Steve McIntyre has made what I can only describe as a stunning discovery as to why there is a sharp uptick in the main Marcott et al graph being touted by the media from its publication in Science.
![marcott-A-1000[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/marcott-a-10001.jpg?quality=83)
It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.
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.)
Figure 1. Reconstructions from alkenone proxies in Marcott style. Red- using published dates; black- using Marcott-Shakun dates.
…
In a follow-up post, I’ll examine the validity of Marcott-Shakun redating. If the relevant specialists had been aware of or consulted on the Marcott-Shakun redating, I’m sure that they would have contested it.
Read his entire post here.
This is going to get very interesting very fast.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yet another example of torture not yielding correct results.
Even the statisicians at the Tobacco Institue could do better.
Does Steve feel this was a pure mistake or something more sinister….lies?
Tick, tick, tick- how long will the new Marcott et al hockey stick survive?
That was yesterday’s question. Now the answer is here. Marcott’s hockey stick has been murdered by the truth.
Here is another case where someone who is a real statistician with a real understanding of these analytical methods finds defects or insufficiencies.
From the look of the graphs and the vagaries of both lines in the modern era I have to wonder whether the alkenone proxy is at even usable to estimate temperature.
There are two successful ways to commit fraud, either do it in plain sight so no one will believe it could possibly be so (Madoff); or hide it under layers of subtefuge (Marcott et al.).
Really, this takes the biscuit.
GlynnMhor says:
March 16, 2013 at 3:56 pm
“From the look of the graphs and the vagaries of both lines in the modern era I have to wonder whether the alkenone proxy is at even usable to estimate temperature.”
Well obviously one proxy is not enough to estimate global temperature. Had they cut off their result before the proxy dropoffs the result would have been defensible.
They couldn’t resist to add a “non-robust” Hockey Stick; temptations of a warmist post doc, what a boring life they must have (had).
7 stages of reaction to the death of yet another Hockey Stick:-
1. SHOCK & DENIAL- No, they couldn’t have done that – could they?
2. PAIN & GUILT- How could I allow my taxes to be spent on this rubbish? Maybe it’s my fault?
3. ANGER & BARGAINING- Perhaps this team could be redeployed into auto repairs.
4. “DEPRESSION”, REFLECTION, LONELINESS- Real science is dying out. Sigh. Sob.
5. THE UPWARD TURN- Wheeee! Another one bites the dust!
6. RECONSTRUCTION & WORKING THROUGH- So what were the real temperatures?
7. ACCEPTANCE & HOPE- Maybe they’ll get the message – ‘don’t mess with McIntyre’!
Hoo-boy. And just in time for the next AR, too.
🙂
Suddenly a heated discussion took place between a client and the management of the Marcott-Shakun dating service….”but the online profile said it was a HUGE up-tick!”
Good work, these frauds, deceptions, data corruptions, and “mistakes” must be pointed out and documented in the literature so that one crook after another may not build on the original fraud or “mistake”. If the “mistakes” and hockey sticks went down in the last few decades as often as they went up then you could write them off to ignorance, incompetence, sloppy work, or mistakes. But when all the “mistakes”, frauds, errors, etc. always increase the temperature in the last few decades then you there is a high probability that all upward pointing hockey sticks are frauds.
In Years (BP) time zero is 1950 in Marcott.
Marcott shows a spike in 1940.
In the McIntyre Fig. 1, the red curve appears to go to 1980 or 1990. A couple decades later than Marcott.
Awe, heck. Why didn’t Marcott use a scalpel every 500 years and just do a bet fit on the segment slopes? (Just Kidding!)
Maybe, just maybe this will be the moment when the world realises what is happening, not just us sceptics, and the uncritical acceptance of ‘the science’ will never be the same again.
Here’s to you McIntyre!
“It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.”
Hide the decline!
http://m4gw.com/no_cap_and_trade_coalation_unveils_hide_the_decline_ii/
I’m afraid I’m going to have to say it out loud:
They deliberately messed with the figures to fit a pre-conceived agenda.
It’s depressing to see science abused in such a way. Thankfully we have Steve M to bring some sanity to the chaos.
Cui Bono,
Repeat hockey stick and avoid steps 1 to 7.
cui bono says:
March 16, 2013 at 4:12 pm
“3. ANGER & BARGAINING- Perhaps this team could be redeployed into auto repairs.”
Are you mad?
Alex the skeptic says (March 16, 2013 at 3:50 pm): “Marcott’s hockey stick has been murdered by the truth.”
Mr. McIntyre, at Climate Audit, with a magnifying glass.
To the words of Mull of Kintyre:
Steve McIntyre
Old tricks are no contest to him
His desire
For justice will lead him
Oh Steve McIntyre
Sorry.
Why will it get interesting, why would Science(tm) care? At best, someone might get a politely worded note, if the math is obscure enough, on their web site.
The final date of the Marcott reconstruction is AD1940 (BP10).
Could part of the problem be that they are confusing themselves and others with an archaic way of saying which year they are really talking about? If BP means before 1950, what would 2013 be? It would almost be as if an old article was written using the Rankine scale and a modern article refused to convert to C for newer readers. A high positive number on the Rankine scale, such as 200 R would be a large negative number on the scale in degrees C.
Ever the gentlemen you two are, describing this as “nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason”.
Marcott shifted 2 cores (with negative values) so that they occured just barely outside the closing period, and shifted 3 cores (with positive values) of years 1000, 690 and 510 years later than their published dates to “0 BP”.
I will say it – this is straight-up academic malfeasence. And just in time for AR5. By a Mann wannabe ?
To the TUNE, even.
D’oh.
I’d say it’s a “sign” problem, but that doesn’t explain the pre-1900 data.
This just seems surreal. They could have just made up the data, it would have taken longer to debunk that way. I hate to be a proponent of conspiracy theories, but it just seems like Marcott is the sacrificial lamb to distract attention from something else. CG3?
It seems the uptick in the 20th century is not real, being nothing more than an artifact of shoddy procedures where the dates on the proxy samples were changed for some strange reason.
One wonders how many times these ‘shoddy procedures’ were iterated until for ‘some strange reason’ a hockey stick was obtained.