Steve McIntyre writes of the curious uptick in the 20th century, which doesn’t seem to be rooted in reality, or to have been in Marcott’s PhD thesis:
While one expects a difference between NHX and SHX in the Holocene, the remarkable difference between NHX and SHX not just in the 20th century, but in the 19th century is a source of considerable interest. According to Marcott, NHX temperatures increased by 1.9 deg C between 1920 and 1940, a surprising result even for the most zealous activists. But for the rest of us, given the apparent resiliency of our species to this fantastic increase over a mere 20 years, it surely must provide a small measure of hope for resiliency in the future.
Read his entire essay here at Climate Audit
The only thing Marcott will learn from this episode is not to publish his supplementary data next time.
“not robust”…slang for anything goes
Elizabeth says:
March 15, 2013 at 2:09 pm
“Lot of hand waving here qualified persons need to write a letter to the Editor of Science?:”
I could write a letter that states: “You published an article by Marcott that is interesting only because it shows a graph that has an uptick indicating rapidly rising temperatures in the twentieth century yet the author states in the fine print of his article that the uptick is not robust, his word, meaning not statistically significant. The uptick is interesting only because it indicates imminent climate Armageddon. Would you please take the steps necessary to inform your readers that the uptick should not have been published?”
Do you think that will do the job? It is concise, clear, to the point, true, and fair. Your comments will be appreciated.
davidmhoffer says:
March 15, 2013 at 2:56 pm
Mann. “Publish this graph with the uptick and you will enjoy the same fame that I enjoyed since the time that I was in your shoes.”
Climate Change – It’s ScLience.
As I posted at CA….
fyi, the thesis advisor, mentor, and also co-author for both Marcott (Marcott et al. 2013, Science) and Shakun (Shakun et al., 2012, Nature) is Peter Clark at Oregon State…. who just happens to be a Coordinating Lead Author (one of only 8 CLAs from the USA) for the IPCC’s AR5:
Peter Clark is CLA for IPCC’s AR5, the chapter on sea level change
So even if that sea level chapter is not in the target zone for these two papers the IPCC’s AR5 process was certainly a potential topic of discussion for co-authors who seemed to get the Marcott et al. (2013) paper in just under the wire for consideration.
p.s. If anyone does submit a comment to “Science” please consider leading off with Shaun Marcott’s favorite Feynman quotation (judging from the fact that he led off his PhD thesis with this quote and one from Sagan):
The article appears to richly deserve it, but will it be retracted?
That would be a major admission of error by the editors at Science.
Skiphil;
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
Richard P. Feynman
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Does it then follow that:
“Ignorance is the belief in the expertise of scientists”?
Having followed the climate debate for a while now, I think (with apologies to Arthur C Clarke) that following sums up the current state of affairs:
“Any sufficiently advanced Magic is indistinguishable from Science”
I’ve used that quip before, but who knew that an actual journal called “Science” would actually publish a hockey stick conjured up from data by magic?
‘
This paper is so poorly done, I am starting to go for the conspiracy theory.
What is being slid by us, while we are distracted by this stinker?
Jim Rose says:
March 15, 2013 at 2:43 pm
“…You and I are intellectuals and can process the world in terms of words and numbers when we want. Many process their “concepts” in terms of pictures and simple slogans…”
____
Well, isn’t that spatial.
note: I am merely noting the inter-relations with IPCC AR5 WG1 authors. I know nothing of these people beyond what we have seen so far of Shakun and Marcott, co-authors with two current IPCC authors. Even with the best of intentions and practices it is a situation fraught with issues, and we have not exactly always seen the best of intentions and practices from IPCC types.
IPCC aspects of Shakun et al. (2012): in addition to adviser to Shakun and Marcott (Peter Clark), another co-author is a Lead Author for the Ch 5 Paleo chapter! One need not suggest any “conspiracy” at all to note there may be a conflict-of-interest and also the chronic IPCC problem of people reviewing/proclaiming upon the scientific importance of their own work.
IPCC AR5, WG1 Author List
=================================================================
“Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation”
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Nature 484, 49–54
(05 April 2012)
doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received
16 September 2011
Accepted
01 February 2012
Published online
04 April 2012
note: I am merely observing some inter-relations between Marcott/Shakun and IPCC AR5 WG1 authors. I know nothing of these people beyond what we have seen so far of Shakun and Marcott on the web, and I am not imputing any conspiracy to anyone. Even with the best of intentions and practices it is a situation fraught with issues, and we have not exactly always seen the best of intentions and practices from IPCC types.
IPCC aspects of Shakun et al. (2012): in addition to adviser to Shakun and Marcott (Peter Clark), another co-author is a Lead Author for the Ch 5 Paleo chapter! One need not suggest any “conspiracy” at all to note there may be a conflict-of-interest and also the chronic IPCC problem of people reviewing/proclaiming upon the scientific importance of their own work.
IPCC AR5, WG1 Author List
=================================================================
“Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation”
Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Feng He, Shaun A. Marcott, Alan C. Mix, Zhengyu Liu, Bette Otto-Bliesner, Andreas Schmittner & Edouard Bard
Nature 484, 49–54
(05 April 2012)
doi:10.1038/nature10915
Received
16 September 2011
Accepted
01 February 2012
Published online
04 April 2012
davidmhoffer says:
March 15, 2013 at 2:56 pm
With a paper this bad, one has to wonder what (who?) could possibly convince Marcott et al that they could not only publish this, but slide a completely different version of their thesis into a journal. I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but yikes!
Marcott, you’ve been used.
===================================================
I think it might be worse than that. They may have done this intentionally for the low information idiot.. The ones who see the head line but never the facts..The same ones who elected Obama and though he would not take money from them but give it to them… fooled by the flashy lines and a fictional crisis around every corner..
IN the words of PT Barnum “there’s a sucker born every minuet”. It must be a lollipop world. (Wel la 47% one anyway)
Could someone please start a list of climate scientists that are not complete idiots, please. It can’t be all that long a list.
I’ve checked over the data and there is a worrying lack of correlation to the conclusion. No handle for a critic — no single thing can be identified to be shown to be wrong. Maybe the climateers’ new plan is to transcend us, floating free above the madding crowds.
While on the topic of strange upticking data, here’s Steven Goddard on the topic
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/03/06/hansen-admits-that-he-is-taking-the-enron-approach-to-science/
The graphs are very revealing
Is this what you’re looking for? Read carefully.
Is Marcott becoming the new rising star of calamatology like Mann? Unlikely, as his work is being nipped in the bud.
The graph, at top, shows that the SH increased temperature far more than the NH in recent years. I do not understand this given that the SH is mostly water and water heats up far slower than land.
The worst aspect of Marcott et al is that one of his co-authors is influential and a contributor to the forthcoming IPCC report. You can bet that Marcott et al will be positively cited, and with no qualifications about uncertainties. People should flag this up widely.
Mathematician Paul Matthews (U. of Nottingham, UK) calls for Marcott et al. (2013) to be withdrawn:
Paul Matthews to Science
I think we do somewhat of a disservice to the auditors here and the practices pioneered by Steve McIntyre to suggest that the paper is transparently bad. I don’t think it is, save the hanging blade of the hockey stick and even here many of us are primed to see something funny with such a shape.
When the peer reviewers passed this paper didn’t any of them realise that sceptics would look for the flaws they ‘missed’???? Why did they miss them???? This is what I find so puzzling.
I give it about 6 more weeks before total humiliation.
I don’t know how PhDs are examined in Oregon SU but in UK there is a tradition that the external examiner and others on the examining board should take an adversarial role. I read Marcott’s Acknowledgements with interest wondering how testing was his viva. If I interpret it aright, Marcott got an easy ride and is suffering for it.
Don’t let him take the blame alone. He is human and seemingly went along with the tide – but should we not turn the critical spotlight on OSU, the Examining Board for his thesis, the Editors of Science and the referees of his paper? Are they all ignorant, corrupt or indolent?
If he goes down, these others should go down with him?