Uh oh, there be grafting in Marcott et al

Skiphil writes in comments:

“…there are some interesting developments in the “Marcott curve” which puts more of the circus in jeopardy. In addition to a new post on CA detailing changes in the core top record, there is this very significant comment on a prior thread which deserves some serious exploration:”

marcott-A-1000[1]

Jean S on “Marcott’s main plot (Figure 1A)”

Hah! There is some additional fun in Marcott’s main plot (Figure 1A). Mann’s hockey stick there is the global EIV-CRU from Mann et al. (2008), which means that there is no actual reconstruction post 1850, since it’s the Reg-EM produced EIV reconstruction! So they have now essentially “grafted the thermometer record onto” Mann’s reconstruction. To his credit, Mann has always been careful to plot the post 1850 part in EIV reconstructions in a different color. He is actually explicitly warning in his data description spreadsheet that the values for 1850-2006 are instrumental data.

So in Marcott et al Fig 1A we have a comparision in the interval 1850-1950 between their reconstruction (uptick) and Crutem3 (LAND only) (annual?) instrumental record (no uptick). But that’s not all, folks! See the associated uncertainties … Mann et al (2008) uncertainties (which seem to match in the plot to those given in the spreadsheet, i.e., 2 sigma, whereas Marcott et al uncertainties are 1 sigma) are naturally calculated only up to 1849 (as there is no actual reconstruction afterwards), but in the Figure 1A they continue all the way to the end. Where did those 1850-2006 uncertainties come from?

Source comment here

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
GlynnMhor

“Where did those 1850-2006 uncertainties come from?”
Pulled from the same orifice much of the rest of it appeared?
(or is that a bit rude?)

Ben Wilson

Wow. . . .will the fun never end with this paper??
How in the world can this wind up being anything but a colossal egg in the face for Science magazine?

Skiphil

Grafting? Oh no…. Since Mann denied in 2004 that anyone to date had done this, in the context of rebutting criticism, can we infer that he agrees it’s a bad idea to present such an undisclosed grafting of the instrumental record onto a proxy record in a scientific paper?
Mann on grafting a thermometer record onto a reconstruction

Michael Mann at Real Climate, Dec. 2004:
[Response: No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, “grafted the thermometer record onto” any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum….

Mike

Hockey stick trading, the successor to carbon trading.
What’s the value of an uptick nowadays? A complete hockey stick must be worth its weight in gold.

Mark Bofill

I know, people will rush in to point out that conclusions are premature. Marcott hasn’t had a chance to respond yet! Just the same, I’m smelling that old familiar horse manure aroma, and I’m pretty sure my socks are innocent this time.
If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck…
Sad. If this is the best they can do for ‘the Cause’, that’s just sad.

davidmhoffer

Well I’m completely confused. I mean more than normal.
Didn’t Marcott reply to McIntyre admitting that the uptick was not robust? So if the UpTick is really a MannTick glued onto a MarcottShaft, does that mean that Marcott just called the MannTick “not robust”? Didn’t Romm say it was the instrumental record, then Mann said the same, then they both withdrew the comment? So neither of them knows one way or the other what Marcott actually did do? Or didn’t do? He’ll be in a lot of doodoo If Marcott’s UpTick turns out to be the MannTick glued onto a MarcottShaft, and that’s what Marcott was referring to when he said “not robust”. Mann will be so ticked he will come unglued. And boy oh boy will he shaft Marcott.

trafamadore

Ben Wilson says: “How in the world can this wind up being anything but a colossal egg in the face for Science magazine?”
Because it shows the temp record from 11300 to 10300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 10300 to 9300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 9300 to 8300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 8300 to 7300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 7300 to 6300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 6300 to 5300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 5300 to 4300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 4300 to 3300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 3300 to 2300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 2300 to 1300 bp.
Because it shows the temp record from 1300 to 300 bp.
But you dont have a problem with the main point of the paper, apparently.

Neville.

How much would that graft cost tax payers around the world? Thanks to Steve, Anthony and all the other people involved thay may have saved all of us thousands of dollars each.
Of course that could also save all countries countless billions $ trying to further mitigate CAGW for a guaranteed zero return on the investment.
This study should be withdrawn as soon as possible.

ZootCadillac

I think that Marcott et al have had every chance to respond by now Mark. I suspect that one of the problems they are having is that every time they must think that they are getting close to giving us whatever they can muster as a rebuttal, BAM! along come the auditors with revelations of yet another fast and loose methodology or disingenuous manipulation of existing data which affects the results and quite frankly they must be playing catch-up. Marcott must be horrified to see another nail in the paper’s coffin each morning as he wakes.
It’s getting suspiciously too-long without at least some response to the earliest claims and I personally think it’s time those with the skill and understanding start to fire off some comments to Science magazine’s editor because it appears that the authors are not keen to get the ball rolling in anything like short-order.

The real question is how do we get across to the uninformed multitudes that the alarmies are purveying horseshit? – and worse than that, proposing mass murder?

TomE

I suspect that Mr. Marcott et al now understand the term “blood in the water.” Theirs academic credentials and reputations are being torn to shreds.

Skiphil

an aside, not specific to this “grafting” issue but an entertaining item — “Mark” at Climate Audit came up with this great quotation (echoing a famous quote):
quote for the ages
[emphasis added]

To paraphrase a rather wonderful quote: “Marcott is both valid and confirms the hockey stick. Unfortunately the parts that are valid do not confirm the hockey stick and the parts that confirm the hockey stick are not valid.”

Owen in GA

The bogusness of this just keeps getting thicker. First we have a hockey stick starting in the 1950s that no one noticed living through, and now we have at least error bar grafting? Really, I think if the temperatures had gone up 4 or 5 C in my lifetime I might have noticed it.

cartoonasaur

Marcott is caught
With numbers from nowhere
A grafted thermometer
Sporting a blade there
A hockey stick sucker
Is born every minute
But with “science” like this
They’re not in it to win it…

RACookPE1978

So, was Mann one of the original pall-reviewing sponsors of the paper?
Who was on his PhD committee that accepted the original paper that this release plagiarized (er, copied without attributes or changes)?
Were any of “that” group also in the pal-reviewed conspiracy to get this released before the AR5 deadline?

Owen in GA

Also, the proxies have lost all high frequency components as part of their formation cycles, so how can someone say anything about weather phenomena that lasted only 10 to 20 years (like droughts, decades long heat waves, little ice ages…etc.). The flatness of the handle is more a function of the low pass filter in the proxies than anything approaching ground truth.

davidmhoffer

Are tramafadore and trafamadore the same person? They seem equally obtuse. Is there a lone troll defending this paper or are there two of them?

Skiphil

davidmhoffer says:
March 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm
=========================================
I think Jean S is referring to the grey “Mann et al.” curve not the purple “Marcott et al.” curve. If that is the case, the issue is not the Marcott uptick per se, but that they are comparing their “not robust” uptick with an (unmentioned) instrumental uptick while not emphasizing that the Mann et al. recon changes from proxies to thermometer data at 1850?? (I’m still a neophyte in these matters, but that’s how I understood what Jean S said).

Bathes

Because it shows the temp record from 11300 to 10300 bp.
You fool.

Mark Bofill

trafamadore says:
March 19, 2013 at 6:50 pm
———–
Come on trafamadore. Pop on over to McIntyre’s and have a look at the problems he’s found so far. The dating on the proxies appears to be screwed up. Paper is different between the Science and thesis versions. Uptick is a statistical artifact of proxies with a different sign continuing a step past the opposing proxies.
Save what cred you’ve got for a better cause another day, and be honest. This paper stinks.

davidmhoffer

Skiphil;
I think Jean S is referring to the grey “Mann et al.” curve not the purple “Marcott et al.” curve.
>>>>>>>>>
Reading it again, I think you are right. (I did say I was confused….)
So when Romm and Mann were beaking off about Anthony denying the instrumental record, perhaps they thought Anthony’s comments were about Mann’s graph, not Marcott’s? And when it became clear that this was the case they beat a hasty retreat so as not to draw attention to this very issue?
Even if I am right this time, my own explanation confuses me, that’s how bad this whole mess is.

Let me see if I understand Trafamadore’s* comment: the paper is a good one because the data up until 300 bp is good.
But the controversy isn’t about that data – the controversy is about the most recent data. I think, to put it in plain English, he is saying that we should accept the paper because it’s a really, really good paper, all except for the parts they faked.
* I would hate to be stuck with a screen nick that was permanently misspelled. The planet made famous by Kurt Vonnegut was “Tralfamadore”, champ.

ZootCadillac

Trafamadore. It appears it is you that has a problem with the point of the paper. Still got your fingers in your ears eh? Try opening your eyes instead. Read the abstract again, read the press release, read the media surrounding it. It all focusses on the uptick and the modern projection. All of which is looking shoddier by the day. If the Holocene reconstruction was the point of the paper why has so little been discussed about it?
Even should the point of the paper be that reconstruction, and you and your ilk are happy to dismiss what goes on after 1850 as just some meaningless, honest mistake, or four, then even so the reconstruction is of such poor resolution that it tells us nothing much and certainly nothing new. It would never have been published without the modern reconstruction and projections being tacked on.
Also if you are happy with the core top redating done which knocks 500-1000 years of some samples with no mention of why they thought it was necessary to redate core samples that the original data collectors seemed perfectly capable of understanding and dating more accurately, then for all that is good in the world, may you never, ever teach.

Karl W. Braun

Believe it or not, marcotting is a synonym for grafting. Wouldn’t you know it!

ZootCadillac

@davidmhoffer Almost certainly the same person I just suspect that the numerous aliases he uses get him a little confused at times. Especially as I suspect he initially wanted to reference Vonnegut’s “Tralfamadore” but once caught out in that mistake had too much ego to admit he got it wrong and subsequently correct it.
Or perhaps this towering intellect still presumes to have got it correct. He certainly does so with most other subjects he weighs in on.
he’s all obfuscation, distraction and bluster. But does not understand that WUWT regulars have seen his sort of sleight of hand before. It does not wash.

Mark Bofill

davidmhoffer says:
March 19, 2013 at 6:41 pm
Well I’m completely confused. I mean more than normal.
Didn’t Marcott reply to McIntyre admitting that the uptick was not robust? So if the UpTick is really a MannTick glued onto a MarcottShaft, does that mean that Marcott just called the MannTick “not robust”? Didn’t Romm say it was the instrumental record, then Mann said the same, then they both withdrew the comment? So neither of them knows one way or the other what Marcott actually did do? Or didn’t do? He’ll be in a lot of doodoo If Marcott’s UpTick turns out to be the MannTick glued onto a MarcottShaft, and that’s what Marcott was referring to when he said “not robust”. Mann will be so ticked he will come unglued. And boy oh boy will he shaft Marcott.
———————
Thanks for posting this tonight. If I’d read it tomorrow morning, I’d have ended up cleaning coffee off my computer screen. As it is I escaped with soda up my nose from snorting while laughing. 🙂

Wamron

davidmhoffer….you have spotted the resemblance…to Tweedledum and Tweedledee!

trafamadore

Chad Wozniak says: “The real question is how do we get across to the uninformed multitudes that the alarmies are purveying horseshit? – and worse than that, proposing mass murder?”
In a blog world where Monckton is a “real” lord and Tisdale and Eschenbach
write “real” science articles…and real research is “horses**t”….yes, there is a problem somewhere.

Ben Wilson

Trafamadore, it took me a bit, but I realized what you are doing.
You are masquerading as a climate warmist, but are presenting a persona that is purposely abstruse and at times idiotic, just to make climate warmists in general seem somewhat ridiculous and incapable of understanding basic science and logic.
Your last reply to me is a classic example. While Marcott’s paper does purport to show what the world’s temperature was from 6300 to 5300 BP, anybody, and I mean anybody who is even casually aware of the paper knows that the screaming headlines associated with it are along the lines of “The Hockey Stick Lives!! We’re all doomed!! Michael Mann is vindicated!!”
Now if you really want to continue your masquerade as a hard working honest warmist biologist just concerned for science and the children — fine, although I think that such a false flag operation is a little bit dishonest.
But let me give you just a bit of advice; at least for this particular discussion point, you are way “overacting” — to the point that relative dim bulbs like me recognize what you are doing.
You might consider dialing it down a bit. . . . . . .:

rogerknights

Well, MY temperature is rising.

ZootCadillac

Wamron. I much prefer tweedledum and tweedledumber.
@Mark Bofill. No, Marcott’s uptick did come from his own reconstruction but at a completely different resolution, proxy redating and removal, all the shenanigans that have made a nonsense of that part of his paper which claims temperatures are now warmer than any time in the last 4000 years.
I think what is going on here is the inclusion of the Mann reconstruction which contains the observed record from 1950. If those are observations, where did the error bars come from. can nobody read a thermometer any more?
You think you are confused. feel for me, I’m just a carpenter 😉

ZootCadillac

previous post date was meant to be 1850.
See? Confused.

davidmhoffer

Zoot Cadillac;
he’s all obfuscation, distraction and bluster.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Thing is that she (I have reason to believe its a “she”) isn’t very good at it. R Gates or Nick Stokes or even Kum Dollison would have put up some reasoning requiring thought to debunk. In general, any thread to do with Mann garners comments from a whole host of trolls that have all kinds of links and references at the ready to defend their… er, uhm… guy. Where are they? Nor are we seeing the likes of Joel Shore or Jan Perlw1tz or anyone else with a shred of credibility to protect. No one with an ounce of reason is trying to defend this doodoo. Even Marcott has gone silent!

Mark Bofill

ZootCadillac says:
March 19, 2013 at 8:09 pm
previous post date was meant to be 1850.
See? Confused.
————
Me too. 🙂 My original point remains the same. Maybe an argument can be made for waiting for the smoke to clear to figure out exactly what’s screwy with the paper and what’s not. For me, it’s enough that several things look screwy already to get the basic idea. Same old snake oil, not like this is the first time I’ve heard this pitch in climate scientology.

trafamadore

ZootCadillac says: “Trafamadore. It appears it is you that has (sic) a problem with the point of the paper.”
Let’s break this down so you can understand the scienceize speak:
First, the Introduction part of the abstract: “Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.
The main point of the abstract: “Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time. Here we provide a broader perspective by reconstructing regional and global temperature anomalies for the past 11,300 years from 73 globally distributed records. Early Holocene (10,000 to 5000 years ago) warmth is followed by ~0.7°C cooling through the middle to late Holocene (<5000 years ago), culminating in the coolest temperatures of the Holocene during the Little Ice Age, about 200 years ago. This cooling is largely associated with ~2°C change in the North Atlantic."
That is the main point of the paper.
Now we do the Discussion part of the abstract:
"Current global temperatures of the past decade have not yet exceeded peak interglacial values but are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change model projections for 2100 exceed the full distribution of Holocene temperature under all plausible greenhouse gas emission scenarios."
So no, ZootCaddy, I don't have a problem with the main point of the paper.

quit feeding the trolls.

RockyRoad

Maybe all this confusion was the point of Marcott’s paper to begin with.
“Confuse your enemy” seems to be the approach they’re taking.
For the life of me, I can’t remember any other paper that’s had as many threads devoted to it and as many trolls masquerading as knowledgeable warmista acolytes dancing in and out.
Sad thing for Marcott is that this whole mess won’t be a resume` enhancer one little bit, no matter what the MSM does to cover for him. I suspect he and his co-authors are toast, and not the kind one prefers for breakfast.

davidmhoffer

I recalled that the Tinker and the Tailor put Humpty Dumpty together again with paper and glue, good as new. So I called them to see if they could help. They laughed themselves silly and said “Dave, this isn’t a paper, this is poo, and you can’t glue poo”.
What a bear from Winnipeg has to do with it I don’t know.

RockyRoad

trafamadore says:
March 19, 2013 at 8:22 pm


So no, ZootCaddy, I don’t have a problem with the main point of the paper.

Of course you wouldn’t. It wouldn’t matter to you if they took a plate of spaghetti and threw it against the wall and twisted the camera around until a picture of it represented the cult ideology they’re trying to pitch.
But your opinion doesn’t matter, “traf”… the more people dig into this paper, the more problems it has. And that’s what matters.

ZootCadillac

fingers in ears. further deflection. Address the redating. And then tell me why a low resolution reconstruction being repeated adds anything to science and merits a place in Science journal?
What part of
“Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years”
and
“Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.”
shifts the focus of the paper to the early Holocene? If the ‘point’ of the paper is not the modern reconstruction then why mention it at all, especially as it is flawed in so many independent ways? ( a fact you seem happy to dismiss as nothing )
My apologies if you have a problem with my casual approach to grammar, or lack thereof. I tend to care less after 3am.

ScepticKnitter

Here’s the thing. I am not a scientist. My math skills extend to College Algebra (and that is rusty). I don’t always understand the posts, comments or debates on this blog, BUT I always feel like I learn something.
I do know something about how to produce quality work. I write knitting patterns…which requires math, and great attention to detail. When I write a new pattern, I knit it several times, correcting any mistakes I find. Then (when I think it is perfect) I send it to 3 or 4 trusted friends, who likewise knit the whole project…and they point out errors, and suggest ways to make the instructions clearer. This is an incredibly humbling experience. Finally I send it to a friend who is both a knitter and a technical writer (I pay her for her expertise) and she does the final edit….and she always finds things I need to correct….and then I knit it again… and then I publish the pattern.
I’m a professional knitter. I take pride in my work….But, in the scheme of things knitting is not that important. Knowing if the planet is warming, how much it is warming and what is causing it to warm are important questions…and the majority of the work is being done by scientist who are so egocentric that they can’t/won’t submit their work to people who are qualified to find the errors.
I could send my knitting patterns to my mom (she can’t knit)…she would tell me the picture is lovely and praise me for my cleverness….all well and good for my ego…but does NOTHING for the quality of my work.

Eliza

I suspect there will NEVER be ANY reply from Marcott et al., or SCIENCE etc. They will will just keep quiet and hope it goes away.The only way is to start letting SCIENCE sponsors and Scientific bodies with weight know what this is all about and who may then start to withdraw financial and professional support from that organization which is doomed long term if it does not withdraw the paper. The University of Oregon may also be in trouble….long term

And Science swallowed it – hook, line and hockey stick.
They must feel so proud. /sarc.

Eliza

A bit OT but this is really beginning to look very very significant. Me bets its the beginning of a great cooling that we will feel during next winters in both hemispheres due to lower solar activity.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.recent.antarctic.png. Also NH is within the “normal” SD now.

trafamadore

ZootCadillac says: “What part of Global temperatures are warmer than at any time in at least 4,000 years” and “Global temperature….. has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene within the past century.” A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years and Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.”
Look. A paper has research and it has perspective. The research is on long ago. That is the major research. Long ago. Repeat. You getting sleepy…
But seriously, all the sentences you and others are focusing on are perspective, not the main research in the paper. Sentences like “A heat spike like this has never happened before, at least not in the last 11,300 years and Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.” is not based only on the research in the paper but many other published studies.
Eliza says: “The University of Oregon may also be in trouble….long term”
You mean Oregon State. One is the Ducks, is in Eugene and is a really cool place where hippies from the 60s still hang out. The other is the Beavers and in Corvallis. Really bad mistake, because both I and my wife are from the U of O.

Chewer

NSF has for some time been the keeper of the infrastructure (salaries for folks in science institutions) and for the past 2 years, they have let the universities know that both the big projects and infrastructure funding cannot continue. The money train from private institutions dropped drastically over the past three years for the obvious reasons and without our tax dollars, brilliant ideas were and are needed, the ones that promote public interest & respect.
The panic caused by the funding drought has brought on the last stand (psychotic & irrational) and they are now creating self inflicted wounds & suffering, without regarding real science!

NZ Groover

Google Marcott……ouch, he can’t be happy with the reputation that’s reflected.

Jimmy Haigh.

Karl W. Braun says:
March 19, 2013 at 7:44 pm
“Believe it or not, marcotting is a synonym for grafting. Wouldn’t you know it!”
Well spotted! That is brilliant!

ZootCadillac

Yeah Traf, those sentences? lifted straight from the conclusions. Hardly evidence that they have anything to do with the research of others. But again, you deflect. What’s the point of a reconstruction that has been done before? Especially as it’s such low resolution and has methodology that at best is ignorant of what’s accepted or at worst has been wilfully manipulated in a manner that is again, not acceptable? Why, if the modern portions of the reconstruction should be ignored, was this ever published? It just repeats previous work, but at less resolution making it quite useless.
However as I expect you will again refuse to answer the question because apparently it does not matter I will go to bed and return tomorrow.
Perhaps in that time you might actually read the paper and stop relying on the paragraph you are able to read on the landing page at Science. But I won’t be holding my breath.
This has been the attempt by certain people to take a previously unimportant thesis from a young, fresh PhD and alter it to elevate it to become the new poster child of AR5 ( ooh, deja vu there ). It is backfiring spectacularly. Your claims that it is a Holocene temperature reconstruction and nothing more are simply incorrect. No amount of repeating it to yourself will make it true. When the inevitable happens and the paper is withdrawn ‘Whilst some minor issues are addressed” and disappears down a Gergis-sized hole you will just do the usual. Pretend that none of this happened, move on and start defending some other nonsense without actually offering anything but empty-headed opinion.

trafamadore

Eliza says:”I suspect there will NEVER be ANY reply from Marcott et al., or SCIENCE etc. They will will just keep quiet and hope it goes away.”
Actually, what really happens is that people write in and crit the paper, and ask to respond in the letters section of Science. These letters are sent to the people who wrote the article (Marcott et al) and they are offered a chance to reply. THEN the critical letters and the responses are sent to reviewers (like me) to decide if the critique/response is interesting/relevant enuf to be published or not.
Actually, authors LIKE it when they haf to write a response, and it gets accepted. One more Science ref in their CV…sort of a two for one deal. But in my experience (working in an area not as charged a climate science), out of 4 responses that I have reviewed (Science), none ended up being published. I am thinking the success rate for letters must be the same as the rest of the journal, 4 to 8%? I don’t know, but it must be sort of low.