You’d think academics in the upside down Mann climate proxy world would pay attention, and not repeat the same mistakes of the past. Apparently not. WUWT readers surely recall the Yamal YAD06 (The most influential tree in the world) and the core sample YAD061.
Steve McIntyre points out the YAD061 equivalent in Marcott et al, where a single sample contributed the majority of the uptick.
He writes:
TN05-17 is by far the most influential Southern Hemisphere core in Marcott et al 2013- it’s Marcott’s YAD061, so to speak. Its influence is much enhanced by the interaction of short-segment centering in the mid-Holocene and non-robustness in the modern period. Marcott’s SHX reconstruction becomes worthless well before the 20th century, a point that they have not yet admitted, let alone volunteered.
Marcott’s TN05-17 series is a bit of an odd duck within his dataset. It is the only ocean core in which the temperature is estimated by Modern Analogue Technique on diatoms; only one other ocean core uses Modern Antalogue Technique (MD79-257). The significance of this core was spotted early on by ^.
TN05-17 is plotted below. Rather unusually among Holocene proxies, its mid-Holocene values are very cold. Centering on 4500-5500 BP in Marcott style results in this proxy having very high anomalies in the modern period: closing at a Yamalian apparent anomaly of over 4 deg C.
Figure 1. TN05-17.
In the most recent portion of the Marcott SHX, there are 5 or fewer series, as compared to 12 in the mid-Holocene. Had the data been centered on the most recent millennium and extended back (e.g. Hansen’s reference station method is a lowbrow method), then there would have been an extreme negative contribution from TN05-17 in the mid-Holocene, but its contribution to the average would have been less (divided by 12, instead of 4). As shown below, TN05-17 pretty much by itself contributes the positive recent values of the SHX reconstruction. It’s closing anomaly (basis 4500-5500 BP) is 4.01 deg. There are 4 contributing series – so the contribution of TN05-17 to the SHX composite in 1940 is 4.01/4, more than the actual SHX value. The entire increase in the Marcott SHX from at least 1800AD on arises from increased influence of TN05-17 – the phenomenon pointed out in my post on upticks.
Read the entire post here: http://climateaudit.org/2013/04/10/the-impact-of-tn05-17/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“You think: that there are tens or hundreds or even thousands of climate scientists involved in a conspiracy of some sort to convince the world that global warming is occurring, and making up data to convince people of this. These scientists speak different languages, live in different counties and do research is completely different areas.”
A better explanation is that many are scared that if they don’t toe the AGW line, they’ll find it difficult to receive funding, be shunned, or more likely both. Far more plausible than any “conspiracy theory”, because it doesn’t really require collusion (other than the same, natural fear), and it has happened way too many times in the past.
For fame and fortune!
The uptick per se is not the issue, it’s its size and starting point–and the unjustified flatness of the temperatures before. IOW, as has been said here before, the objectionable part of the hockey stick isn’t the blade, it’s the shaft.
adrian smits says:
April 11, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Because those handlers feel that there are more important things to study. Money’s tight ya know.
http://www.christianpost.com/news/feds-spend-400000-to-study-duck-genitals-92353/
Standard Operating Procedure in action.
The people who have gone into climatology are not a normal sample of seekers-after-truth. They are primarily a biased sample of persons who think they’ve found truth in the environmentalist indictment of mankind’s wasteful / poisonous ways. Climatology is a new field, almost entirely funded privately and publicly by “concerned / alarmed” funders of other environmentalist crusades, and taught by similar acolytes.
The most intense Believers have managed to intimidate or marginalize others and set the tone for the field. It’s easy to do when “hard facts” and clear cause-effect relationships are so difficult to nail down. There’s lots of room for interpretation of finding, or to avoid research topics that are likely to produce contrary evidence.
On top of that, there is an institutional incentive to avoid non-alarmist findings: it would reduce the fame and fortune (funding) for climatology if it were to tell its funders and the public: “Move along, nothing to see here.”
Other fields have attracted biased samples of “scientists” who’ve marginalized dissenters: sociology and psychology, for instance. (Behaviorism and Freudianism were the big offenders in the latter instance.)
Total strawman.
The issue is this: If you have 20 proxies, and only one of them has an uptick at the end, then the average of those proxies (as meaningless as that is) should not have that same uptick. Might have a little tiny bump, but nothing as pronounced as the original. That is the problem with Yamal, with most of Mann’s “research”, and seemingly with Marcott. A very small number of proxies are given enormous weight over all the rest, this giving a desired result.
trafamadore says: April 11, 2013 at 4:15 pm
You think: that there are tens or hundreds or even thousands of climate scientists involved in a conspiracy of some sort to convince the world that global warming is occurring, and making up data to convince people of this. These scientists speak different languages, live in different counties and do research is completely different areas.
This is interesting and worth discussion.
1. The above phrase has become a doctrinal “truth” to the the CAGW proponents and a standard reply when scientific argument and logical replies run out.
2. Very, very few people would actually hold that position as detailed by trafamadore. We all know from history that it is very, very easy for a large number of people to end up holding a strong viewpoint on something and to hold onto that belief under all circumstances and in spite of all evidence, more so if it is a ‘noble cause’; religions, cults, warring nations make a particularly good example, and various mainstream medical beliefs (the beliefs regarding gastric ulcer causations being a recent example)can also be held up as examples.
3. There are many climate publications dealing with subsets of data, where the body of the test/research does not touch on recent warming, but the apparently obligatory paragraph giving a nod to AGW is often included. In many cases this may be at the suggestion of reviewers, or simply a nod to the perceived mainstream belief. In many of these cases the work the scientists are doing does not touch upon the mechanisms, degree or possible causes of modern warming, and in effect they are sometimes commenting in this manner outside their area of knowledge or expertise.
4. No conspiracy is needed for people in any particular grouping to end up holding a certain opinion on something, and a particular group holding a viewpoint does not automatically make that viewpoint correct.
Re trafamadore, I regret to see he may be blocked, these debates are very much lessened if we are all just agreeing with each other.
mike says:
April 11, 2013 at 3:22 pm
Two types of confirmation bias in science:
Intentional confirmation bias.
Unintentional confirmation bias.
Climate science is the former.
If climate scientists were doing a drug evaluation and 99 out of 100 participants died, they would approve the drug based on a single person surviving.
Did you mean to say it is intentional? I think the most likely explanation is that these guys are just so incompetent that they do not realize how much so. What happens is that yes they only look at possibilities and the “science” is based upon being merely possible. Instead of looking at the “reality” they in other words look at a fantasy world that is merely possible. The rub here of course is whether looking at very small possibilities is worth the time. For instance, if you take the subset of possible climate realities, they look at one out of one million subsets of possibilities for our planet’s climate where CO2 is the main driver AND has positive feed-backs that wrap themselves around JUST CO2. All climate models are based on this principle and they use a correlation as the sheer sum of their proof. In addition, their logic is riddled with logical fallacies such as this: “we can not explain this aspect of the climate, so it must be CO2.” (I could go into the mistakes with comparing the Earth with the physics lab and how they use this non-proof as proof as well, but there are so many instances of this in climate science that I just tend to lump it all together with incompetence.)
Just thinking you know the answer because you “think” you have exhausted every other possibility is not proof of anything. If anything it is proof that you need to take some basic logic class and figure out that science is about disproving the null hypothesis and not some retarded idea that you know the answer simply because you can not explain the answer.
and so with Marcott you once again have a climate scientist who assumes climate is driven by CO2 (without it being proven) and doubles down on incompetence by not only using confirmation bias (he knows it has warmed so therefore he somehow finds that data after he tortures his poor proxies to death)…..
But then he also admits to lying (admitting the abstract was misleading) and in addition
Apperantly he repeated Dr. Mann’s mistake with Yamal.
No, a person attempting fraud who was smart wouldn’t make that many mistakes. A smart person who was pulling the wool over people’s eyes would not repeat easy to find mistakes like Yamal. Dr. Mann’s mistake is well known and to have a graduate student repeat it just shows that climate science is simply not up to the task of even stopping the repeating of the same nonsense. Only a true incompetent could possibly be that stupid. And to admit the data he used to make conclusions about was not robust? Pure hillarity.
The big picture here is that Marcott is just a product of years of incompetence in climate science. The crowning achievement so to speak. So no, they would not ignore actual deaths in the fictional drug trial. They would more then likely explain away bad side effects and deaths as being caused by another variable they basically warp around their world-view. And so, no they wouldn’t ignore direct evidence like you say, but they will ignore anything and everything that can even be vaguely explained away. Because remember, climate science is about the science of being merely possible. As long as one of them can prove that it is remotely possible they might be right and until someone figures out how to outright prove their logical fallacies incorrect they will continue to lie about their work and results because frankly I don’t think they know the difference between lies and truth anymore.
I don’t think so. I think they just don’t care about the skeptic arguments. They know emotion and scary graphs will win the day. They know the MSM will fly their flag and not be objective as they should be. I think they know exactly what they’re doing.
benfrommo and Jeff Alberts:
I am commenting on your posts at April 11, 2013 at 9:04 pm and April 11, 2013 at 9:58 pm, respectively.
Concerning the performance of climatologists who have conducted proxy studies
benfrommo says:
But Jeff Alberts says:
Hmmm. Those are not mutually exclusive situations.
So, I think that in some cases benfrommo is right,
in some cases Jeff Alberts is right,
and in some cases benfrommo and Jeff Alberts are both right.
The important issue is, How do we put climatology right?
Richard
steveta_uk says:
April 11, 2013 at 8:40 am
I thought Steve Mc had shown that the uptick was an artifact of the processing and wasn’t in any of the proxies. And now, he’s identified a specific proxy with an uptick.
Can’t be both, surely?
——————————————————-
My entirely layman’s understanding (anyone please feel free to correct) is that what Mannesque processing does is disproportionately emphasize the effect of any odd series with an uptick. So you can have numerous series which are flatish or have a downtick but have one with an uptick and the end result is up, even if a simple average would have been a downtick.
As I say, if this is wrong I’d be happy to be corrected.
It’s not that TN05-17 has an uptick, but that it has very high positive values because of a supposedly “cold” mid-Holocene experience. As other proxies drop off, its contribution becomes increased. The entire 1 deg C SHX anomaly in the 20th century is contributed by postive 4 from this one proxy divided by a count of only 4 proxies. Its impact increases as the cout decreased from 10 to 4.
Don’t recall who gets the credit, but this “inverse-dendro” contretemps inspired one of the greatest AGW lines ever: “If you’ve seen one tree, you’ve seen Yamal.” The Wall Street Journal’s English-language Paris edition then ran a column titled, “Forging a Consensus.” Worthy of Cole Porter, these bon mots trump even the Green Gang’s pseudo-scientific poetasters.
Thanks for clarifying that, Steve.
Jean Parisot says: April 11, 2013 at 7:58 am: “How was this proxy treated in his thesis?”
You can go look this up. It is in Proquest / UMI Dissertations Publishing, 2011, dissertation number 3464409. Under $40.
Richard writes, “The important issue is, How do we put climatology right?”
The problem is that they being fed with the wrong nutrients – mostly money with a dash of prestige.
Cut that right back and you are more likely to be left with those who are hardworking and honest.
Quote
From the Investor’s Business Daily editorial page
To Denmark, From Russia, With Lies
Posted 12/18/2009 07:53 PM ET
“Siberia has played a pivotal role in this outright fraud. In 1995, a paper by the CRU’s Keith Briffa asserted the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. It relied on tree ring data from trees on Siberia’s Yamal Peninsula.”
“Here too data were carefully selected. Those from just 12 trees from 252 cores in the Yamal data set were used. A larger set of 34 tree cores from the vicinity shows no dramatic recent warming, and warmer temperatures in the Middle Ages. They weren’t used.”
The leaked e-mails show that the Russian researcher who collected the tree-ring data observed that the trees line had not moved north as would be expected if climate warming had occurred. I attach an excerpt from the leaked e-mail (document 907975032.txt):
From: Rashit Hantemirov
To: Keith Briffa
Subject: Short report on progress in Yamal work
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1998 19:17:12 +0500
Dear Keith,
I apologize for delay with reply. Below is short information about state of Yamal work. Samples from 2,172 subfossil larches (appr. 95% of all samples), spruces (5%) and birches (solitary finding) have been collected within a region centered on about 67030’N, 70000’E at the southern part of Yamal Peninsula. All of them have been measured.
[SNIPPED, except for the last sentence.]
There are no evidences of moving polar timberline to the north during last century.
Rashit Hantemirov, Lab. of Dendrochronology, Institute of Plant and Animal Ecology, 8 Marta St., 202 Ekaterinburg, 620144, Russia.
End of quote
This leaves me speechless.
Once again Steve McIntyre has shown that instead of an uptick the Marcott et al graph should result in a great big cross.
The important issue is, How do we put climatology right?
Richard
I gave a long reply to this, but it either got spammed or never got through. But to shorten it, basically the best bet is for climatology to police itself and since this is failing to happen as with Marcott, the only alternative is to punish those who make huge mistakes (or commit fraud whatever the case).
The solution therefore is easy as far as I am concerned. For be it fraud or incompetence, fire those who make such stupid mistakes. This includes anyone who contributed to the paper. For those “pal reviewers” who did not catch these easy to see mistakes, they also need to be punished. There needs to be some sort of check and balance so that incompetence and fraud are both weeded out.
Its like with children. If you don’t punish the child for when it misbehaves whether it be intentional or not, the child will never learn and will continue to misbehave.
Climate scientists are nothing but adult children who are not getting punished. Fire Marcott and the other authors fo this terrible study, and yank the paper. He can resubmit assuming he finds another job. If you never punish scientists for being this incompetent then you are setting a precedent where science is further pushed off the brazier and where the political message is all that matters. Expect more of this nonsense until actual consequences exist in acadamia and especially climate science for those too stupid or too corrupt to be given this trust.
benfrommo:
Thankyou very much indeed for your post at April 12, 2013 at 11:41 am.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/11/those-who-dont-learn-from-yamal-are-condemned-to-repeat-it-marcotts-yad061/#comment-1273470
As you say, the issue is lack of accountability.
Also, bad science gets rewarded.
Misbehaviour deserves consequences. And the consequences need to be retribution.
There will be people who misbehave when its consequences are possible benefits.
Some time ago I made a long post on the blog of Judith Curry. I then said that academic research needs to be made accountable in the manner of industrial research. And I then argued as follows.
1.
Industrial research gets discontinued when it fails to obtain accurate and useful information.
Industrial research is aimed at obtaining true information which can be adopted for development into product(s).
Industrial research, development and demonstration are separated activities because industry has learned ‘the hard way’ that research is distorted when it is biased towards a stated development. Such biased research
(a) fails to see opportunities which would provide information of use in unanticipated ways
and
(b) induces blindness to inadequacies of the direction of the research.
The researchers are re-assigned if their work fails to deliver useful information, and they are sacked if they provide a record of bad performance. Industry exists to make profits: it does not exist to employ incompetent or corrupt workers of any kind.
2.
Academic research does not get discontinued when it fails.
Academic research exists to provide information which – at present – obtains additional research funds.
Academic research is distorted because it is biased towards a stated development capable of obtaining more funding (n.b. this problem is why industry separates research from development).
Importantly, there is no accountability for bad academic scientific work. Indeed, bad research gets covered-up and possibly rewarded. This is because those who fund research need to be convinced they obtained good research results if they are to provide funds for additional research. Bad work is not likely to obtain more funds.
Hence, researchers who provide poor work are not punished and may be rewarded as ‘evidence’ that their work was good.
Judity Curry clearly liked my comments.
I had posted them in a thread on her blog where she was asking for ideas prior to her making a Statement to the US Senate. I am very pleased that the Statement she provided included a Section which was almost word-for-word the same as the comment I had posted on her blog.
But her Statement was certain to have no effect.
Politicians don’t care about scientific accountability.
Scientific information is about seeking a close approximation to truth.
Political information is about presenting a desired ‘message’.
Hence, politicians are not interested in scientific accountability. They will continue to fund research which provides products supportive of the desired message. Indeed, they will stop funding research which provides off-message information.
Richard
Very good statement Richard and I can say I agree completely. Perhaps the solution is to divorce politicians from all science? I don’t see a way you can have politicians in charge of science personally at all. It becomes more about just toeing the official political line then about actual science. Marcott is case in point. That study would have gotten him fired in private industry and yet in science today he gets rewarded.
I still think it takes extreme incompetence as a scientist to not realize the affect of observer bias and yes although fraud is also a possibility the point remains that there is a larger problem with science then most people want to admit. If results and actual measurements are not as important as the conclusion, what in the world are you measuring things for?
Why not just make up some data and release that instead? That way you do not even need to torture statistics and you can just release some pop-pseudo science paper such as Marcott’s without the terrible mistakes and obviously fabricated data (with the proxies he just randomly reassigned values for to present). What is the point in going through all that effort of torturing data when it is simply just a waste of time?
benfrommo:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at April 13, 2013 at 7:47 am.
I don’t think it is necessary to “divorce politicians from all science” and I don’t think that is possible or desirable. For example, would anybody have wanted the Manhattan Project to have been conducted by a private industrial organisation?
In my opinion, there is need for a restructuring of the relationship between universities and politicians.
If a nationalised industry can be structured to prevent political interference in its research then it should be possible prevent political interference in university research.
I worked for a nationalised industry (National Coal Board: NCB) owned by UK Government. And I conducted research at the Coal Research Establishment (CRE). Politicians set the objectives and priorities of the industry which was run by the industrialists appointed by politicians.
But any industry exists to provide products its customers want and at a cost it customers will pay. All industrial research is intended to assist this. So, CRE conducted research which was separated from political interference and funding. Its research projects were determined as industrial priorities and were funded from industrial activity although the overall objectives of the industry were set by politicians.
Clearly, universities are supposed to be much more independent of politicians than a nationalised industry. But, at present, they are not. Much of their funding is provided by politicians and much of their research is commissioned and funded by politicians.
Richard