Story submitted by WUWT reader Nancy Green
There is a message in Marcott that I think many have missed. Marcott tells us almost nothing about how the past compares with today, because of the resolution problem. Marcott recognizes this in their FAQ. The probability function is specific to the resolution. Thus, you cannot infer the probability function for a high resolution series from a low resolution series, because you cannot infer a high resolution signal from a low resolution signal. The result is nonsense.
However, what Marcott does tell us is still very important and I hope the authors of Marcott et al will take the time to consider. The easiest way to explain is by analogy:
50 years ago astronomers searched extensively for planets around stars using lower resolution equipment. They found none and concluded that they were unlikely to find any at the existing resolution. However, some scientists and the press generalized this further to say there were unlikely to be planets around stars, because none had been found.
This is the argument that since we haven’t found 20th century equivalent spikes in low resolution paleo proxies, they are unlike to exist. However, this is a circular argument and it is why Marcott et al has gotten into trouble. It didn’t hold for planets and now we have evidence that it doesn’t hold for climate.
What astronomy found instead was that as we increased the resolution we found planets. Not just a few, but almost everywhere we looked. This is completely contrary to what the low resolution data told us and this example shows the problems with today’s thinking. You cannot use a low resolution series to infer anything reliable about a high resolution series.
However, the reverse is not true. What Marcott is showing is that in the high resolution proxies there is a temperature spike. This is equivalent to looking at the first star with high resolution equipment and finding planets. To find a planet on the first star tells us you are likely to find planets around many stars.
Thus, what Marcott is telling us is that we should expect to find a 20th century type spike in many high resolution paleo series. Rather than being an anomaly, the 20th century spike should appear in many places as we improve the resolution of the paleo temperature series. This is the message of Marcott and it is an important message that the researchers need to consider.
Marcott et al: You have just looked at your first star with high resolution equipment and found a planet. Are you then to conclude that since none of the other stars show planets at low resolution, that there are no planets around them? That is nonsense. The only conclusion you can reasonably make is that as you increase the resolution of other paleo proxies, you are more likely to find spikes in them as well.
==============================================================
As a primer for this, our own “Charles the Moderator” submitted this low resolution Marcott proxy plot with the Jo Nova’s plot of the Vostok ice core proxy overlaid to match the time scale. Yes the vertical scales don’t match (numerically on the scales due to the ticks being different and the offset difference), but this image is solely for entertainment purposes in the context of this article, and does make the point visually.
Spikes anyone? – Anthony
![marcottvostok2[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/marcottvostok21.jpg)
(Added) Study: Recent heat spike unlike anything in 11,000 years “Rapid” head spike unlike anything in 11,000 years. Research released Thursday in the journal Science uses fossils of tiny marine organisms to reconstruct global temperatures …. It shows how the globe for several thousands of years was cooling until an unprecedented reversal in the 20th century. — Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press, March 7th
Note: If somebody can point me to a comma delimited file of both the Marcott and Vostok datasets, I’d be happy to add a plot on a unified axis, or if you want to do one, leave a link to the finished image in comments using a service like Tinypic, Imageshack or Flickr. – Anthony
Here is 20 year spline smooth on Marcott’s published data. Marcott’s global temperature stack is provided in a 20 year time horizon but it is clearly hundreds of years of smoothing (more than 300) in actuality. And it is not really a smooth but more of a random tweaking of the uncertainities to arrive at the smoothest curve possible.
We also know that he played around significantly with the dating (there is a word for what he did that I won’t say) so even the “published data” is useless as a temperature history.
But, here it is anyway on a 20 year spline of the data “presented” which, indeed, shows large variability (and even the cold spike at 8,200 years ago (6,300 BC) shows up in the data now.
http://s23.postimg.org/us41n6ywr/Marcott2013_20_Year_Smooth_Proxies.png
Ian W wrote April 3, 2013 at 7:46 pm:
[…astronomers looking for planets wanted to find them. Climate ‘scientists’ looking for hockey sticks …]
Sort of like OJ looking for the real killers (-:
Steven Mosher says:
“And don’t forget to credit moshpit for the idea.”
Good job Moshpit! I love the graph, and good for you for calling out Tamino for plagiarizing McIntyre.
This is a great argument for contrarians, because it can be made indefinitely. If no higher-resolution proxies are ever found then they can keep claiming-forever-that modern warming is nothing to be concerned about. And even if proxy resolution gets higher they can just continue to claim that resolution isn’t high enough. Because hey, it’s not like anyone actually ran any numbers for this claim. It’s just a statement.
Also, the statement that spikes similar to the modern one “should appear” with higher resolution is not at all reasonable. A mechanism to produce such a spike is not known to science. You’re just assuming it’s there because your world view demands that it is.
Ms. Green,
Your classy response to Dr. Svalgaard, using his title, thanking him, acknowledging his point, and then explaining further, should be a model for everyone. And that’s no analogy; that’s a fact.
One wonders where we would be if Galileo, having turned his telescope onto Jupiter and discovering moons, had then concluded that this proved the consensus view that the earth was the center of the universe. Instead:
Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy”, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.[59]
He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition.[60] On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.
His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.[61]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei
Is the situation today that much different? Having seen the moons around Jupiter, has Marcott taken heed of the warning inherent in Galileo’s story? What should one expect when speaking out against the consensus view of the powerful and influential? Would it not be wiser to claim the moons around Jupiter are proof that the earth lies at the center of the universe?
Alternative analogy: You find an old mangled 8-track tape that somehow manages to play without jamming. You play it, and all you hear is bass. At the very end, you suddenly hear 3 seconds of bass, cymbals and tambourine. You conclude that there was nothing but bass in the original recording until the final 3 seconds.
Now hook up a scope. Look at all those spikes in the final 3 seconds. They’re the highest amplitude in the whole recording.
Will somebody post a link to Nancy Green’s article? For some reason, I can’t find it. Thanks!
l
Leif Svalgaard says:
April 3, 2013 at 7:37 pm
You cannot use a low resolution series to infer anything reliable about a high resolution series.
Yes you can. You can infer the long-term trend among other things. Don’t overstate your case.
####
So a low resolution series can tell us something about a high resolution series, but only after it has been transformed into a low resolution series?
Thomas says: April 3, 2013 at 10:55 pm
. . . .
“This analogy only works if you start by assuming that there is nothing special about the 20th century, i.e. that there can be no antropogenic warming, and since Watts is using it to claim there is nothing special about the 20th century it becomes a circular argument.”
Hoo boy. A few commenters have already walloped Thomas for this . . . butttttt there’s nothing like a pile on.
There’s nothing circular about it, it’s simple logic. And most importantly, Nancy’s argument assumes nothing, unlike yours. She simply pointed out that if you find a spike like Marcott found in the 20th century, that should give rise to investigation to see if there are more spikes. Note, she’s not making a conclusion—other than to say that more investigation is needed to find out if the spike is usual or unusual. Her proposal regarding that further investigation is that because the spike exists that makes it more probable that similar spikes happened in the past than if no spike was found. This is logical and exactly how science is supposed to work: devise hypothesis, test with data.
But, if like you, you start from the premise that there IS something special about 20th Century, you have already made a conclusion: that something is special about the 20th century spike. In other words, how do you know it is special? You have no other data to evaluate that claim against—that I am aware of—it’s simply your bias.
This reveals that in addition to begging the question with your own argument, you also assume something about Nancy’s. She merely proposed a hypothesis and asked for investigation; you seemingly assume that she discounted the idea that such investigation might show the 20th Century spike is special. She did not.
Never mind. I see that she penned the article, not AW. Thx
Steven Mosher,
Are you and your employer actually a Trojan Horse to the CAGW crowd?
Traldarafome,
As you correctly point out, Marcott et, al. told us that, if we happen to see a spike, ignore it as it is not robust. Why do you point this out here? Why not tell Revkin, Borenstein, Gillis and the rest of the arm-waving Yellow Press?
Dr. Brown,
You are dead on, Vostok and GISP both show much larger swings much faster. The chart should be perfected, worth the effort.
The Vostok times apparently are taken at regular borehole depths, so the interval varies from ~150 to 340 years. I’ve adjusted the spacing to match the Marcott 500 yr ticks.
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/marcott_spikes.gif
Below is a partial list of members of the Baker Center named after Howard Baker. This is the highest-level bi-partisian policy guidance group which calls the tune at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Perhaps having this information helps explain the instant media-hype given Marcott. You can bet that these folks have high-level media contacts in their rolodexes.
Baker Center Board
The Honorable Howard H. Baker Jr.
Former Ambassador to Japan
Former United States Senator
The Honorable Phil Bredesen
Former Governor of Tennessee
The Honorable Albert Gore Jr.
Former Vice President of the United States
Former United States Senator
The Honorable Don Sundquist
Former Governor of Tennessee
William H. Swain
The University of Tennessee Development Council
The Honorable Fred Thompson
Former United States Senator
Very bipartisan. All in favor of a carbon tax to raise the price of fossil fuels in the US.
I love the analogy and agree with the point made, and reading the comments has made my morning. But this is really all about Marcott, and when you clear away all fog probably the most important and to the point comment here is
Jeff Norman says:
April 4, 2013 at 6:31 am
Have a great day everyone, it was -12 C here in Saskatchewan this morning!
Here is a Vostok overlay on Marcott. The y-axis on the Vostok data had a 5°C range. I tried to match points at +.8°C and -1.2°C from the Vostok graph to the Marcott graph. The zero lines mismatch by .05°C, 1% of the scale, not too bad for eyeballing in my assessment.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2ue1t8m.jpg
A Spotfire Web Player Visualization of Marcott 2013 Core samples for Temperature Proxies in the Holocene. https://silverspotfire.tibco.com/ViewAnalysis.aspx?file=/users/raseysm/Public/Marcott2013_Rasey6c
After “A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years” (Marcott-2013) from data supplied by Lance Wallace. Spotfire Visualization created by Stephen Rasey, Houston, TX.
Map:This Spotfire application will allow a user to choose 1 or many proxy cores from a world map so cores in an area can be easily compared.. Local or Regional trends can be investigated.
Drag or Ctrl-Drag to select cores for viewing in all other charts below. Or Ctrl-click on the Count column of the Cores table to the right of the map.
Charts:
B1 Age Mar vs Pub: an X-Y scatter to cross plot the Marcott redating vs the published ages, both in YBP. (YBP=0 is 1950).
B2 Age Chg vs Pub: this plots only the Age Change (marcott-Published) vs Published age. Points above the zero Line (negative values, reversed scale), are redated by Marcott to later, more recent, dates.
C1 Age Both vs Depth. Depth on X axis, Published age in Red, Marcott Age in blue.
D1 Age Both vs TempAnom: Same as C1 but X asis is Temperature Anomaly. Left is cooller, rihgt hotter. red – blue separation are because of differences in age dating, Y-axis.
E1: Temp Anomaly vs Age Published: Each core is a different color, shape by proxy type.
E2: Same as E1, but Age as redaated by Marcott.
F1: TempA vs AgeP MAvg Same as E1, but all cores in blue. X-axis is binned with a binning interval adjustable by the user (note slider on the axis control), 3 period (bin) trailing moving average plotted in red
F2: TempA vs AgeM MAvg Same as F1, But using Marcott redated ages.
G1: TempA vs AgeP Box: similar to F1, but each bin represented by a Box-Wisker plot. Median (white) and Mean (yellow)
G2: same as G1, but tha Ages are Marcott Redated.
Note, in this version of the data, the Vostok Ice Core does not have data in the Age_Mar (redated) column. Only the published ages are present, therefore, Vostok won’t appear in any of the *2 charts.
Data prepared from Spreadsheet created by
Lance Wallace Marcott temps including METADATA.xlsx
From Link at Climate Audit
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/15/how-marcottian-upticks-arise/#comment-405108
Original Excel Worksheet.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/75831381/Marcott%20temps%20including%20METADATA.xlsx
World Map is from WikiCommons
Other References of note:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/marcotts-proxies/ (Willis Eschenbach, Mar 13, 2013)
Note: this visualization will not be permanent.
Thomas and Ryan:
Thomas, several people answered your first post but, unfortunately, your reply at April 4, 2013 at 6:10 am says you failed to understand. I hope this is easier for you to grasp.
Ryan, your post at April 4, 2013 at 8:03 am states that you have the same lack of scientific knowledge.
I write to explain the basic principle which you both say you don’t know. And I hope you find this basic information helpful.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate sensitivity is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0deg.C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satelite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1 .0deg.C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
The paper from Marcott et al. does not change this in any way. This is because it compares two different data sets. One data set only shows the period of recent rise of global temperature and the other data set does not – and cannot – show the recent rise or any similar rises which may have happened in the past.
I hope this helps you to understand.
Richard
You can do an experiment to see for yourself what Leif is talking about.
In your favourite spreadsheet, create numbers from 1 to 2000 in column A.
In cell B1 put the formula “=sin(A1/10)”. Copy that to all the cells down to B2000.
In cell C1 put the formula “=sin(A1/100)”. Copy that to all the cells down to C2000.
In cell D1 put the formula “=b1 + c1”. Copy that to all the cells down to D2000.
In cell E101 put the formula “=sum(D1:D100)/100”. Copy that to all the cells down to E2000.
Create a line graph for column D. That will be the raw signal.
Create a line graph for column E. That will be the signal averaged over 100 samples.
You can see how the signal with the shorter period is attenuated. You can play around with the divisor for the signal in column B. If you reduce the divisor to 1, the high frequency signal disappears from the graph of column E.
What the experiment demonstrates is that a running average is a low pass filter.
You can add a spike to the signal in column B to see how the running average affects it. In cell B1000 change the formula to “=sin(A1000/10) + 1” and copy it to the cells down to B1100. Compare the graphs for columns D and E to see how the spike is attenuated. In this case, the spike was the same width as the window. Shorter duration spikes are more attenuated.
The question is: If you had only the data in column E, what could you say about the signals that produced it? In this case, because we have a well behaved signal, we could apply an inverse filter and have a pretty good idea of what the original signals were. In the case of climate data … not so much. 😉
benfrommo says:
April 4, 2013 at 12:23 am
————————————————–
I concur. I believe the questions’ jumped order without being answered.
1. Are the earth’s atmosphere and waters warming unnaturally?
2. Is the cause man’s (un-exhausting, disgusting, vile) discharge of CO2?
3. What other catastrophes are (maybe, might, could be) caused by man’s (mindless) activities?
Scientists and NGOs went straight to the government with #3 demanding man stop using fossil fuels and give them lots of money to prove why.
As a boy I learned the earth has had periods of ice and no ice.
Seems to me the earth’s temperature has been here before.
I don’t think they know how we got here in the past.
First, let’s make sure we get question #1 right.
This is why I’m skeptical.
I lack of trust based on past and current activities.
I’m pretty sure everyone else has their reasons for believing or not.
I’ve made it through many scientific/government scares, it’s their M.O.
It’s not that the temperature is acting abnormal….
It’s the scientists, NGOs and government are acting normal.
cn
Nancy Green says:
April 4, 2013 at 8:08 am
I am glad to see that you know Galileo. He is the creator of scientific method in the sense that he was the first to clearly formulate it and to clearly apply it. Kepler’s work exhibits an understanding of scientific method but Kepler produced no formulation of it. Climate science needs its own Galileo.
Nancy, the number of proxies in Marcott’s study drops of sharply towards the end so the last spike is rather uncertain, except we happen to know from the instrumental record that there is a temperature increase there.
Richard, we have plenty of evidence that CO2 is a significant greenhouse gas that changes the temperature, even if people on this blog do their best to deny that fact. Your null hypothesis regarding CO2 is not viable. You are just using it as a way of shifting all burden of evidence away from what you believe.
Your statement “There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.” is rather ironic given Nancy’s belief that there ought to have been earlier spikes in temperature even if we can’t observe them. On the other hand, we have observed both an sharp increase in CO2 and in temperature the last century. That’s why your null hypothesis fails.
Could you also explain what the difference is between “climate sensitivity” that you claim, based on a very biased selection of papers, is low and “natural climate sensitivity” that you claim is much higher? A more unbiased selection of papers tend to give a climate sensitivity around 2.5-3 degrees. There is a certain chutzpah of you to link to Lindzen’s paper from Spencer’s site given what Spencer has to say about it:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/11/some-comments-on-the-lindzen-and-choi-2009-feedback-study/
I think this will be enough from me for now. As wte9 put it the idea here is to “wallop” any dissenters anyway, proving you are right not by strength of your arguments but by numbers. A local consensus.
Vostok overlay tidied up.
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/marcott_spikes2.gif
Thomas says: April 4, 2013 at 6:10 am
“Benfrommo: “But that is the way science works. Science ASSUMES that the null hypothesis is true until it is PROVEN false. ”
In this case it is proven false. Our CO2-emissions are clear as is the rapidly rising concentration in the atmosphere. Your “null hypothesis” would have to pretend industrialization never happened or that CO2 isn’t a greenhouse gas….”
I rather thought we were discussing temperature spikes (and perhaps their possible causes). I don’t think anyone is disagreeing that atmospheric CO2 levels have increased.
Are stating here that you consider the 20th century temperature spike is ‘proven’ because you know CO2 levels have risen? If so, you would seem to have missed a couple of crucial steps in the scientific process.
Here’s the member of The Baker Center representing the national media
Mr. John Seigenthaler
First Amendment Center, Vanderbilt University
well…. went old school with the rolodex reference but they don’t even have to use their iphone to get the word out. The fellow above is the Publisher Emeritus of The Tennesean and father of John Siegenthaler jr, formerly of NBC and AP and also the Robert F. Kennedy Book Awards for the RFK Center for Justice and Human Rights and chairman emeritus of the annual Profile in Courage Award selection committee of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation. Seigenthaler is a member of the the board of directors of the Howard H. Baker Jr. Center for Public Policy at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
His most enduring contribution to bunging up the sciences that many of you love is his decades long mentorship of Robert Kennedy Jr. and Albert Gore Jr. Marcott is a press release.