Marcott2013

[flacaltenn]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

and

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

[[Apologies, initially pasted the first link in twice]]

Just a few points about your display of proxy data.

Those graphs are the temperature reconstructions from proxies located in different places all over the world. Note the vertical scale. When attempting to calculate the average temperature of the entire planet, it will be necessary to combine temperatures from the hollows of the Antarctica mountains to the sand dunes of the Gobi desert. Right? Such datasets will subtend a relatively large vertical expanse of your workspace. Thus your first plot.

Second, the conversion ratios between proxy parameters and temperature is frequently neither linear nor constant over time (thus "the decline").

This data presentation is disingenuous; intended to make the process look faulty in a manner you should know it was not.

hahahaha! look faulty?

I am trying to show people how uncertain proxy data is. not only is the data uncertain but the methodology for choosing the proxies and then standardizing them also adds more uncertainty.

the OP actually starts off questioning why Shakun truncates CO2 at the beginning of the interglacial. the reason, of course, is that temps start going down while CO2 continues to rise. that dilutes the message somewhat doesnt it?

proxy reconstructions are a good and necessary thing. so are climate models. the problem arises when they are presented to an unsuspecting public as 'a sure thing', and the conclusions drawn from them as solid evidence. Shakun had very little evidence about the CO2 levels yet made pronouncements as if he did, to the press. Marcott made a reasonable paleoreconstruction for his PhD thesis but then added a hockeystick at the end incorrectly and went out on a press release tour.

I have just flipped through this entire thread. I find nothing from you concerning Shakun truncating CO2 data at the beginning of the interglacial. So you will have to explain that charge if you want to talk about it.

As to running down Marcott because he put a 20th century proxy on the end of his data: that charge has always appeared to me to be a ridiculous stretch. You described the rapid temperature rise of the 20th century as a "preconceived conclusion". Sorry, Ian, but that boat has sailed.

Try again.

Ive posted interviews with Marcott concerning proxy accuracy.. Hes very honest about not having either time resolution or temp resolution left after the averaging process.. Resolutions of 100s of years ARE NOT GOOD enough for Abe to rely on them to show that either the current temp or THE RATE OF CHANGE of that temp is exceptional for the modern era..

INDIVIDUALLY those regional proxies might be meaningful. But there is not adequate spatial sampling to ever give credibility to a "GLOBAL AVERAGE.

Replacing proxy data with modern data is not a crime.. But you SHOULD BE OBLIGED to show how well the proxy average APPROXIMATES the modern record.. if u dont do that you are misrepresenting the credibility of the study.. No temp rez or time rez for the modern record out of the proxies by themselves? Then dont make outrageous claims in the headlines comparing modern temps and rates to millenia ago... Simple academic honesty.

And Marcott has attempted to quell the proxy hype...

 

[flacaltenn]

ok, I'll bite. what do you think 'hide the decline' means.

This can't be too difficult to figure out. Start with the point that I do not believe any of the parties involved are dishonest: That they are trying to trick anyone. I believe "hide the decline" concerns the well known divergence problem with tree ring proxies moving into the 20th century; just like every dendrochronologist and paleoclimatologist told us.

To what do you think it refers?

That is, dealing with the divergence problem.

Ian SHOWED YOU the divergence problem.. The proxy result BY ITSELF was garbage for the modern era after he cherry picked proxies.. as I said above ---thats a major oopss. And any attempt to hide that revelation, would be academically very very dishonest...

Maybe you need the youtube hiphop version of hide the decline that HelenaHandbag posted today to see the the dishonesty..

becuz IAN already gave you the data dump and u waltzed right by it..

 

[Abraham3]

You need to find that 15 year old to look that up. Ian did NOT show us the divergence problem. The divergence problem, as I explained, is a change ion the conversion factors for tree ring to temperature as one moves into the 20th century. It has nothing to do with cherry picking data.

 

[flacaltenn]

You need to find that 15 year old to look that up. Ian did NOT show us the divergence problem. The divergence problem, as I explained, is a change ion the conversion factors for tree ring to temperature as one moves into the 20th century. It has nothing to do with cherry picking data.

Abe

Lately youve walked right by IANs hard work to respond to you and my hard work to respond to you. In the recent thread where this came up --- I SAW you walk right past his response to HIDE THE DECLINE.. it consisted of several graphs showing the diff btwn Manns PRE pub proxy data and what it looked like after the fix..

AND NOW you couldnt find "my proof about the ice records on another thread. WTF man? Are u not reading or are you not understanding or do you still not know how to use USMB?

 

[westwall]

You need to find that 15 year old to look that up. Ian did NOT show us the divergence problem. The divergence problem, as I explained, is a change ion the conversion factors for tree ring to temperature as one moves into the 20th century. It has nothing to do with cherry picking data.

Abe

Lately youve walked right by IANs hard work to respond to you and my hard work to respond to you. In the recent thread where this came up --- I SAW you walk right past his response to HIDE THE DECLINE.. it consisted of several graphs showing the diff btwn Manns PRE pub proxy data and what it looked like after the fix..

AND NOW you couldnt find "my proof about the ice records on another thread. WTF man? Are u not reading or are you not understanding or do you still not know how to use USMB?

No, it's called intellectual dishonesty and ole abe chooses to suffer from it. He's just another in a long line of internet trolls who ignore scientific data if it interferes with their pre-conceived notions.

 

[Kosh]

You need to find that 15 year old to look that up. Ian did NOT show us the divergence problem. The divergence problem, as I explained, is a change ion the conversion factors for tree ring to temperature as one moves into the 20th century. It has nothing to do with cherry picking data.

Abe

Lately youve walked right by IANs hard work to respond to you and my hard work to respond to you. In the recent thread where this came up --- I SAW you walk right past his response to HIDE THE DECLINE.. it consisted of several graphs showing the diff btwn Manns PRE pub proxy data and what it looked like after the fix..

AND NOW you couldnt find "my proof about the ice records on another thread. WTF man? Are u not reading or are you not understanding or do you still not know how to use USMB?

The loyal church members will often ignore parts of the scripture in order to maintain the religious propaganda.

 

[IanC]

I don't recall ever having been asked the question.

IF, you are asking me whether I have any problem with what Jones actually did in the process he described as "hide the decline", the answer is a firm "no".

Do you?

I do recall having asked you about this point. Did you answer it somewhere and put the question back to me? If so, I missed it.

ok, I'll bite. what do you think 'hide the decline' means.

This can't be too difficult to figure out. Start with the point that I do not believe any of the parties involved are dishonest: That they are trying to trick anyone. I believe "hide the decline" concerns the well known divergence problem with tree ring proxies moving into the 20th century; just like every dendrochronologist and paleoclimatologist told us.

To what do you think it refers?

dishonest? maybe not in the beginning. misguided, certainly.

'hide the decline' originated with the manipulation of data used in the famous hockeystick graph of MBH98. Briffa's series in particular was truncated at 1960 to remove the obvious divergence of proxy temps in relation to measured temps. there has been no satisfactory explanation of the divergence problem, perhaps another one of Trenberth's travesties.

I could live with the proxy record being shortened, especially if it had been properly documented. but they didnt stop there. 'Mike's Nature (the journal Nature) Trick' involves padding the proxy record with instrumental data before and after the splice at 1960 (edit- the data were mixed and then smoothed), which altered the shape and joint of the graph as it moved from proxy to instrument data. this is a much more blatant and indefensible anti scientific methodology that shows that the misdirection was intentional rather than accidental. the 'Trick' really was a trick.


back to treerings for a bit. you seem to think it is OK to drop data that is inconvenient. whatever, you can think anyway you want. but Briffa's Yamal treering series had only a few handfuls of trees going right up to the present era. one of them was YAD061, a five sigma outlier that gave the series most of its hockeystick shape. would you keep a 5 standard deviation sample in a small sample size cohort? if you did want to keep it, why would you think that temperature alone caused the 5 SD jump? wouldnt it be more reasonable to assume that a nearby tree fell down and rotted, allowing more light to reach YAD061 and feeding it as the fallen tree composted?

I would like to believe all scientists were neutral and honest. but too many of these climate science jokers get caught stacking the deck to think it is an honest game. science should have no preferred outcome, it should not be adjusted to fit preconceived conclusions.

 

[Abraham3]

At the point in time when the instrumented record becomes available, the value of proxy data, from my POV, drops to nothing more than a tool for calibration of earlier data. For me, then, who is only interested in the most accurate temperature dataset, they are worthless. I don't give a damn about an outlier tree in Briffa's proxy data. The INSTRUMENTED DATA display a rapid and unprecedented rise in the 20th century. All of your complaints seem to me to be only an attempt to distract us from that point.

The divergence of tree ring values from the instrumented record is not a problem of one tree, or of only Trenberth's data or only Briffa's data. It is a widespread problem that all dendrochronologists face and are attempting to deal with.

The only people I see around here who are attempting to deceive the public are the denier folks for whom you seem to drop whatever scientific integrity you possess down the crapper.

 

[Kosh]

When one has to explain "hide the decline" to an AGW church goer it just continues to prove that AGW is a religious belief vs any type of science.

 

[Abraham3]

When one has to explain "hide the decline" to an AGW church goer it just continues to prove that AGW is a religious belief vs any type of science.

When one has to waste one's time reading the comments of someone whose input to this conversation most closely resembles an annoying squeak in one's chair...

 

[westwall]

When one has to explain "hide the decline" to an AGW church goer it just continues to prove that AGW is a religious belief vs any type of science.

When one has to waste one's time reading the comments of someone whose input to this conversation most closely resembles an annoying squeak in one's chair...

Hate to break it to ya socko but your responses are every bit the same as the nutter evangelicals.

 

[Abraham3]

When one has to explain "hide the decline" to an AGW church goer it just continues to prove that AGW is a religious belief vs any type of science.

When one has to waste one's time reading the comments of someone whose input to this conversation most closely resembles an annoying squeak in one's chair...

Hate to break it to ya socko but your responses are every bit the same as the nutter evangelicals.

Are you calling Kosh a "nutter evangelical"?

I admit you're spot on with the evangelical - looking at the deniers around here - you could not FIND a better example of belief, based on faith and DESPITE the evidence.

But I don't know about "nutter". I think it's more a problem of ignorance. Like yours.

 

[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.

Bump for Orogenicman. Click the Pielke link

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Bump for Orogenicman. Click the Pielke link

Yeah, I've read that, and I posted Marcott's response (and that of others) earlier, yesterday, I think.

Here it is:

RealClimate Response by Marcott et al.

 

[IanC]

Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.

 

[orogenicman]

Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.

I don't care about press releases. The press rarely gets it right whenever they talk about science. I roll my eyes nearly every time I read a news article about anything to do with science. If it isn't the grammar and spelling, it is the incorrect usage of terms, and downright just getting the science wrong. After all, they aren't the best journalists in the business. Those guys work for 60 minutes. lol

Climate science is no exception with respect to the press getting things wrong. I do care about Marcott's paper, which I happen to think it very good.

 

[westwall]

Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.

I don't care about press releases. The press rarely gets it right whenever they talk about science. I roll my eyes nearly every time I read a news article about anything to do with science. If it isn't the grammar and spelling, it is the incorrect usage of terms, and downright just getting the science wrong. After all, they aren't the best journalists in the business. Those guys work for 60 minutes. lol

Climate science is no exception with respect to the press getting things wrong. I do care about Marcott's paper, which I happen to think it very good.

You avoided Ian's question.

 

[orogenicman]

Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.

I don't care about press releases. The press rarely gets it right whenever they talk about science. I roll my eyes nearly every time I read a news article about anything to do with science. If it isn't the grammar and spelling, it is the incorrect usage of terms, and downright just getting the science wrong. After all, they aren't the best journalists in the business. Those guys work for 60 minutes. lol

Climate science is no exception with respect to the press getting things wrong. I do care about Marcott's paper, which I happen to think it very good.

You avoided Ian's question.

I stand by my statement.

 

[westwall]

Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.

I don't care about press releases. The press rarely gets it right whenever they talk about science. I roll my eyes nearly every time I read a news article about anything to do with science. If it isn't the grammar and spelling, it is the incorrect usage of terms, and downright just getting the science wrong. After all, they aren't the best journalists in the business. Those guys work for 60 minutes. lol

Climate science is no exception with respect to the press getting things wrong. I do care about Marcott's paper, which I happen to think it very good.

You avoided Ian's question.

I stand by my statement.

Which addresses nothing.

 

[orogenicman]

Same link as in my post. Did you actually read the Pielke article? Are you OK with press releases stating all that crap about a new hockey stick and Marcott basking in the attention and giving interviews, only to have him turn around afterwards and say they misquoted me I never said the 20th century portion was relevant or significant. In fact it was extremely close to fraud as was amply shown.

I don't care about press releases. The press rarely gets it right whenever they talk about science. I roll my eyes nearly every time I read a news article about anything to do with science. If it isn't the grammar and spelling, it is the incorrect usage of terms, and downright just getting the science wrong. After all, they aren't the best journalists in the business. Those guys work for 60 minutes. lol

Climate science is no exception with respect to the press getting things wrong. I do care about Marcott's paper, which I happen to think it very good.

You avoided Ian's question.

I stand by my statement.

Which addresses nothing.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You do know what they say about opinions, right?