Skiphil writes in comments:
“…there are some interesting developments in the “Marcott curve” which puts more of the circus in jeopardy. In addition to a new post on CA detailing changes in the core top record, there is this very significant comment on a prior thread which deserves some serious exploration:”
![marcott-A-1000[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/marcott-a-10001.jpg?quality=83)
Jean S on “Marcott’s main plot (Figure 1A)”
Hah! There is some additional fun in Marcott’s main plot (Figure 1A). Mann’s hockey stick there is the global EIV-CRU from Mann et al. (2008), which means that there is no actual reconstruction post 1850, since it’s the Reg-EM produced EIV reconstruction! So they have now essentially “grafted the thermometer record onto” Mann’s reconstruction. To his credit, Mann has always been careful to plot the post 1850 part in EIV reconstructions in a different color. He is actually explicitly warning in his data description spreadsheet that the values for 1850-2006 are instrumental data.
So in Marcott et al Fig 1A we have a comparision in the interval 1850-1950 between their reconstruction (uptick) and Crutem3 (LAND only) (annual?) instrumental record (no uptick). But that’s not all, folks! See the associated uncertainties … Mann et al (2008) uncertainties (which seem to match in the plot to those given in the spreadsheet, i.e., 2 sigma, whereas Marcott et al uncertainties are 1 sigma) are naturally calculated only up to 1849 (as there is no actual reconstruction afterwards), but in the Figure 1A they continue all the way to the end. Where did those 1850-2006 uncertainties come from?
Source comment here
“Where did those 1850-2006 uncertainties come from?”
Pulled from the same orifice much of the rest of it appeared?
(or is that a bit rude?)
Wow. . . .will the fun never end with this paper??
How in the world can this wind up being anything but a colossal egg in the face for Science magazine?
Grafting? Oh no…. Since Mann denied in 2004 that anyone to date had done this, in the context of rebutting criticism, can we infer that he agrees it’s a bad idea to present such an undisclosed grafting of the instrumental record onto a proxy record in a scientific paper?
Mann on grafting a thermometer record onto a reconstruction
Hockey stick trading, the successor to carbon trading.
What’s the value of an uptick nowadays? A complete hockey stick must be worth its weight in gold.
I know, people will rush in to point out that conclusions are premature. Marcott hasn’t had a chance to respond yet! Just the same, I’m smelling that old familiar horse manure aroma, and I’m pretty sure my socks are innocent this time.
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
Sad. If this is the best they can do for ‘the Cause’, that’s just sad.
Well I’m completely confused. I mean more than normal.
Didn’t Marcott reply to McIntyre admitting that the uptick was not robust? So if the UpTick is really a MannTick glued onto a MarcottShaft, does that mean that Marcott just called the MannTick “not robust”? Didn’t Romm say it was the instrumental record, then Mann said the same, then they both withdrew the comment? So neither of them knows one way or the other what Marcott actually did do? Or didn’t do? He’ll be in a lot of doodoo If Marcott’s UpTick turns out to be the MannTick glued onto a MarcottShaft, and that’s what Marcott was referring to when he said “not robust”. Mann will be so ticked he will come unglued. And boy oh boy will he shaft Marcott.
Ben Wilson says: “How in the world can this wind up being anything but a colossal egg in the face for Science magazine?”
Because it shows the temp record from 11300 to 10300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 10300 to 9300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 9300 to 8300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 8300 to 7300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 7300 to 6300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 6300 to 5300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 5300 to 4300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 4300 to 3300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 3300 to 2300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 2300 to 1300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 1300 to 300 bp.
But you dont have a problem with the main point of the paper, apparently.
How much would that graft cost tax payers around the world? Thanks to Steve, Anthony and all the other people involved thay may have saved all of us thousands of dollars each.
Of course that could also save all countries countless billions $ trying to further mitigate CAGW for a guaranteed zero return on the investment.
This study should be withdrawn as soon as possible.
I think that Marcott et al have had every chance to respond by now Mark. I suspect that one of the problems they are having is that every time they must think that they are getting close to giving us whatever they can muster as a rebuttal, BAM! along come the auditors with revelations of yet another fast and loose methodology or disingenuous manipulation of existing data which affects the results and quite frankly they must be playing catch-up. Marcott must be horrified to see another nail in the paper’s coffin each morning as he wakes.
It’s getting suspiciously too-long without at least some response to the earliest claims and I personally think it’s time those with the skill and understanding start to fire off some comments to Science magazine’s editor because it appears that the authors are not keen to get the ball rolling in anything like short-order.
The real question is how do we get across to the uninformed multitudes that the alarmies are purveying horseshit? – and worse than that, proposing mass murder?
I suspect that Mr. Marcott et al now understand the term “blood in the water.” Theirs academic credentials and reputations are being torn to shreds.
an aside, not specific to this “grafting” issue but an entertaining item — “Mark” at Climate Audit came up with this great quotation (echoing a famous quote):
quote for the ages
[emphasis added]
The bogusness of this just keeps getting thicker. First we have a hockey stick starting in the 1950s that no one noticed living through, and now we have at least error bar grafting? Really, I think if the temperatures had gone up 4 or 5 C in my lifetime I might have noticed it.
Marcott is caught
With numbers from nowhere
A grafted thermometer
Sporting a blade there
A hockey stick sucker
Is born every minute
But with “science” like this
They’re not in it to win it…
So, was Mann one of the original pall-reviewing sponsors of the paper?
Who was on his PhD committee that accepted the original paper that this release plagiarized (er, copied without attributes or changes)?
Were any of “that” group also in the pal-reviewed conspiracy to get this released before the AR5 deadline?
Also, the proxies have lost all high frequency components as part of their formation cycles, so how can someone say anything about weather phenomena that lasted only 10 to 20 years (like droughts, decades long heat waves, little ice ages…etc.). The flatness of the handle is more a function of the low pass filter in the proxies than anything approaching ground truth.
Are tramafadore and trafamadore the same person? They seem equally obtuse. Is there a lone troll defending this paper or are there two of them?
davidmhoffer says:
March 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm
=========================================
I think Jean S is referring to the grey “Mann et al.” curve not the purple “Marcott et al.” curve. If that is the case, the issue is not the Marcott uptick per se, but that they are comparing their “not robust” uptick with an (unmentioned) instrumental uptick while not emphasizing that the Mann et al. recon changes from proxies to thermometer data at 1850?? (I’m still a neophyte in these matters, but that’s how I understood what Jean S said).
Because it shows the temp record from 11300 to 10300 bp.
You fool.
trafamadore says:
March 19, 2013 at 6:50 pm
———–
Come on trafamadore. Pop on over to McIntyre’s and have a look at the problems he’s found so far. The dating on the proxies appears to be screwed up. Paper is different between the Science and thesis versions. Uptick is a statistical artifact of proxies with a different sign continuing a step past the opposing proxies.
Save what cred you’ve got for a better cause another day, and be honest. This paper stinks.
Skiphil;
I think Jean S is referring to the grey “Mann et al.” curve not the purple “Marcott et al.” curve.
>>>>>>>>>
Reading it again, I think you are right. (I did say I was confused….)
So when Romm and Mann were beaking off about Anthony denying the instrumental record, perhaps they thought Anthony’s comments were about Mann’s graph, not Marcott’s? And when it became clear that this was the case they beat a hasty retreat so as not to draw attention to this very issue?
Even if I am right this time, my own explanation confuses me, that’s how bad this whole mess is.
Let me see if I understand Trafamadore’s* comment: the paper is a good one because the data up until 300 bp is good.
But the controversy isn’t about that data – the controversy is about the most recent data. I think, to put it in plain English, he is saying that we should accept the paper because it’s a really, really good paper, all except for the parts they faked.
* I would hate to be stuck with a screen nick that was permanently misspelled. The planet made famous by Kurt Vonnegut was “Tralfamadore”, champ.
Trafamadore. It appears it is you that has a problem with the point of the paper. Still got your fingers in your ears eh? Try opening your eyes instead. Read the abstract again, read the press release, read the media surrounding it. It all focusses on the uptick and the modern projection. All of which is looking shoddier by the day. If the Holocene reconstruction was the point of the paper why has so little been discussed about it?
Even should the point of the paper be that reconstruction, and you and your ilk are happy to dismiss what goes on after 1850 as just some meaningless, honest mistake, or four, then even so the reconstruction is of such poor resolution that it tells us nothing much and certainly nothing new. It would never have been published without the modern reconstruction and projections being tacked on.
Also if you are happy with the core top redating done which knocks 500-1000 years of some samples with no mention of why they thought it was necessary to redate core samples that the original data collectors seemed perfectly capable of understanding and dating more accurately, then for all that is good in the world, may you never, ever teach.
Believe it or not, marcotting is a synonym for grafting. Wouldn’t you know it!
@davidmhoffer Almost certainly the same person I just suspect that the numerous aliases he uses get him a little confused at times. Especially as I suspect he initially wanted to reference Vonnegut’s “Tralfamadore” but once caught out in that mistake had too much ego to admit he got it wrong and subsequently correct it.
Or perhaps this towering intellect still presumes to have got it correct. He certainly does so with most other subjects he weighs in on.
he’s all obfuscation, distraction and bluster. But does not understand that WUWT regulars have seen his sort of sleight of hand before. It does not wash.