Marcott2013

[IanC]

Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now. Good god, man, are you daft?

You didn't answer the question. Are you saying that Willis changed the proxies from the ones made available in the marcott SI? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to download and print up files of data. (hahaha, Phil Jones excluded of course)

 

[orogenicman]

Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now. Good god, man, are you daft?

McIntyre destroyed Gergis et al in 10 hours. AFTER the paper had gone through peer review. Suck on that for awhile mr. socko.

Gee, moving the goalpost. What a novel solution to your problem.

 

[orogenicman]

Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now. Good god, man, are you daft?

You didn't answer the question. Are you saying that Willis changed the proxies from the ones made available in the marcott SI? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to download and print up files of data. (hahaha, Phil Jones excluded of course)

I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist. I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.

 

[westwall]

Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now. Good god, man, are you daft?

McIntyre destroyed Gergis et al in 10 hours. AFTER the paper had gone through peer review. Suck on that for awhile mr. socko.

Gee, moving the goalpost. What a novel solution to your problem.

Not at all. Merely pointing out to the sock that the climatologists suck at what they do. Why would anyone pay attention to them after that debacle?

 

[westwall]

Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now. Good god, man, are you daft?

You didn't answer the question. Are you saying that Willis changed the proxies from the ones made available in the marcott SI? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to download and print up files of data. (hahaha, Phil Jones excluded of course)

I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist. I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.

Why? A statistician has been demonstrating beyond doubt that the climatologists can't do math.

 

[orogenicman]

McIntyre destroyed Gergis et al in 10 hours. AFTER the paper had gone through peer review. Suck on that for awhile mr. socko.

Gee, moving the goalpost. What a novel solution to your problem.

Not at all. Merely pointing out to the sock that the climatologists suck at what they do. Why would anyone pay attention to them after that debacle?

Proving yet again that any claim you have to being a PhD in anything is nothing more than wishful thinking.

 

[orogenicman]

You didn't answer the question. Are you saying that Willis changed the proxies from the ones made available in the marcott SI? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to download and print up files of data. (hahaha, Phil Jones excluded of course)

I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist. I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.

Why? A statistician has been demonstrating beyond doubt that the climatologists can't do math.

And many others have shown your statistician for what he is, a liar with a political agenda. And you are apparently his groupie. Congratulations.

 

[IanC]

Great, we are supposed to take the word of a message therapist on matters of climate science now. Good god, man, are you daft?

You didn't answer the question. Are you saying that Willis changed the proxies from the ones made available in the marcott SI? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to download and print up files of data. (hahaha, Phil Jones excluded of course)

I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist. I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.

What scientific argument? I am trying to pin you down on whether you believe the proxies reproduced here from the information provided in M13 are valid or not. Do you think they have been altered? If they had been altered someone from Marcott's side would have used it to embarrass the skeptics.

If the proxies are as accurate as the information provided by Marcott, what does the shape of the proxies say about the precision and uncertainties in the final graph? Some go up, some go down, some are well constrained, some are not. I am unconvinced that we can get more than a general guideline from them.

The end dates for these proxies is a vexing problem. As McIntyre demonstrated, using the proxies as originally produced by the individual authors gives a different result in the modern timeframe. Are Marcott,s changes improvements or agenda driven? I am unqualified to judge but in many cases they lead to warming in the 20th C rather than cooling. Marcott eventually conceded that his results were not 'robust' for modern times despite his numerous public comments when it was first released. Why did he collaborate with other hockeystick producers and re-release his PhD thesis with a hockeystick at the end? I don't know but it got him a lot of publicity.



Since you do not like my reproductions of the proxies, perhaps you could find the data elsewhere. But I doubt it. The Team doesn't like to share equivical evidence with the public. Only polished graphs with solid average lines and constrained standard deviations are released to the public. The biggest accomplishments of the skeptics has been to get data sets released. Every new hockeystick is rebutted in days now, rather than the years it took to demolish MBH98.

 

[orogenicman]

You didn't answer the question. Are you saying that Willis changed the proxies from the ones made available in the marcott SI? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to download and print up files of data. (hahaha, Phil Jones excluded of course)

I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist. I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.

What scientific argument? I am trying to pin you down on whether you believe the proxies reproduced here from the information provided in M13 are valid or not.

I don't know the origin of those graphs you posted, and frankly, if they didn't come directly from Marcott's paper, then no they are not valid. You people seem to think the scientific process includes knock down drag out flame wars on forums such as this one, or on so-called science blogs. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't.

What I know for a fact is this:

Marcott's 73 proxies are valid, and represent the best database of its kind that is available anywhere. If you know of a better database, by all means, we are all ears. Now, instead of trying to convince us that your rightwing anti-science agenda is anything other than that, how about getting out from behind your iphones and into the friggin field conducting some original scientific research of your own! Now that would be a different turn, wouldn't it? But you can't do that can you? Why? Because you're not a frelling scientist, and are unqualified to do the frelling work.

If you want Marcott's 73 proxies, I suggest you actually read his paper.

 

[IanC]

I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist. I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.

What scientific argument? I am trying to pin you down on whether you believe the proxies reproduced here from the information provided in M13 are valid or not.

I don't know the origin of those graphs you posted, and frankly, if they didn't come directly from Marcott's paper, then no they are not valid. You people seem to think the scientific process includes knock down drag out flame wars on forums such as this one, or on so-called science blogs. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't.

What I know for a fact is this:

Marcott's 73 proxies are valid, and represent the best database of its kind that is available anywhere. If you know of a better database, by all means, we are all ears. Now, instead of trying to convince us that your rightwing anti-science agenda is anything other than that, how about getting out from behind your iphones and into the friggin field conducting some original scientific research of your own! Now that would be a different turn, wouldn't it? But you can't do that can you? Why? Because you're not a frelling scientist, and are unqualified to do the frelling work.

If you want Marcott's 73 proxies, I suggest you actually read his paper.

Those graphs are plotted up directly from the information supplied with Marcott2013. As I said before. I have not downloaded them myself. If you think Willis screwed with them, say so. Otherwise they are what the proxies look like. I personally don't think they are overwhelmingly convincing but they are similar to any other proxy records. Lots of noise to little signal.

 

[orogenicman]

What scientific argument? I am trying to pin you down on whether you believe the proxies reproduced here from the information provided in M13 are valid or not.

I don't know the origin of those graphs you posted, and frankly, if they didn't come directly from Marcott's paper, then no they are not valid. You people seem to think the scientific process includes knock down drag out flame wars on forums such as this one, or on so-called science blogs. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't.

What I know for a fact is this:

Marcott's 73 proxies are valid, and represent the best database of its kind that is available anywhere. If you know of a better database, by all means, we are all ears. Now, instead of trying to convince us that your rightwing anti-science agenda is anything other than that, how about getting out from behind your iphones and into the friggin field conducting some original scientific research of your own! Now that would be a different turn, wouldn't it? But you can't do that can you? Why? Because you're not a frelling scientist, and are unqualified to do the frelling work.

If you want Marcott's 73 proxies, I suggest you actually read his paper.

Those graphs are plotted up directly from the information supplied with Marcott2013. As I said before. I have not downloaded them myself. If you think Willis screwed with them, say so. Otherwise they are what the proxies look like. I personally don't think they are overwhelmingly convincing but they are similar to any other proxy records. Lots of noise to little signal.

That's because you don't know what you are looking at. For instance, I am an amateur astronomer. I take lots of astrophotographs of very faint objects. Modern astrophotography is much more sophisticated than the days when they used photographic plates. And in fact, the technology and methods used today by the amateur astronomer was not only not available to us 20 years ago, they were unavailable to professional astronomers. The result is that amateurs, with far less equipment and expense are producing stunning images that rival and in some cases, surpass anything the large observatories were producing 20 years ago.

I bring this up for this reason. When you look at the raw master image below, you don't see much: just some stars with a very black background.

Very little signal apparent, right? Wrong. Once the image if fully processed, this is the result:

To the untrained eye, there wasn't much there. But to the skilled technician, it's a gold mine of data.

So what's the point of all this? The point is that if you don't know what you are doing, and there is no doubt that you don't, then, of course, all you are going to see is a lot of noise, and no signal. So my advice to you is to either take a class, or let the big boys who actually know what they are doing do their work.

 

[IanC]

Oro- I have no doubt that there are legitimate ways of teasing more info from noisy data. Unfortunately there are also illegitimate ways of finding corroborating evidence such as YAD061 which had a growth spurt that was obviously caused in main part by factors other than temperature. The problem with PC analysis is that it gives so much weight to outliers. It is easy to screw up, and climate science is not known for seeking out help from statisticians.

 

[orogenicman]

Oro- I have no doubt that there are legitimate ways of teasing more info from noisy data. Unfortunately there are also illegitimate ways of finding corroborating evidence such as YAD061 which had a growth spurt that was obviously caused in main part by factors other than temperature. The problem with PC analysis is that it gives so much weight to outliers. It is easy to screw up, and climate science is not known for seeking out help from statisticians.

Getting stuck on one tree is rather silly, don't you think? Particularly when that issue has been addressed ad nausea. And IanC, Marcott isn't giving untoward weight to outliers. His is the most inclusive database in the business. And finally, you are assuming that PhD scientists are unfamiliar with statistics. Poor assumption. Marcott has addressed all of the concerns of the denialist league. The problem is not that his answers are unsatisfactory. The problem is that there is no answer he or anyone else can give that will satisfy them.

But let me ask you a question. Why did McIntyre hound Briffa for his data for such a long time when he actually had it all along? Is this the kind of honesty you look forward to every morning when you get up and read Wattsupwiththat?

 

[IanC]

Oro- I have no doubt that there are legitimate ways of teasing more info from noisy data. Unfortunately there are also illegitimate ways of finding corroborating evidence such as YAD061 which had a growth spurt that was obviously caused in main part by factors other than temperature. The problem with PC analysis is that it gives so much weight to outliers. It is easy to screw up, and climate science is not known for seeking out help from statisticians.

Getting stuck on one tree is rather silly, don't you think? Particularly when that issue has been addressed ad nausea. And IanC, Marcott isn't giving untoward weight to outliers. His is the most inclusive database in the business. And finally, you are assuming that PhD scientists are unfamiliar with statistics. Poor assumption. Marcott has addressed all of the concerns of the denialist league. The problem is not that his answers are unsatisfactory. The problem is that there is no answer he or anyone else can give that will satisfy them.

But let me ask you a question. Why did McIntyre hound Briffa for his data for such a long time when he actually had it all along? Is this the kind of honesty you look forward to every morning when you get up and read Wattsupwiththat?

Do you really think Marcott didn't use principle component analysis on that hodgepodge of proxies? His graph certainly isn't just an average.

McIntyre has collected many data sets over the years. Some public, some confidential. Many are gray, having only partial inclusion of all the available specimens, like Briffa's. MC was hounding Briffa to find which trees, what methodology of inclusion. Briffa was cherry picking, now less so, that is why his new series looks like McIntyre said it should.

 

[westwall]

I'm saying that you should try to present a scientific argument from someone other than a massage therapist. I know you people don't understand the problem with doing this, but you should thank the stars that there isn't a similar group of 'pundants' following behind the brain surgeons telling you that they can do better for your tumor using banana enemas.

Why? A statistician has been demonstrating beyond doubt that the climatologists can't do math.

And many others have shown your statistician for what he is, a liar with a political agenda. And you are apparently his groupie. Congratulations.

And yet, he was proven correct....wasn't he? Why YES HE WAS! Must suck to be you.

 

[orogenicman]

Why? A statistician has been demonstrating beyond doubt that the climatologists can't do math.

And many others have shown your statistician for what he is, a liar with a political agenda. And you are apparently his groupie. Congratulations.

And yet, he was proven correct....wasn't he? Why YES HE WAS! Must suck to be you.

McIntyre wrote a paper that showed a mistake that amounted to an error of 0.001 that made no difference whatsoever to the results of the paper in question. He patted himself on the back and people like you ate it up as if he'd discovered a new natural law. Pathetic.

 

[IanC]

Do you really want a list of all the things McIntyre has accomplished at Climate Audit?

Even more important is the fact that he has made the internal workings of climate science accessible to the ordinary layman. There is no deferring to authority over there. And a lot less censorship of dissenting opinions as well.

 

[orogenicman]

Do you really want a list of all the things McIntyre has accomplished at Climate Audit?

No sir I do not. It would be like me asking you to provide a list of accomplishments by Leonard Nimoy on his old television show about ancient astronauts.

Even more important is the fact that he has made the internal workings of climate science accessible to the ordinary layman. There is no deferring to authority over there. And a lot less censorship of dissenting opinions as well.

And no science. Congratulations.

 

[flacaltenn]

I don't know the origin of those graphs you posted, and frankly, if they didn't come directly from Marcott's paper, then no they are not valid. You people seem to think the scientific process includes knock down drag out flame wars on forums such as this one, or on so-called science blogs. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it doesn't.

What I know for a fact is this:

Marcott's 73 proxies are valid, and represent the best database of its kind that is available anywhere. If you know of a better database, by all means, we are all ears. Now, instead of trying to convince us that your rightwing anti-science agenda is anything other than that, how about getting out from behind your iphones and into the friggin field conducting some original scientific research of your own! Now that would be a different turn, wouldn't it? But you can't do that can you? Why? Because you're not a frelling scientist, and are unqualified to do the frelling work.

If you want Marcott's 73 proxies, I suggest you actually read his paper.

Those graphs are plotted up directly from the information supplied with Marcott2013. As I said before. I have not downloaded them myself. If you think Willis screwed with them, say so. Otherwise they are what the proxies look like. I personally don't think they are overwhelmingly convincing but they are similar to any other proxy records. Lots of noise to little signal.

That's because you don't know what you are looking at. For instance, I am an amateur astronomer. I take lots of astrophotographs of very faint objects. Modern astrophotography is much more sophisticated than the days when they used photographic plates. And in fact, the technology and methods used today by the amateur astronomer was not only not available to us 20 years ago, they were unavailable to professional astronomers. The result is that amateurs, with far less equipment and expense are producing stunning images that rival and in some cases, surpass anything the large observatories were producing 20 years ago.

I bring this up for this reason. When you look at the raw master image below, you don't see much: just some stars with a very black background.

Very little signal apparent, right? Wrong. Once the image if fully processed, this is the result:

To the untrained eye, there wasn't much there. But to the skilled technician, it's a gold mine of data.

So what's the point of all this? The point is that if you don't know what you are doing, and there is no doubt that you don't, then, of course, all you are going to see is a lot of noise, and no signal. So my advice to you is to either take a class, or let the big boys who actually know what they are doing do their work.

you got my thanks above..

HOWEVER, a collection of simple data series, all purporting to represent T = F(x) is NOT the image processing "teasing" (as Ian said) all that beauty out.. You are using THOUSANDS of spectral, temporal, radiometric spatial properties to make that image enhancement.. T = F(x) a hundred times over doesn't REALLY offer that much up when the ORIGINAL data is mostly disconsonant noise..

Tell ya what captain.. Take that same photo thru 100 different telescopes including some that Santa brought for Christmas.. Try to use ALL the data in the reconstruction, and let's see the result...

 

[IanC]

Do you really want a list of all the things McIntyre has accomplished at Climate Audit?

No sir I do not. It would be like me asking you to provide a list of accomplishments by Leonard Nimoy on his old television show about ancient astronauts.

Even more important is the fact that he has made the internal workings of climate science accessible to the ordinary layman. There is no deferring to authority over there. And a lot less censorship of dissenting opinions as well.

And no science. Congratulations.

No science? Since when has correcting other's mistakes not been science?

Steig got his flawed Antarctica paper printed in Nature, on the cover no less. Statisticians at Climate Audit showed him where it was wrong. The Team laughed and said, so what are you going to write you're own paper?

So they did. Peer reviewers would not accept it as a direct rebuttal of Steig, it had to be just an improved version. Back and forth the paper was bounced with reviwer B making ever more shrill, nitpicking, or bizarre changes. After a year of being savaged in peer review (unlike pal review) the paper wad finally published, albeit with many of its fangs pulled by reviwer B.

Steig was allowed to reply, as is only fair. He made a big fuss over one of the changes implimented on reviwer B's insistence. But on the whole the paper was successful in showing that Steig' paper had incorrectly smeared warmth from the peninsula over into the rest of the continent by flawed methodology. CAHad won a small victory, the Team had shown its muscles in making it next to impossible for skeptical papers to get published.

But that was not the end of the story. Steig tripped himself up and subsequently admitted that he.........was reviwer B!!!!

How dishonorable is it to force an incorrect alteration on a paper from the anonymity of reviwer, only to publically criticize it later?

I would like to be able to hold climate scientists in the highest esteem and defer to their authority but as the climategate emails and this specific example show, there is plenty of pettiness and distortion going on in the background that makes it reasonable to doubt their ethics, especially when they are backed into a corner.