Where's the hockey stick? The 'Marcott 9' show no warming past 1950

More on the Marcott et al “hockey stick”. All of the ‘Marcott 9’ had altered dates.

marcott-A-1000[1]
The Marcott hockey stick compared to the Mann hockey stick – it seems that redating and other tricks made the uptick, not the data itself.
Guest post by John Kehr

While it took me a while to get the time together to write an article about the Marcott paper, that does not mean I have not been looking at it and discussing it from nearly the day it was released.  There has been volumes of discussion within The Right Climate Stuff group that I have been involved with.  The ones that lean towards CO2 as something to be concerned about were initially rather excited about this paper, but that has taken a course correction as it has become clear how poor the science is in the Marcott paper.

Many skeptics are calling this the newest hockey stick and there is certainly some accuracy to that, but what I initially found interesting was the Holocene cooling that he shows.  In one respect his paper is different because it shows the cooling that has been taking place for thousands of years.  That also makes the stick at the end more extreme, but it is something most will not show.

For those who missed the details of the Marcott paper I will provide a brief summary.  The paper was published on March 8th in the ultimate of peer-reviewed journals, Science Magazine.  The paper was loudly broadcast by the media as further proof of global warming.  The paper basically says that the most modern period of the Holocene (the current interglacial which the Marcott paper states as 11,300 years) has been warmer than ~75% of the Holocene.  The paper states that this is especially significant as the Holocene has shown steady cooling for the past few thousand years, but that has now completely reversed.  The conclusion is that mankind has drastically altered the natural climate of the Earth. 

The paper itself is a composite of 73 different temperature proxies.  These proxies were used to reconstruct the Earth’s climate over the past 11,300 years.  The 73 proxies were not uniformly distributed around the world.  The following is a summary of the spatial distribution.

Tropics:              33 proxies

NH Polar:             12 proxies

NH Mid:                20 proxies

NH Tropics:          16 proxies

SH Polar:              4 proxies

SH Mid:                 9 proxies

SH Tropics:           12 proxies

NH Total:              48 proxies

SH Total:             25 proxies

The NH is over represented by 3x in the polar region and 2x in the mid-latitudes.  This of course can be dealt with easily enough, but the real resolution in the NH is better than the SH.  None of this is directly critical to the paper, but it is something worth noting.

Far more troublesome to the conclusion of the paper is the dating of the proxies.  Other sites have some excellent write-ups on the re-dating in the paper itself and I will touch on it, but my more immediate concern is how recent most of the proxies are based on the published data of the proxies.

Here is the breakdown of the last date in the proxies he used.

1950+                9 proxies (1960, 1970, 1991, 3x 1995, 1998, 1999, 2000)

1900-1950:        16 proxies

1800-1899:        11 proxies

1600-1799:        7 proxies

1000-1599:        14 proxies

< 1000:              15 proxies

This leaves one proxy (GeoB 3313-1) with the last known data of ~1750 AD.  There are 3 data points for temp after that, but no dates associated.

Since the modern period by almost everyone is considered to be post 1950, only 9 of the 73 proxies contain any data that can be relevant to the global warming issue.  Right away that concerned me, but when I looked at the data for those 9 proxies something very interesting became apparent.

I will be referring to those 9 proxies as the Marcott 9.  They are perhaps the most interesting proxies that he used and those proxies disprove the conclusion of his paper.  In order of the most modern data, the Marcott 9 are:

Lake 850, most recent data is from 2000.

Flarken Lake, most recent data is from 1999.

Lake Nujulla, most recent data is from 1998.

Tsuolbmajavri Lake, most recent data is from 1995.

Homestead Scarp, most recent data is from 1995

Mount Honey, most recent data is from 1995

Composite MD01-2421…, most recent data is from 1991

Moose Lake, most recent data is from 1970

Agassiz & Renland, most recent data is from 1960

What is most interesting about all of these proxies is that none of them show the warming result the paper ended up with.  Not a single one.

Without further ado, here are charts for the Marcott 9.

clip_image002

clip_image004

clip_image006

These nine proxies are the only ones of the 73 that Marcott used that have data past 1950.  The only one that shows any kind of warming is the last one which is the Agassiz-Renland ice core and the warm point was not the most recent, but the proxy from 1940.  The last point which is 1960 shows as cooler than the data from 1940.  The ice core certainly does indicate that the warming in the 1930-1940 period was impressive, but few claim that mankind caused that warming.

There is far more to discuss about this paper.  I have an idea where I am going to go with my research, but others may beat me to it which will alter the path I take.  Based on what information is being found by others, primarily by Steve McIntyre over at Climate Audit is that Marcott re-dated data that didn’t fit into the hockey-stick result.

This agrees with what I have found as well.  All of the Marcott 9 had altered dates associated with the last date with the Moose Lake data changing the least at 20 years.  Flarken and Tsuolbmajarvi Lake were moved back into the 1800’s and the MD01 Composite removed the last 3 data points.  The end-point strategy for this paper was full of shenanigans.  Since it is only the end-point data that matters to the conclusion of the paper, well, let the Marcott 9 speak for themselves.

=============================================================

John Kehr is a Chemical Engineer by schooling and Research and Development Process Engineer by profession.  He has more than a decade of experience at the cutting edge of technology for a large semiconductor company.  That experience was critical for him while wading through the often contradictory information that exists about global warming.  He was generally neutral about the subject of global warming until he met and married a wonderful woman who challenged him to make a choice.

There are few things more dangerous than challenging an engineer to make a choice like that on a scientific topic.  While occasionally taking a break from research to breathe and go on getaways with his beautiful wife, he spent many months deeply involved in his research.  When he finally reached his conclusion, the only logical thing was to put all that research into a book, The Inconvenient Skeptic

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
120 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Apoxonbothyourhouses
March 26, 2013 9:40 pm

Karl says:
March 26, 2013 at 8:56 pm … Catcracking: He said “ice melting?” Where? Certainly not in the arctic. Does this guy at TWC feel his audience is that stupid?
Answer YES. The smart man on the TV said black was white (or was it vice-versa?) so to non inquiring minds it must be true. Mission accomplished.

Nick Stokes
March 26, 2013 9:43 pm

Tilo Reber says: March 26, 2013 at 8:52 pm
“There seem to be no proxies at all that show the same kind of temperature spike as the instrumentation record.”

Let me give you an idea of what low resolution means. Of the proxies here:
Lake 850 has its most recent readings at
2000, 1950 then 1800. They are 9.43, 9.47 a,d 9.96°C respectively
Flaren Lake has most recent readings at
2000, 1770 and 1543 (5.74, 6.15 and 5.6°C)
Lake Nujulla
1998,1794, 1691 (7.31,8.19,8.28°C)
Tsuolbmarjavri Lake
1995, 1920, 1822 (11.42, 11.56, 11.40°C)
etc
How could they ever pick up the warming of the last 40 years?

March 26, 2013 9:45 pm

My TV report on this paper is here:
http://www.kusi.com/videoclipId?=86191808autostart=true
Not deep science, but a challenge to the process and conclusions of the paper.

March 26, 2013 9:50 pm
Ged
March 26, 2013 9:55 pm

I re-iterate what Steven Mosher said. “[A]fter all if they cant get the present correct, what good are they for the past.”
There really isn’t enough focus given to that glaring issue.

TomRude
March 26, 2013 10:01 pm

Nick Stokes, you mean Marcott was only interested in the Holocene so we could discover again that there was still a Holocene Climatic Optimum despite heavy smoothing… and trying to make it smaller than the 20th century warming? Woaw. All this for that?
Funny you show up here after being sent packing on climateaudit…

Jay
March 26, 2013 10:02 pm

hide the decline

Nick Stokes
March 26, 2013 10:12 pm

Steven Mosher says: March 26, 2013 at 9:22 pm
“after all if they cant get the present correct, what good are they for the past”

Expecting them to determine modern warming is like expecting a telescope to find bacteria. A telescope is a fine optical instrument that can see a long way. But if it can’t see the bacteria do you:
say they don’t exist?
throw the telescope away?
reach for a microscope?

philincalifornia
March 26, 2013 10:18 pm

I bet you could get a better hockey stick out of Jackson Pollock’s work.
10th rate scientists trying to pretend they’re not 10th rate scientists, in public even, is getting kinda embarrassing.
[snip]

Leo Geiger
March 26, 2013 10:22 pm

Tilo Reber says:

Without a good explanation, maybe it means that they were never robust.

You mean an explanation like the one they gave in the paper in the sentence that included the words “not robust”?

However, considering the temporal resolution of our data set and the small number of records that cover this interval (Fig. 1G), this difference is probably not robust.

There’s no shortage of people demonstrating the effect of the small number of records (such as McIntyre in some of those dozen posts here), although I think this one does it best:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/the-tick/
Obviously you can’t use an uptick that is exaggerated because of a small number of records to imply a problem with robustness where there are a large number of records…
The better question to ask is whether a temperature increase like the one clearly measured by the instrument record in this century could go undetected back in the past because of the low temporal resolution. Co-author Shakun has commented on this elsewhere:

…we can’t be sure there aren’t any abrupt global warming blips during the Holocene similar to the current one due to chronological uncertainties and the relatively low time resolution of our global temperature reconstruction. It is worth considering though that we do have several high resolution proxy climate records from various regions around the world (think ice cores), and if abrupt global warming events happened in the past, then we might expect these local records to show them…..but my sense is they don’t. So, this isn’t hard and fast proof that there weren’t any abrupt global events like today during the rest of the Holocene….but if I had to lay down a bet, it might make me place my wager on that side of the argument.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2013/03/13/art-of-the-anthropocene-the-scythe

March 26, 2013 10:24 pm

Catcracking says:
March 26, 2013 at 8:11 pm
Anthony,
I apologize since this is slightly off topic, but it would be “cute” to capture the current humorous Weather Channel guy explaining why this cold March is actually caused by Global Warming.
========================================
Cat, I don’t know if Anthony will, but some pinhead in Guardian was spewing similar stuff.. You might be interested in this post….. http://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/26/warmcold-strikes-again-lack-of-ice-blamed-for-snow-and-cold-climate-math-on-display-15-is-20-of-16/

AlexS
March 26, 2013 10:36 pm

“Modern warming” is what they trumpeted in media. In a very “newspeak” Orwellian way you now say what they trumpeted has no relevance.

AlexS
March 26, 2013 10:38 pm

Comment was for Nick Stokes March 26, 2013 at 10:12 pm

Steve Garcia
March 26, 2013 10:43 pm

@NZ Willy March 26, 2013 at 4:42 pm:
I’ve made a similar point about multiproxy reconstructions.
Say one is including 30 proxies. If the dating of each proxy’s peak or ‘valley’ varies by a few years, back 200+ years ago, then each proixy HAS a peak or valley. But when blended/averaged/homogenized, even with the correct temp values, the peaks being spread out on the time line, over decades or even centuries, the peaks will be flattened out, by being aligned in time with other proxies’ non-peaks. Thus the process artificially flattens peaks and valleys.
I am 100% certain that Mann’s super-flat slow decline (before the hockey stick blade upturn) was due to this, in major part. He didn’t even HAVE to try to flatten them – the process did it automatically. Peaks were erased by averaging and uncertain dates not aligning in time.
But similar to what you say, the instrument record doesn’t have this uncertainty, so recent peaks exist where older ones don’t. Even when the peaks are in all the individual proxies.
Don’t feel bad – I’ve had my comments on this end up in the void, too. Some day someone will wake up to both our points.
Steve Garcia

Ann Banisher
March 26, 2013 10:43 pm

For those of you that are saying that reconstructions are not needed for the modern period because we have accurate temperature data, the obvious reason is that you are comparing apples to oranges. The other reason is that reconstructions have a tendency to smooth the yearly/decadal spikes that occur in the temperature record.
I’ll bet when the modern temp record gets smoothed on a century scale that the modern spike disappears.

GeoLurking
March 26, 2013 11:25 pm

Re dated? … So if the data doesn’t fit, alter it so that it fits and claim it as proof of something?
Some would consider that as outright fraud.

Olaus Petri
March 26, 2013 11:32 pm

Why does “Marcott 9 from outer space” come to mind?

Jon
March 26, 2013 11:42 pm

The thing that intrigues me about farcical papers like this is what makes the authors think they can get away with it. I can only assume that having seen an earlier generation of alarmists achieve success via far more outrageous activities, they have a sense of entitlement: ‘they did it, why can’t we?’
So I wrote a song about it. Those of you fortunate enough to have forgotten the original can find it here:

There’s a little group sending in a paper to the journal Science.
It’s been torn to shreds by wiser heads, but they’re still shouting out in defiance.
“Other people publish series that are equally crap and they end up with fortune and fame…
What about us? It isn’t fair!
When Michael Mann did it no-one seemed to care!
PhD’s! That’s all we want!
And a stonking great big grant!”
Now there’s a commentator writing in support of the paper to the climate blog Watts Up With That.
He admits there’s mistakes, but hey, that’s the breaks; he’s got all of his excuses down pat.
“So what if it’s wrong? Can’t we all get along? Can’t we give the poor fellow a break?
Don’t be rude! It isn’t kind!
When Phil Jones did it no-one seemed to mind.
Misconduct in science is such a little charge
When Peter Gleick is still at large!”

Pethefin
March 27, 2013 12:07 am

@NZ Willy March 26, 2013 at 4:42 pm
So basically Marcott et al. were sticking the end of the spaghetti to the wall and then forming the hockey stick out of the rest of the spaghetti? Maybe we should call this “the Marcott sticky trick”?

March 27, 2013 12:07 am

Leo Geiger says: March 26, 2013 at 8:19 pm

Perhaps then, since the authors clearly and publicly ADMIT the KNEW the recent proxy value was not robust – and their hockey stick was essentially an artifact unsupported by the data – they should NOT have made the hockey stick and the recent warning the focus of the paper and their claims.
One might paraphrase:
‘Yeah, we know we have little data to support it and we admit our work with that scant data is admittedly not robust, but HEY LOOK AT THAT! ITS UNPRECEDENTED – A HOCKEY STICK! We gotta so something or we’re all gonna die …’

James Smyth
March 27, 2013 12:15 am

Expecting [very low resolution proxies] to determine modern warming is like expecting a telescope to find bacteria. A telescope is a fine optical instrument that can see a long way. But if it can’t see the bacteria do you:say they don’t exist? throw the telescope away? reach for a microscope?
But apparently it’s useful to look through the telescopes in order to compare bacteria on another planet to that visible in the microscopes. Thanks for the analogy.

Phillip Bratby
March 27, 2013 12:26 am

Take away the splicing that should never be done and what are you left with?
The end of the Holocene is nigh!
Be afraid, be very afraid.

NZ Willy
March 27, 2013 12:39 am

Pethefin (March 27, 2013 at 12:07 am) says: So basically Marcott et al. were sticking the end of the spaghetti to the wall and then forming the hockey stick out of the rest of the spaghetti? Maybe we should call this “the Marcott sticky trick”?
That’s a fair analogy and monicker. Indeed they did affix the 1940-bin temperature (because they knew that their perturbation algorithm would not change that temperature), and then the rest of the Holocene got flattened. Before the 1000x perturbations, 0.8C rises & falls are common in the trendline — but afterwards, only the 1940-bin 0.8C rise was left — because the perturbations, by design, didn’t touch the final (1940) bin, as I explained above. As the old poem says,
There once was a group called The Team
Who invented the climate change meme
But the data didn’t work
So they made it all up
And flatlined the whole Holocene

Richard111
March 27, 2013 12:42 am

I can recommend John Kehr’s book for the aspiring layman. He does belabour the point at times but I guess that is me becoming more knowledgeable. 🙂

Espen
March 27, 2013 12:53 am

Nick Stokes, to compare the instrumental record to these proxies, one should use a 300 year (or so) moving average. Which means that NONE of the the headlines about the current temperature or rate of warming that this paper has generated make any sense at all. And anyone with a minimum of statistics understanding should know that.