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.
Why is this surprising? To quote the old movie “you just don’t get it, do you? It’s what he does!”
Juicing the numbers to heat the planet is the norm for these guys, along with a lot of other stuff that we are all aware.
It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Tick, tick, tic, – a commenter yesterday thought 6 weeks, I almost replied less than 2. Whatever the time, this piece of sh!t has to be flushed soon. Even the Guardian and BBC have avoided their usual OTT reporting. BBC none this morning, Guardian 1 an AP feed.
By the way, where are the usual Warmists on WUWT defending this paper???
I would not want to be in Marcott’s shoes. There is no doubt he has not had a good night’s sleep over the last 4 days. You can res assured he has been frantically communicating with his PHD mentors and Michael Trickster Mann. All to no avail. Marcott withdraw your paper by yourself before it is forced upon you. Don’t listen to your ‘advisors’ they are using you as a usefull idiot.
Anthony, it’s worse than this. Evidently Marcott’s thesis did not have the uptickhttp://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/ , so something happened afterward whereby it got in. It is more than possible that it got inserted in the Science review process by hockey stick advocates, which then greased the skids for its publication.
The victim in all this, besides all of us who have been scammed once again, is Marcott who was just trying to get a PhD. And once again Science magazine has reasserted its status as supermarket tabloid of science.
Alex, The hockey stick is the living dead. It doesn’t matter how many times McIntyre kills it. Nothing can kill this zombie
But will MSM, or indeed anyone else, publish any of this?
Let us remind ourselves about some of the NH heat of the Holocene pre-20th century. It is unprecedented and worse than we thought.
Ohhh. That’s sure to get Steve another of those big cheques from Big Oil that wee-Mann is always yammering about. sarc/
It’ll surely get him a donation from me (which is actually money from big oil that I got fair and square).
It is as if provenance had brought us McIntyre and FOIA. And of course Watts et. al. As they say the truth will out. You just have to be patient.
Anthony, it is worse than this. Evidently the uptick is nowhere to be found in Marcott’s thesis. http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/14/no-uptick-in-marcott-thesis/
So it is more than possible that somewhere in the review process, the uptick was added on, which greased the skids for its publication in Science. There is definitely something we don’t know here, but we do know that Science has reaffirmed its status as supermarket tabloid of climate science.
History repeats:
1. Amazing new peer reviewed paper published supports CAGW!
2. Media headlines. “it’s worse than we thought!”
3. Paper swiftly debunked
4. Er…
5. That’s it.
Shakun bake? (as in cooking the books….)
Even Mann would be proud of making this big a Hide the Decline.
OK so I read the post but I’m not seeing where the hockey stick comes from. As I understand it, Marcott re-dated the core sample proxy data. Since these proxy datasets were created over a 10 year time span, I can see taking the original raw data and re-calibrating the carbon dating for all the proxy sets to the latest standard (using CALIB 6). It would remove one source of variability. Was that the purpose of the re-dating?
But seems to me this would shift the data points to the left or right in time but not affect the temperature. So how does re-dating turn the red curve into the black curve?
This actually gives me a glimmer of hope. That they have to resort to such (apparent) fakery, that The Usual Suspects were going ball$ to the wall with this so quickly, shows desperation. Then again, a wounded bear cornered in a cave is desperate, but still dangerous. Anthony, Steve, many thanks.
Living in Oregon one likes to see Oregon people contribute to science and understanding of the earth. After reading the incompetence or fraud that this Marcott paper represents makes me very glad that my engineering degree is not from Oregon State. Last year Oregon State did not renew the contract of an assistant professor apparently because he didn’t agree with AGW, Now lets see how the university deals with incompetence and or fraud. Harshly if they want to maintain a semblance of integrity.
At Bishop Hill there’s a discussion of whether this is fraud or not. My comment:
Its got to rise to the level of fraud or something like that to get the attention of the lib MSM. The thing is that the story of the incontrovertible evidence of unprecedented modern global warming ran night and day it seemed for weeks. That’s all the people are going to know. Insane.
The real issue is not that Marcott and company fuzzed their data and shifted their dates.
The real issue is that none of Science’s putative reviewers spotted it and insisted they defend their rather interesting methods.
They may, in fact, have a defense for what they did. My guess, though, is that it’s worse than, say, using Graybill’s stripbark trees as a temperature proxy.
I guess this is another nail in the coffin of Dr Mann’s reputation ( is there any room left in the coffin for more nails ?!?! ) as he was one of the first to trumpet / tweet the great significance of the Marcott paper.
In the movie Hoosiers when the Hickory Huskers were getting trounced early in the championship game, one of the Husker players during a time out said: “This Is Embarrassing.” IMHO the phrase “This Is Embarrassing” should be the official motto of Team cAGW.
And once again, it won’t matter. The number of people who will find out about this is miniscule compared to those that heard it’s all worse than we thought and we’re all doooomed. That’s how this game is played, science by press release to get media hype and when disproven later that doesn’t get reported.
“It is taking all my will power not to make an obvious comment at this point.” Bloody lying, liars, lied.
Statistics must never have been a prerequisite for gaining the (dubious) title of “Climate Scientist”. Spending a few years working for crooked casinos probably was, however, cooking the dice, rigging the tables, marking the cards, fudging the slots, and busting the kneecaps of anybody willing to expose these shenanigans. All in a day’s work, of course. You could never accuse “Climate Scientists” of Walking Tall–they’re the guys on the wrong side of that story.
I think all reputable scientific journals should require every step of data analysis, including data and code used for said analysis, be made available by the authors prior to publication. Perhaps on the journal’s website.