MIT Scientist Debunks Global Warming Hysteria

[ReinyDays]

The data I posted is clearly identified in a simple legend: temperatures beyond the end of their proxy data come from HadCrut and a model. It goes to the year 2100 for Christ's sake. Do you think I was trying to claim they had proxy data to the year 2100? Stop being such a stupid ass.

We're not convinced you understand the material at hand ... what you're posting is what's being filtered out by Skeptical Science ... and Skeptical Science is very biased ... they have advertisers to satisfy, the truth takes second seat at all times ...

You didn't read the paper ... you're lying by saying you did ... all of us know you wouldn't understand the material even if you did read it ...

"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."

 

[Crick]

We're not convinced you understand the material at hand ... what you're posting is what's being filtered out by Skeptical Science ... and Skeptical Science is very biased ... they have advertisers to satisfy, the truth takes second seat at all times ...

You didn't read the paper ... you're lying by saying you did ... all of us know you wouldn't understand the material even if you did read it ...

"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."

I read Marcott's and Shakun's papers back in 2013 when they first came out. I posted them repeatedly here. The person who has demonstrated that they don't understand what Marcott and Shakun did would be the person who claimed I was lying because their data didn't match ice core data.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I read Marcott's and Shakun's papers back in 2013 when they first came out. I posted them repeatedly here. The person who has demonstrated that they don't understand what Marcott and Shakun did would be the person who claimed I was lying because their data didn't match ice core data.

You just lied again because the obvious fatal flaws of those papers have been long discovered which you will ignore.

I posted the exposes several times you ignored them because you are closeminded idiot!

 

[westwall]

I read Marcott's and Shakun's papers back in 2013 when they first came out. I posted them repeatedly here. The person who has demonstrated that they don't understand what Marcott and Shakun did would be the person who claimed I was lying because their data didn't match ice core data.

Just stop you idiot. Your lies are just stupid now.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Just stop you idiot. Your lies are just stupid now.

Notice how he NEVER mounts a real defense of those two papers while I several times posted full expose of the obvious flaws of the paper which he in turn completely ignores over and over thus, he has NEVER made a true defense for his delusions.

 

[westwall]

Notice how he NEVER mounts a real defense of those two papers while I several times posted full expose of the obvious flaws of the paper which he in turn completely ignores over and over thus, he has NEVER made a true defense for his delusions.

Of course not. He's stupider than a rock, or, a robot, programmed to respond in one way only.

Either way, he is useless.

 

[Crick]

You just lied again because the obvious fatal flaws of those papers have been long discovered which you will ignore.

I posted the exposes several times you ignored them because you are closeminded idiot!

Post it one more time. Cause I don't think you've got shit. How is it that no one seems able to name the author of this refutation?

 

[Crick]

Post it one more time. Cause I don't think you've got shit. How is it that no one seems able to name the author of this refutation?

Anyone? Looking for a refutation of Marcott and Shakun 2013.

 

[Crick]

I am assuming that someone will eventually pull up Steve McIntyre's comments in his ClimateAudit blog (The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service). To that we have Marcott's response from RealClimate.org (RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.)

"Q. Why did you revise the age models of many of the published records that were used in your study?

A. The majority of the published records used in our study (93%) based their ages on radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon is a naturally occurring isotope that is produced mainly in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. This form of carbon is then distributed around the world and incorporated into living things. Dating is based on the amount of this carbon left after radioactive decay. It has been known for several decades that radiocarbon years differ from true “calendar” years because the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere changes over time, as does the rate that carbon is exchanged between the ocean, atmosphere, and biosphere. This yields a bias in radiocarbon dates that must be corrected. Scientists have been able to determine the correction between radiocarbon years and true calendar year by dating samples of known age (such as tree samples dated by counting annual rings) and comparing the apparent radiocarbon age to the true age. Through many careful measurements of this sort, they have demonstrated that, in general, radiocarbon years become progressively “younger” than calendar years as one goes back through time. For example, the ring of a tree known to have grown 5700 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~5000 years, whereas one known to have grown 12,800 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~11,000 years.

For our paleotemperature study, all radiocarbon ages needed to be converted (or calibrated) to calendar ages in a consistent manner. Calibration methods have been improved and refined over the past few decades. Because our compilation included data published many years ago, some of the original publications used radiocarbon calibration systems that are now obsolete. To provide a consistent chronology based on the best current information, we thus recalibrated all published radiocarbon ages with Calib 6.0.1 software (using the databases INTCAL09 for land samples or MARINE09 for ocean samples) and its state-of-the-art protocol for site-specific locations and materials. This software is freely available for online use at http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/.

By convention, radiocarbon dates are recorded as years before present (BP). BP is universally defined as years before 1950 CE, because after that time the Earth’s atmosphere became contaminated with artificial radiocarbon produced as a bi-product of nuclear bomb tests. As a result, radiocarbon dates on intervals younger than 1950 are not useful for providing chronologic control in our study.

After recalibrating all radiocarbon control points to make them internally consistent and in compliance with the scientific state-of-the-art understanding, we constructed age models for each sediment core based on the depth of each of the calibrated radiocarbon ages, assuming linear interpolation between dated levels in the core, and statistical analysis that quantifies the uncertainty of ages between the dated levels. In geologic studies it is quite common that the youngest surface of a sediment core is not dated by radiocarbon, either because the top is disturbed by living organisms or during the coring process. Moreover, within the past hundred years before 1950 CE, radiocarbon dates are not very precise chronometers, because changes in radiocarbon production rate have by coincidence roughly compensated for fixed decay rates. For these reasons, and unless otherwise indicated, we followed the common practice of assuming an age of 0 BP for the marine core tops."

 

[Sunsettommy]

Post it one more time. Cause I don't think you've got shit. How is it that no one seems able to name the author of this refutation?

You never addressed them when I posted it in the past you fucking liar!

You are pure scum for your lies and obfuscations that many are saying about you.

I gave you the link to Marcotts own words and even quoted it here many times you ignore it and continue to post that debunked chart over and over.

 

[Crick]

You never addressed them when I posted it in the past you fucking liar!

You are pure scum for your lies and obfuscations that many are saying about you.

I gave you the link to Marcotts own words and even quoted it here many times you ignore it and continue to post that debunked chart over and over.

Marcott's comment about the robustness of his proxy data in the 20th century is not a refutation of anything.

 

[Sunsettommy]

I am assuming that someone will eventually pull up Steve McIntyre's comments in his ClimateAudit blog (The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service). To that we have Marcott's response from RealClimate.org (RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.)

"Q. Why did you revise the age models of many of the published records that were used in your study?

A. The majority of the published records used in our study (93%) based their ages on radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon is a naturally occurring isotope that is produced mainly in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. This form of carbon is then distributed around the world and incorporated into living things. Dating is based on the amount of this carbon left after radioactive decay. It has been known for several decades that radiocarbon years differ from true “calendar” years because the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere changes over time, as does the rate that carbon is exchanged between the ocean, atmosphere, and biosphere. This yields a bias in radiocarbon dates that must be corrected. Scientists have been able to determine the correction between radiocarbon years and true calendar year by dating samples of known age (such as tree samples dated by counting annual rings) and comparing the apparent radiocarbon age to the true age. Through many careful measurements of this sort, they have demonstrated that, in general, radiocarbon years become progressively “younger” than calendar years as one goes back through time. For example, the ring of a tree known to have grown 5700 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~5000 years, whereas one known to have grown 12,800 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~11,000 years.

For our paleotemperature study, all radiocarbon ages needed to be converted (or calibrated) to calendar ages in a consistent manner. Calibration methods have been improved and refined over the past few decades. Because our compilation included data published many years ago, some of the original publications used radiocarbon calibration systems that are now obsolete. To provide a consistent chronology based on the best current information, we thus recalibrated all published radiocarbon ages with Calib 6.0.1 software (using the databases INTCAL09 for land samples or MARINE09 for ocean samples) and its state-of-the-art protocol for site-specific locations and materials. This software is freely available for online use at http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/.

By convention, radiocarbon dates are recorded as years before present (BP). BP is universally defined as years before 1950 CE, because after that time the Earth’s atmosphere became contaminated with artificial radiocarbon produced as a bi-product of nuclear bomb tests. As a result, radiocarbon dates on intervals younger than 1950 are not useful for providing chronologic control in our study.

After recalibrating all radiocarbon control points to make them internally consistent and in compliance with the scientific state-of-the-art understanding, we constructed age models for each sediment core based on the depth of each of the calibrated radiocarbon ages, assuming linear interpolation between dated levels in the core, and statistical analysis that quantifies the uncertainty of ages between the dated levels. In geologic studies it is quite common that the youngest surface of a sediment core is not dated by radiocarbon, either because the top is disturbed by living organisms or during the coring process. Moreover, within the past hundred years before 1950 CE, radiocarbon dates are not very precise chronometers, because changes in radiocarbon production rate have by coincidence roughly compensated for fixed decay rates. For these reasons, and unless otherwise indicated, we followed the common practice of assuming an age of 0 BP for the marine core tops."

This is what YOU keep ignoring and it is found on unrealclimate website too:

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."


=====

You are scum.

 

[Sunsettommy]

Marcott's comment about the robustness of his proxy data in the 20th century is not a refutation of anything.

Gawad you a total LIAR since I have all along been attacking the UP TICK at the right end of your chart you shithead!

 

[Crick]

This is what YOU keep ignoring and it is found on unrealclimate website too:

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."


=====

You are scum.

And it wasn't the basis of any of their conclusions. So what the FUCK do you think is refuted by it?

 

[ding]

Marcott's comment about the robustness of his proxy data in the 20th century is not a refutation of anything.

It's their statement that due to the shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in their statistical averaging procedure it cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes when merged with the other data. That's how I am reading it.

 

[ding]

I am assuming that someone will eventually pull up Steve McIntyre's comments in his ClimateAudit blog (The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service). To that we have Marcott's response from RealClimate.org (RealClimate: Response by Marcott et al.)

"Q. Why did you revise the age models of many of the published records that were used in your study?

A. The majority of the published records used in our study (93%) based their ages on radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon is a naturally occurring isotope that is produced mainly in the upper atmosphere by cosmic rays. This form of carbon is then distributed around the world and incorporated into living things. Dating is based on the amount of this carbon left after radioactive decay. It has been known for several decades that radiocarbon years differ from true “calendar” years because the amount of radiocarbon produced in the atmosphere changes over time, as does the rate that carbon is exchanged between the ocean, atmosphere, and biosphere. This yields a bias in radiocarbon dates that must be corrected. Scientists have been able to determine the correction between radiocarbon years and true calendar year by dating samples of known age (such as tree samples dated by counting annual rings) and comparing the apparent radiocarbon age to the true age. Through many careful measurements of this sort, they have demonstrated that, in general, radiocarbon years become progressively “younger” than calendar years as one goes back through time. For example, the ring of a tree known to have grown 5700 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~5000 years, whereas one known to have grown 12,800 years ago will have a radiocarbon age of ~11,000 years.

For our paleotemperature study, all radiocarbon ages needed to be converted (or calibrated) to calendar ages in a consistent manner. Calibration methods have been improved and refined over the past few decades. Because our compilation included data published many years ago, some of the original publications used radiocarbon calibration systems that are now obsolete. To provide a consistent chronology based on the best current information, we thus recalibrated all published radiocarbon ages with Calib 6.0.1 software (using the databases INTCAL09 for land samples or MARINE09 for ocean samples) and its state-of-the-art protocol for site-specific locations and materials. This software is freely available for online use at http://calib.qub.ac.uk/calib/.

By convention, radiocarbon dates are recorded as years before present (BP). BP is universally defined as years before 1950 CE, because after that time the Earth’s atmosphere became contaminated with artificial radiocarbon produced as a bi-product of nuclear bomb tests. As a result, radiocarbon dates on intervals younger than 1950 are not useful for providing chronologic control in our study.

After recalibrating all radiocarbon control points to make them internally consistent and in compliance with the scientific state-of-the-art understanding, we constructed age models for each sediment core based on the depth of each of the calibrated radiocarbon ages, assuming linear interpolation between dated levels in the core, and statistical analysis that quantifies the uncertainty of ages between the dated levels. In geologic studies it is quite common that the youngest surface of a sediment core is not dated by radiocarbon, either because the top is disturbed by living organisms or during the coring process. Moreover, within the past hundred years before 1950 CE, radiocarbon dates are not very precise chronometers, because changes in radiocarbon production rate have by coincidence roughly compensated for fixed decay rates. For these reasons, and unless otherwise indicated, we followed the common practice of assuming an age of 0 BP for the marine core tops."

Which as near as I can tell has nothing to do with the shorter duration.

 

[Crick]

Gawad you a total LIAR since I have all along been attacking the UP TICK at the right end of your chart you shithead!

It's not my responsibility to point out your errors. I said you didn't have shit and now you verify that for us. Much obliged.

 

[Sunsettommy]

And it wasn't the basis of any of their conclusions. So what the FUCK do you think is refuted by it?

You have a hard time understanding what I keep telling you therefore I will give you the 4th grade level comment for your obviously small brain to grasp:

I am disputing the straight up red line that uses MODERN temperature data on his chart YOU keep posting to which Marcott admits the following,

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."

The question which you allegedly saw 30 times I have posted state this:

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

You understand yet?

The rest of his chart (Proxy data) I have no big complaint about which amazingly you never noticed because your small brain often takes too long to figure that part out.

 

[Crick]

It's their statement that due to the shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in their statistical averaging procedure it cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes when merged with the other data. That's how I am reading it.

That is NOT what they said. Try again.

 

[westwall]

Marcott's comment about the robustness of his proxy data in the 20th century is not a refutation of anything.

Bullshit in spades. Go away. You are nothing more than a fucking troll.