northern cooling in the paleotemperature data may be a response to a long-term decline in summer insolation associated with variations in the earth’s orbit, and this implies that the paleotemperature proxies here may be biased to the summer season. A summer cooling trend through Holocene time, if driven by orbitally modulated seasonal insolation, might be partially canceled out by winter warming due to well-known orbitally driven rise in Northern-Hemisphere winter insolation through Holocene time. Summer-biased proxies would not record this averaging of the seasons. It is not currently possible to quantify this seasonal effect in the reconstructions. Qualitatively, however, we expect that an unbiased recorder of the annual average would show that the northern latitudes might not have cooled as much as seen in our reconstruction. This implies that the range of Holocene annual-average temperatures might have been smaller in the Northern Hemisphere than the proxy data suggest, making the observed historical temperature averages for 2000-2009 CE, obtained from instrumental records, even more unusual with respect to the full distribution of Holocene global-average temperatures.

 

[SSDD]

He hasn't been honest enough to make his paper credible....If the uptick was not supported by the evidence...why even put it there if not for dishonest reasons?

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. You mean that for the denialists, you people are going to hang your hat on any nonsense to disprove honest scientific work. And fellow scientists found his work adaquete for a Phd. Have you reached that point yet?

 

[IanC]

There was no uptick in his PhD thesis. That is the point. The only reason the media was interested was because it was fraudulently turned into a hockey stick. Which they now say was denied in the fine print, and contrary to their statements in interviews.

 

[SSDD]

LOL. You mean that for the denialists, you people are going to hang your hat on any nonsense to disprove honest scientific work. And fellow scientists found his work adaquete for a Phd. Have you reached that point yet?

Fellow scientists? You mean like pal review? Clearly his work isn't adequate. He sacrificed his integrity for the sake of a hockey stick.

 

[flacaltenn]

LOL. You mean that for the denialists, you people are going to hang your hat on any nonsense to disprove honest scientific work. And fellow scientists found his work adaquete for a Phd. Have you reached that point yet?

Actually GoldiRocks -- we've gotten what we wanted all along. And that is to make these worthless proxy studies honest enough so that the authors cannot be used as promotional tools for the "cause". Because NOW --- people are watching and investing time to FORCE them to be honest.

There is nothing about worms burrowing in the mud or tree rings that substitutes for satellite data and tide meters.. So there SHOULDN'T be any leaping to conclusions due to heavily massaged tea leaf reading..... But that won't stop you from finding hockey sticks laying around in every PhD thesis that hits the press release circus --- will it dear?

 

[polarbear]

If one reads the whole of the article, it seems that Marcott has been a good deal more honest than the people here cherry picking sentences in order to make the paper appear to say something it did not.

Bullshit ! That`s like saying Jodi Arias was honest.
That lie has been exposed since 2009 (!!!) just as soon when it was published and had supposedly been "peer reviewed". But implodes like all the rest of this garbage science when it is reviewed by scientists who make a living as professional scientists.
The problem was that nobody paid attention to it until somebody finally posted it on a web site with enough Google key hit words and Google-click tracers which registered over 60 000 hits in the last 20 hours.
A game that AGW bloggers have played so well and now it "back radiated"...that`s all
Marcott should have stayed away from the New York Times, then perhaps nobody would have noticed.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/08/s...s-highest-in-4000-years-study-says.html?_r=1&

Global Temperatures Highest in 4,000 Years


In the new research, scheduled for publication on Friday in the journal Science, Shaun Marcott, an earth scientist at Oregon State University, and his colleagues compiled the most meticulous reconstruction yet of global temperatures over the past 11,300 years, virtually the entire Holocene. They used indicators like the distribution of microscopic, temperature-sensitive ocean creatures to determine past climate. “It’s another important achievement and significant result as we continue to refine our knowledge and understanding of climate change,” Dr. Mann said.

But nobody in their right mind would consent by acquiescence, especially not after that (exposed) fraud artist chimed in....implying he`s been vindicated

 

[mamooth]

Ian, if you didn't take all you data from crank denialist sites, your claims of being a skeptic would be taken a little more seriously.

 

[SSDD]

Ian, if you didn't take all you data from crank denialist sites, you claims of being a skeptic would be taken a little more seriously.

That's rich...trying to defend Marcott..even when he admits that his hockey stick is a fraud.

 

[IanC]

Ian, if you didn't take all you data from crank denialist sites, your claims of being a skeptic would be taken a little more seriously.

unlike you, I actually look at a lot of different sites, from both sides and in the middle.

Climate Audit (in the middle despite how warmers hate it) is probably the best site on the web if you actually want pertinent information on the ongoing status of climate science. it actually does science and is the peer review that should have been done in the first place.

I challenge anyone to read the Marcott13 articles there and not come away with a vastly greater understanding on how paleo reconstructions are done. and what their strengths and weaknesses are.