- Apr 21, 2010
- 99,323
- 60,679
Are you insane?
No, you?
Proxy data and instrumental data are different. Apples and oranges.
Of course they are, but they are being used to determine the same parameter. The proxy data is calibrated to match the instrument record. Coping with the varying resolution of the two is child's play.
Proxies have a resolution in hundreds of years, for Marcott. The instrumental record, at that resolution, would be a small red dash only slightly higher than the proxies. Have you looked at the proxy data? Its a hodgepodge of data that contradicts each other and usually has a span of 4C or more. Anyone who thinks it is more than a general guide, or believes the stated uncertainties are accurate, is fooling themselves by mathematics not designed for the purpose. Or in Mann's case, mathematics designed for an agenda.
Can I ask your qualifications to tell us PhDs Marcott, Shakun, Clark and Mix don't know what they're doing but you do? Are you an active, degreed paleoclimatologist?
Trotting out that tired old meme again are we? Here's a little dose of reality for you. I have a PhD in geology and can teach any climatology class except for their computer programming because they use a system so antiquated no one else bothers to use it any longer.
A PhD climatologist on the other hand can teach first year geology without too much difficulty but starting in the second year they will have major difficulty. Third and fourth year and they are completely out of their league. They would be adrift with no hope.
I won't even mention graduate level classes.
As for Marcott et al here's what the UK's Met Office has done....Now why oh why would they withdraw that fine piece of work? Yes, that makes sense....because it was shit, that's why.
"Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey stick"
- Bishop Hill blog - Met Office withdraws article about Marcott's hockey*stick