People send me stuff. Robert Sheaffer sent part of a blog post titled:
The “hockey stick” slaps back by Donald Prothero
After reading it, this is what I mailed back:
==============================================
Oh please, Marcott et al has been fully debunked for recent temperatures. Even Marcott himself admits the uptick is not robust on RealClimate.
Marcott et al have posted their long-promised FAQ at realclimate here. Without providing any links to or citation of Climate Audit, they now concede:
20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions.
You can read all about it here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/marcott-et-al-proxy-paper/
and at: http://climateaudit.com
Anthony
========================================================
He mailed back that he realized all this, but was essentially saying that at the source, they seem oblivious to the problems with Marcott et al.
For example: “…best evidence is Marcott et al’s 20th century warming!!!!!!!!”
I ask readers to go help them out with their slapstick:
http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/04/17/the-hockey-stick-slaps-back/
They’re all laureates, don’tcha know?
“…best evidence is Marcott et al’s 20th century warming!!!!!!!!“ means there’s not much warming at all, and certainly nothingly statistically significant in the past 16 years!
If that’s the best they’ve got, they’re in a world of hurt.
Anthony, there were 8 comments on that post.
I left everything untouched.
I feel cleaner that way.
cn
There is a limit to self-flagellation….with an non-robust hockey stick….that humanity can stand. Hopefully we have finally passed that limit.
I just submitted this over there-
“The Marcott paper supplemental material, pages 23-26, has this-
“The gain function is near 1 above ~2000 year periods, suggesting that multi-millennial variability in the Holocene stack may be almost fully recorded. Below ~300 year periods, in contrast, the gain is near zero, implying proxy record uncertainties completely remove centennial variability in the stack. Between these two periods, the gain function exhibits a steady ramp and crosses 0.5 at a period of ~1000 years.”
Figures S17 and S18 are unambiguous regarding the frequency response of the reconstruction. By the way, when they say the gain is ‘near zero’, they mean it is one percent or less of the actual signal amplitude.
So, apparently Tamino argues that Marcott’s spectral analysis of Marcott’s reconstruction is wrong, in order to defend Marcott’s initial claim that modern temperature trends are unprecedented, even though Marcott later backed off that claim.
Meanwhile, Mann told Revkin at Dot Earth that the Marcott paper proves that modern temperatures are the highest in 4000 years, and that the rate of temp change in 20th century is the highest in 11,400 years. Neither claim is supported by the paper’s self-analysis.
Climate science shines once again.”
In the interest of slapstick …
I was raised on a remote farm, home schooled, and knew not of other human beings.
The farm had many types of animals, including a dog.
Since the dog was the most loyal, devoted, and friendly creature on our farm, I married the dog,
because the”best evidence” available indicated the dog would be my closest friend and companion.
The AGW paradigm is visibly collapsing.
Hopefully our politicians will wake up and realize that the cost of carbon strangulation programs is not only too much for the taxpayers to bear, but of no value besides.
Save that posting by Donald Prothero — he will be as famous as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf; known as Bagdad Bob – who could say there were no U. S. solders in his city even as they could be seen in the street behind him.
It is saddening to read the Porthero post. He writes books, including textbooks that college students are required to read. Yet the posting shows he has not read, nor if he has read, not understood the failings of the climate team.
Dang, that guy in his piece is going on about how Marcott verifies and resurrects Mann’s 1998 Hockey Stick.
Even Mann is too smart to try to bring back his 1998 version.
This Donald Prothero guy strikes me as being as skeptical as the possum who was certain he had found a pork chop when he smelled the packaging and tore into the garbage bag. Sadly I think Donald will need something more to convince him of his grave mistake than a quick whack upside the head.
That’s really funny, slapstick indeed. Donald Prothero calls himself a skeptic but has not thought to question anything about the paper or look at the data on which it is based, or search the web for any criticism of it.
Incidentally there are now two criticisms of the Marcott paper now up on the Science website
http://comments.sciencemag.org/content/10.1126/science.1228026#comments
One from me and one from Arno Arrak.
I guess Prothero didn’t notice these either.
“They’re all laureates, don’tcha know?”
—-
And Hardeates.
The climate team lead by Marcott,
Misused the data they’d got.
With graphic rejigging,
Mann’s numbers he was frigging,
Tracing hockey sticks all over the plot.
🙂
Oops retry –
The climate team led by Marcott,
Misused the data they’d got.
With graphic rejigging,
Mann’s numbers he was frigging,
Tracing hockey sticks all over the plot.
🙂
I’m still trying to get my head around how proxy data with 100 year resolution can show a century long uptick.
Chuck Nolan says:
Anthony, there were 8 comments on that post.
I left everything untouched.
I feel cleaner that way.
Indeed, all Anthony has done is give him an unwarrented traffic spike for a day.
That is such as crock of unmitigated BS , it’s not even worth telling them how wrong they are. They know and they lie.
There’s a whole internet full of that kind of stupidity.
Please don’t bother telling us next time you find one. 😉
Paul;
No, he doesn’t call himself a sceptic. He purports to be deconstructing scepticism with approved science.
tckev;
Don’t quit your day job. ;p
kadaka (KD Knoebel) says:
April 18, 2013 at 9:42 am
Dang, that guy in his piece is going on about how Marcott verifies and resurrects Mann’s 1998 Hockey Stick.
Even Mann is too smart to try to bring back his 1998 version.
He’s not smart enough to keep distance from Prothero’s article, though, he happily tweeted about it:
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/324511641578389505
Willful blindness is my sense of Donald the Wise .
Anthony, I hope you realize you are responsible for more traffic to that vacuous and narcissistic site than it will ever see again. Yes some sarcasm and exaggeration, but could you also do before and after shots of traffic on these seedy sites of reality exclusion?
I expect the traffic graph would closely resemble a single upraised digit.
chris y – I applied the Marcott measured frequency gain response of their processing (Fig. S17a) directly to a 200-year 0.9 C spike – it results in a somewhat smoother, approximately 600-year duration, 0.3 C spike (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1951&p=2#93527 for discussion and graph). Their white noise gain measurement includes proxy sampling, temperature and date peturbation, and Monte Carlo averaging – the full process.
I considered additional blurring from phase shifts, but the authors state that “…the time series are coherent and in phase at all frequencies (Fig. S17b,c), indicating that our Monte Carlo error-perturbation procedure does not artificially shift the amplitude or phase of input series”, and their phase plots (Fig. S17b/S17c) show coherency with insignificant (0.2 C 600-700 year bump.
chris y – I applied the Marcott measured frequency gain response of their processing (Fig. S17a) directly to a 200-year 0.9 C spike – it results in a somewhat smoother, approximately 600-year duration, 0.3 C spike (http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.php?n=1951&p=2#93527 for discussion and graph). Their white noise gain measurement includes proxy sampling, temperature and date peturbation, and Monte Carlo averaging – the full process.
I considered additional blurring from phase shifts, but the authors state that “…the time series are coherent and in phase at all frequencies (Fig. S17b,c), indicating that our Monte Carlo error-perturbation procedure does not artificially shift the amplitude or phase of input series”, and their phase plots (Fig. S17b/S17c) show coherency with insignificant (less than 10 degrees) phase effects at longer than 500 year periods. I will note that this frequency analysis result is quite close to the Tamino results from processing such a spike directly.
A 200-year up/down spike contains many frequencies, down to the 0-frequency contribution to the average, but the measured Marcott response only eliminates the high frequencies. I believe such a spike would indeed be quite visible in the Marcott data as a greater than 0.2 C 600-700 year bump.
@glynnmohr I think you are making the mistake in concluding that since AGW is collapsing, carbon taxes are without purpose. Politicians were never worried about helping their constituents but in gaining power.
Marcott succeeded in high sticking public opinion into his own net!
See High Sticking
Glynn:
“The AGW paradigm is visibly collapsing.
Hopefully our politicians will wake up and realize that the cost of carbon strangulation programs is not only too much for the taxpayers to bear, but of no value besides.”
What they need to realize is that continuing down the AGW road is going to LOSE them VOTES. That’s the only thing they respond to. AS I’ve written before here, politicians WANT AGW because they can tax us without actually taxing US. The only thing which will de-rail them is when the CONSESNUS of a majority of voters leads them to an inexhorable conclusion that if they continue they will lose in the next election
The Team does have that Keystone Kops aura about them. Bumbling about furiously, and failing miserably at everything they do.