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.
As a casual observer, I must say that I am always amazed by the elitism displayed by the ‘real’ scientists in these recurring situations, though I suppose that by now I shouldn’t be. At least Marcott corresponded with McIntyre for a while so I give him a bit of credit for that. If I were them, I would submit my work to McIntyre prior to publishing!
trafamadore says:
March 16, 2013 at 7:21 pm
“Latitude says: “He said the modern warming was that they had “clearly” stated that the 1890-on portion of their reconstruction was “not robust”.”
Actually, I think you have that quote wrong in that you don’t really understand what it means, but that doesn’t really matter here: if you have it right, what is your point? That the author is accurately portraying the data? You make no sense in your critique, it is nonsensical.”
Great Caesar’s Ghost! If the statistics are not robust then they should not have been published.
trafamadore says:
“Well, the hockey stick as survived quite well after McIntyre papers in the 2000′s, and more people have added sticks of their own. So root on for your hero.”
Mann’s Hokey Stick was so thoroughly debunked that Nature was forced to issue an extremely rare Correction. No journal ever wants to issue a Correction, because it is an admission of bad vetting. Mann98/99 and Mann08 all have fatal flaws. Only a deluded lemming would put stock in any of them.
“Well, the hockey stick as survived quite well after McIntyre papers in the 2000′s, and more people have added sticks of their own. So root on for your hero.”
I am reminded of the following quote:
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
(Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace)
Another Gergis in the making…
Nylo says:”Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios. Both of those sentences would have to change completely if Marcott’s reconstruction had not changed the originally published dates for the proxies. You are lying.”
Lying? Whew, strong claims. How could this paper affect the 2100 predictions, one way or another?
D.B. Stealey says “Mann’s Hokey Stick was so thoroughly debunked that Nature was forced to issue an extremely rare Correction”
Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions have repeated Mann’s study. So It would appear that Mann was correct.
I was starting to make a list of all the things that trafamadore got wrong, but it would have made for a rather long post. I think she made one comment which sums it up nicely:
So, I am stunned….not.
Well after claiming that scientists shouldn’t have to keep details of their work, that the claims made in the headlines announcing the paper have nothing to do with the paper, confusing Clarke’s role as adviser with the role played by the author of the paper, trying to justify changing the data from one version of the paper to the next….sorry trafamadore, you need to reconsider your position on this matter too….
Is trafamadore all the warmists have on this one? Nick Stokes or R. Gates would often take a stab at defending the indefensible, but even they would giggle at trafamadore’s reasoning.
trafamadore has clearly been sent here by the universe to keep us in mind of the pig-headed willful ignorance of the ‘liberal intelligentsia’. They are not interested in the truth, only in winning the game. He shows us what we are up against, over and over again.
k scott denison says:”Traf said: Look. Marcott’s paper is about long ago not the last century.
——
Um, if the time shifting mucked up this century, and Marcott shifted the entire proxy, what does that say about the earlier years of the reconstruction?”
So his study is about the last 11350 years not the last 11300? Wow, that will make a difference.
Well, I’ve read all the comments and I’ve come to the considerable opinion that “trafamadore” is one messed up person.
He lies, he throws ad hominens, and he belittles people. And he knows nothing about science.
He’s apparently here to run offense for a very bad paper, and bases a lot of that on a prior very bad paper–that by Mann himself. Two mistakes in a row!
But that’s ok–about 100,000 people a day stop by to read WUWT, and many drop by this thread. If I were “trafamadore”, I’d pull it back before more people saw it as circus, but I’m sure in his state of mind he’ll just keep on going.
May I goad you further, “trafamadore”? Please–expose all of your sides. Keep entertaining us! Your fake laughter is contagious but success eludes you.
trafamadore says:
March 16, 2013 at 8:45 pm
“Theo Goodwin says: “I think it is highly likely that McIntyre will establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that the uncertainty bars on Marcott’s paper must be so wide that the paper is reduced to a triviality.”
Well, the hockey stick as survived quite well after McIntyre papers in the 2000′s, and more people have added sticks of their own. So root on for your hero.”
Right. Mann’s work has survived as propaganda but not as science. Marcott’s work will survive as propaganda but not as science.
When asked about the uptick, Marcott should not have said “It is not robust” but should have said “it is good enough for IPCC work.”
One thing to remember. Steve Mcintyre does not find errors, mistakes and poor methodology in papers because he wants the papers to be wrong. He finds those things because they exist.
RossP says: 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.
No, not nails in a coffin. He is laying on a bed of nails, He made his own bed…
Andrew at Bishop Hill has an interesting comment/tweet, referencing another disastrous paper published by “Science” with (arguably) weak review:
Per Andrew’s tweet referencing the “Arsenic Life” controversy, another much hyped and splashy paper in “Science” mag. that went down in flames, it will be worth comparing the two episodes as this one unfolds further. In Dec. 2010 “Science” published a paper in microbiology which claimed to discover a new form of life not based upon phosphate but upon arsenic fueling DNA. In that case the authors were making a grand but (it turned out) unfounded claim that seemed unlikely to many in the field, so it did not take long for debunking to be widely accepted.
In the current case we have a grandiose paper that serves the expectations, preferences, and hopes of many in the field, so it may be more difficult to get the critique heard or widely accepted. Just look at how prolonged the process of dealing with seriously flawed papers by Mann and friends has been.
Hype and controversy over “Arsenic Life” paper
“This Paper Should Not Have Been Published”
Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life.
By Carl Zimmer | Posted Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2010
trafamadore says:
March 16, 2013 at 9:25 pm
Lying? Whew, strong claims. How could this paper affect the 2100 predictions, one way or another?
The difference between doing the Marcottian date changes or not doing them, is a full 2C degrees in the starting temperature from where to add the simulations (1940), as McIntyre has shown. Many of the model projections produce warming below that ammount. So many simulations would not even claim for 2100 a warming similar to what the Marcottian method claims for 1940, which in addition is already cooler than 25% of the holocene. You are still lying.
Hey, look at this! I actually agree with trafalamabama on something!
Predictions? There ain’t no steenking predictions… THEY’RE ALL PROJECTIONS!
And they’re just as much “climate porn” now as they were before.
Trafamadore. I assume the Trafamadore Group spelled the name incorrectly and you meant to write “Tralfamadore” OK. I get it.
davidmhoffer says:”Well after claiming that scientists shouldn’t have to keep details of their work, that the claims made in the headlines announcing the paper have nothing to do with the paper, confusing Clarke’s role as adviser with the role played by the author of the paper, trying to justify changing the data from one version of the paper to the next….sorry trafamadore, you need to reconsider your position on this matter too….”
Actually, I have been the 1st author Nature author…only once… and the 3rd author mentor many times…I really think I know this one. And the data in the thesis is one thing and the data in papers is not the same, once other data is added…are you thinking at all? 3 + 1 = 4, and 3 is not 4.
And whoever said details of work should not be kept? That is silly.
So, no, there is no position to reconsider but yours, which is stemmed in ignorance.
Where did Mosher go? He was so arrogantly calling all the skeptics are WUWT “savants” for being skeptical about things they have seen before.
Nylo says:”You are still lying”
okay he says this too:
“The difference between doing the Marcottian date changes or not doing them, is a full 2C degrees in the starting temperature from where to add the simulations (1940), as McIntyre has shown. Many of the model projections produce warming below that ammount. So many simulations would not even claim for 2100 a warming similar to what the Marcottian method claims for 1940, which in addition is already cooler than 25% of the holocene. You are still lying.”
Look. The main point of the paper are temp records thousands of years ago. And you are like worrying about the last 0.1 %, which is pretty consistent with the known temperature increase shown in the 1998 Mann paper and in all the papers since.
So I don’t know what I am lying about, you sound sort of silly if not just plain stupid.
Climate models on Viagra, limp data in, gargantuan erections out.
Maybe Shakun didn’t want to be fired by his employer.
Isn’t his employer the university which fires academics who express
non-warmist arguments?
Trafamadore et al can protest as much as they like; bottom line is that Marcott and co “tweaked” (like the wonderful McIntyre,being polite) the data till it gave them the result they wanted. Or are we really expected to believe the changes they made/mistakes/corrections just somehow completely coinkydinkily made an its-worse-than-we-thought hockey stick? Seriously?
So the speculation is that changes were made to satisfy peer review … in order to be “splashy” enough to get published in Science?
Man oh Mann ….. I’d sure like to know the reviewers’ identities!