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.
Those supposed replications either used Mann’s invalid proxies, or his invalid statistical acrobatics, or both. There have been lengthy comments here on WUWT, on CA, and elsewhere elucidating those points at length. Mann’s claque has just “kept digging.”
Are there still honest people who want to publish in Science magazine? Time for a full scale boycott, let crap sink.
Don’t the peer-reviewers get an “honorable” mention for their role in this?
Don’t we get to know who peer reviewed Marcott’s paper?
If Marcott wrote a similar paper for baby medicine and was caught out like above he would end up in jail. In fact most climate scientists would be in high detention prisons for the sake of humanity. 🙂
RE: Trafa… this guy is wasting the valuable time and insights of smart, thoughtful people. I’m sure he gets paid for each time he is cited. Ignore him. He has no game.
trafamadore says:
March 16, 2013 at 11:15 pm
Look. The main point of the paper are temp records thousands of years ago.
===================
“In 100 years, we’ve gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum,” Marcott said. “We’ve never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.
Merely observing the frantic frequency with which trafamadore has posted in this thread tells you everything you need to know about how severely this Marcotte episode has wounded them. I’ve been hunting, I know what it looks like when a wounded animal is bleeding out, and that wounded animal is the warmist theology and the parasites that have been feeding off that blood-rich carcass. Rage, rage, against the darkness of the light, trafamadore!
Or, as my Brooklyn bar-owning uncle used to say to the customers at closing time: “You don’t have to go home . . . but you can’t f’ing stay here.”
boy trafamadore sure seems to have disappeared.
This paper needs to be reported here
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/ or least advise the person running the site
Eliza, yup, I did so yesterday:
http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/about/#comment-51416
They may need to start a special section at RW for climate propaganda…. Mann and friends, Gergis, Lewandowsky, now Marcott, Shakun (2012)….. ofc these people avoid all correction, never mind retraction, if humanly possible, so who knows?
No comment yet from RC. Just this note w/in a comment on 8 Mar:
I’m surprised to see no mention of Marcott et al in March 8, 2013 Science “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years”. Comments? [coming soon… -mike]
The Fourth Estate are beginning to crack –
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html
We may be pleasantly surprised at how quickly the MSM turn on Big Climate and the Team, once journos realize they’ve been fed like domesticated chooks and don’t want to be the last out of the chook pen.
observa says:
March 17, 2013 at 3:55 pm
“The Fourth Estate are beginning to crack -”
Daily Mail had quite a few sceptical reports on CO2AGW in the past including mention of the solar minimum.
What’s more telling is the silence at Guardian, BBC, Der Spiegel. When they jump ship, they do it silently; not an about-face, just hopping on the next bandwagon.
Latitude quotes Marcott:
“In 100 years, we’ve gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum,” Marcott said. “We’ve never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.”
That is flat wrong. Past global temperatures have abruptly changed by tens of degrees on short, decadal time scales, and during a time when CO2 was very low.
Surely Marcott knows this. It appears that he is lying, no?
We are currently in a cooler part of the Holocene. Nothing unusual or unprecedented is occurring; in fact, we have been blessed with a “Goldilocks” climate for the past century and a half.
The planet has been up to ten degrees warmer in the past, with no ill effects. During those warm episodes the biosphere teemed with life. Yet Marcott falsely states that “we have never seen something this rapid”.
They are reduced to outright lying. No wonder they won’t debate, or allow themselves to be questioned live and face to face. Despicable, no?
If the paper is not withdrawn, I suggest not buying or subscribing to SCIENCE and terminating any membership associated with this organization. Its the only language they will understand unfortunately.
Boston12GS says:
March 17, 2013 at 2:48 pm
“Merely observing the frantic frequency with which trafamadore has posted in this thread tells you everything you need to know about how severely this Marcotte episode has wounded them.”
I humbly submit (down on my knees begging) that trafamadore be banned. Knowledgeable and teachable trolls can be tolerated. Trafamadore is ignorant of most of the thorough discussion of issues that has taken place on WUWT since Climategate. His trollship contributes nothing to this site.
Agree with your media observations DirkH but I haven’t seen such a direct smack in the kisser to Big Climate and The Team in one succinct MSM article before. There’s no doubt where the author is coming from now and it throws down the gauntlet to other MSM journos to do likewise and devil take the hindmost.
That article would be unheard of even a year or two ago and the climatology club would be quaking in their grants over it right now. Their mighty pal reviewed edifice is crumbling all about them and all they have left is to trot out their Comical Ali mantra. Their is a certain grim inevitability about them all now.
Theo Goodwin says (March 17, 2013 at 4:42 pm): “I humbly submit (down on my knees begging) that trafamadore be banned.”
Let him rave on, that men will know him mad. — Yul Brynner as Rameses in “The Ten Commandments”, 1956.
Besides, the guy’s a real hoot. 🙂
McIntyre is amazing. I want to have his babies. Sadly, I’m a guy and not gay :(.
Good God, NO! Are we afraid to meet these ethics-barren and deeply unscientific prevaricators and economic parasites in the intellectual field of combat? Nay, nay I say.
Are not their hockey sticks already splintering in their hands? Are not their grant applications becoming ever more pathetic? Their press coverage ever more tiredly sycophantic and self-exposing?
We, my friends, are the modern-day cavalry of the scientific method. With our self-professed intellectual enemies crumbling before us, now is not the time to withdraw from the conflict. To the contrary, this is the very time to charge, ride them down, and end the contest.
Granted, too many of them will successfully retreat to multi-million dollar mansions and pensions. But cavalry can only do so much.
In the meantime, we’ll have saved the world. For REAL. Not like THEY mean it.
🙂
observa says:
March 17, 2013 at 5:16 pm
“That article would be unheard of even a year or two ago and the climatology club would be quaking in their grants over it right now. Their mighty pal reviewed edifice is crumbling all about them and all they have left is to trot out their Comical Ali mantra. ”
Is Daily Mail Murdoch? Murdoch is a member of the CFR. So when he’s shooting directly at the Team that just means Warmism is no longer strategic for Bilderberger’s and CFR.
That means Open Season. As I said, the “more respectable” core outfits BBC, Guardian, Spiegel will not step look back to the mess they’ve made but set their sights on the next Grand Goal. So Murdoch can have fun with it.
trafamadore says:
March 16, 2013 at 6:12 pm
‘Tad says: “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.”
Grate, no, great way to make people submit to less reputable journals….’ (end of quote from traf.)
I think trafamadore may have a point there. Journals (such as perhaps Science) that don’t bother to insist on public archiving of data and code simultaneous with publication may tend over time to become less reputable as they will continue to attract dodgy papers from scientists who have somthing to hide.
D.B. Stealey says:
March 17, 2013 at 4:32 pm
Latitude quotes Marcott:
“In 100 years, we’ve gone from the cold end of the spectrum to the warm end of the spectrum,” Marcott said. “We’ve never seen something this rapid. Even in the ice age the global temperature never changed this quickly.”
That is flat wrong. Past global temperatures have abruptly changed by tens of degrees on short, decadal time scales, and during a time when CO2 was very low.
Surely Marcott knows this. It appears that he is lying, no?
I second that – it is indeed a frequent and remarkable feature of glacial periods that they are unstable, and punctuated by these “micro-interglacials” in which temperatures spike up by as much as 10 degrees, but for a duration measured in decades only or a century or two.
For example, Dansgaard et al 1993 find the exact opposite of what Marcott claims, namely that the most recent glacial period is characterised by frequent “violent delta-18-O shifts” indicating very rapid warm excursions, while the Holocene is, in striking contrast, “remarkably stable”.
Again climate authors with an AGW agenda are simply spouting opinions from the top of their heads with no research to back them up, and no-one in review is picking this up. Shameful dysfunction of the Science journal.
You are a liar and trying to deceive. If the main point of the paper was about “temp records thousands of years ago” then it would not be unique research. The “main point of the paper” is the fabricated uptick.