At Climate Audit, Something odd has been discovered about the provenance of the work associate with the Marcott et al paper. It seems that the sharp uptick wasn’t in the thesis paper Marcott defended for his PhD, but is in the paper submitted to Science.
Steve McIntyre writes:
Reader ^ drew our attention to Marcott’s thesis (see chapter 4 here. Marcott’s thesis has a series of diagrams in an identical style as the Science article. The proxy datasets are identical.
However, as Jean S alertly observed, the diagrams in the thesis lack the closing uptick of the Science. Other aspects of the modern period also differ dramatically.
Here is Figure 1C of the Science article.
Now here is the corresponding diagram from the (Marcott) thesis:
The differences will be evident to readers. In addition to the difference in closing uptick, important reconstruction versions were at negative values in the closing portion of the thesis graphic, while they were at positive values in the closing portion of the Science graphic.
I wonder what accounts for the difference.
Read the full report at Climate Audit
===========================================================
This story just got a lot more interesting. I wonder if we don’t have a situation like with Yamal, and sample YAD06 which when included, skewed the whole set. Perhaps there was some screening in the thesis and that didn’t include part of the proxy datasets, or later for the Science paper maybe there was some Gergis sytyle screening that made hockey sticks pop out. It might also be some strange artifact of processing, perhaps some Mannian style math was introduced. Who knows at this point? All we know is that one paper is not like the other, and one produces a hockey stick and the other does not.
Some additional detective work is sorely needed to determine why this discrepancy exists and if anyone in the peer review process asked any similar questions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Page not found” error if you try to follow the link.
I wonder why?
You might like this from the other thread posted by the commenter BruceC.
Hockey Schtick 2
If this is right then the IPCC and Science should be informed immediately.
Anthony
The link fails, should be
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/
MODS:
The climate Audit link says “page not found”. Remove the extra: http://
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/http://
[Reply: Fixed. Thanks. -ModE]
Grammatical error:
… it didn’t use_ to be there. Not used. 🙂
In the second set of graphics (simulation diagram) at Climate Audit we see a sharp rise for ScienceMag and a decline for the thesis. Are they trying to hide the decline??? Did they consult Dr. Michael Mann before and during the write-up of the paper???
Steve McIntyre says: “I wonder what accounts for the difference.”
The authors concluded “Our global temperature reconstruction for the past 1500 years is indistinguishable within uncertainty from the Mann et al. (2) reconstruction.”
It’s interesting (and career ending) that they would both emulate Mann’s completely debunked hockey stick with their diagram and then mention him in their article. I suspect the ‘David Blaine of climate science’, Dr. Michael Mann himself, had a hand in processing the data for the ‘Science’ article. But in exchange for what?
Its almost as if the x axis has been turned around from 2000 to 0 then from 0 to 2000.Or better expressed the science article reverses the scale.
For some reason the Standard 30×30 grid has been almost mirror inverted as has green Standard NH.
There appears to be four proxies of temperature in the thesis and six in the science article.
Just by eyeball, if you add the error bars those lines could go anywhere on the graphs.
It would be useful to see what and which standards are being alluded to.
We have seen so many data alterations, to follow theory/model output, that this seems par for climate science, or should I call it pseudoscience. They still expect us to believe this rubbish as well.
As far as I can see there seems to be a rather dramatic increase in temperatures over the last 300 years in both sets of data. What’s that all about then? Clearly not AGW.
My immediate thought is that the thesis committee did some actual review of the paper, while Science did not.
Another piece of Manniacal analysis?
Is it polite to ask whether Marcott’s defended PHD should be withdrawn or his recent paper should be withdrawn? Or re-written?
It would be interesting to know if the “not robust” uptick was in the original Marcott submission to Sciencemag, or did a reviewer (Mannian) press them for it….. or did the review process press for more “simulations” of a certain kind to exaggerate the uptick?? We may not be able to find out with confidentiality of reviews etc., but it’s a good question to have in mind as we explore how Marcott got from the diagram in the thesis to the one in the article.
I propose at first glance, that this may well be the result of tampering with results by “expert reviewers” demanding certain adjustments in order for the paper to be accepted.
As I predicted on another posting yesterday this paper will definitely be withdrawn and it will be end of the team.
Does anyone know who was on the peer review process? It is evident by both the volume of criticisms of the Marcott paper, and the timing of when they first followed its publication, that whomever they are, are not very good.
Oh noes! The Central England Temperature (CET) dataset has been made into a…………….. HOCKEY STICK! Even though it has been declining at a -4.4° C/century rate over the last 15 years. Climate trickery and general Tom foolery is our Marcott.
(Click then scroll down to see how the trick is done.)
I downloaded the Central England Temperature since 1878 and sliced it up to coincide with each sunspot cycle. I then dived each years sunspot number by 32850. I subtracted the result from the yearly temperature. I then averaged the temperature over each sunspot cycle.
I plotted the temperature of the CET data and the averaged data. The CET data climbs slowly over the years then there is a hockey stick starting about 1996 where it climbs 2°C and looks like it is going to continue exponentially.
The adjusted data is virtually flat from 1890 to 1996 then rises 1°C before falling back a bit.
(You may be wondering why I divided the yearly sunspot number by 32850. I found out that that was the number that gave the flattest temperature over the CET data series since 1878.)
Louis Hooffstetter says:
March 15, 2013 at 2:52 am ” …I suspect the ‘David Blaine of climate science’, Dr. Michael Mann himself….”
————————–
Uri Geller of climate science, surely.
There seems to be more recent data in the top figure than the bottom (thesis) figure. Look at the lower edge of the grey uncertainty curve – there is a bump in the curve around 8 axis tick marks to the left of the 0 mark on the top figure, but on the bottom figure this same bump is only around 6 tick marks to the left. Of course the bottom x-axis is not labelled, so it’s hard to figure out how to align the two figures.
Thanks to Lance Wallace at March 15, 2013, 1:24 am for collating the data,
We can now see where the hockey stick blade uptick comes from. There are a number of proxies with high numbers in 1950 (which then decline afterward). Otherwise, the average over recent period is below the average 0.0C anomaly and there is no trend overall.
But if you are running some type of filter up to just 1950 and then preserve the end-point, viola you have an uptick. Standard filtering problem.
Marcott’s proxies from 1700 to 2000 (and if you go back to 1400 or 1000AD, it looks exactly the same).
http://s13.postimage.org/pmjexbwl3/Marcott2013_1700_2000_Proxies.png
The Greenland ice core proxy data show that temperature (at least there) has been on a downtrend since the so-called Minoan Warm Period about 3300 years ago, & that the earth was even warmer during the Holocene Optimum. This trend is confirmed globally by other data sets, including the fact that the East Antarctic Ice Sheet stopped retreating about 3000 years ago, as shown by soil radionuclides. This down trend has been produced without major human contribution, except possibly from such activities as cutting forests & planting rice paddies, which to some extent merely replace natural swamps.
Thus a scientifically valid means of measuring the actual human contribution to global warming, if any, might exist. Draw a trend line connecting the tops of the observed temperature peaks during warm spikes (Minoan, Roman & Medieval), then extend it into the current Modern Period. If at some time in the present period (which still has 100-350 years to run) temperature peaks above the downtrend line would indicate by how much people have altered the natural course toward the next glaciation.
Reblogged this on This Got My Attention and commented:
Problems with the data, again, so just make up some?