Marcott2013

[orogenicman]

I am saddened when anyone is overtaken by a chronic disease...I too have CAD and underwent a sextuple bypass a couple of years ago so know what it's like. I am a tad older than you I think however. The COPD definitely makes things more difficult.

However, as a hydrologist don't you find it in the slightest bit strange that empirical testing refutes every claim made by the warmists?

What? As a hydrogeologist (not a hydrologist), I find the bulk of the scientific research on climate change to be very compelling. What I find disturbing and annoying is that so many people are so easily swayed by people who bring no appropriate scientific skill sets or credentials to the table. What I find even more annoying is that these people who bring no appropriate scientific skill sets or credentials to the table expect to be treated as peers. It's like expecting to survive heart surgery performed by a dish washer. It is a sad statement about the state of education today.

Why do you place so much emphasis on credentials? I place the emphasis on what is factually correct. The credentialed "consensus" scientists of the day thought that Wegener was a quack.

But, like McIntyre, he was correct and the consensus scientists were flat assed wrong. Put another way, anyone who places credentials over facts has chosen to no longer think for themselves and is no longer a true scientist, who's raison d'etre is the pursuit of knowledge....wherever and whoever advances that knowledge.

And, you still haven't addressed the HARVARD study, with all those credentials you care so much about, that says acidification is bollocks.

Having credentials does not equal authority. We have credentials in professions for many very good reasons. Among them are:

1) It assures people that the professional in question has received the appropriate training, both on the job, and through educational experience, to qualify him/her to perform in the profession in question.

2) People with credentials, particularly professional certifications are expected to meet high standards of performance, educational training, and can lose their certifications (and not be allowed to perform in said profession) if they fail to meet these standards.

3) It insures that everyone working in said profession is essentially on the same professional page, and have a high level of understanding of the work they are expected to perform.

As I've pointed out, you would not expect an allergist (though he has many years of medical training) to perform spine surgery on you. I dare say you would not.

These credentials weed out that snake oil salesmen from the dedicated, knowledgeable professionals, and the people who know what they are doing from those who don't. If it perfect? No. but it is the best we have.

If you don't believe this is true, hire a sail boat captain to perform your next colonoscopy. Let us know how that works out for you. And for the record, the difference between Wegener and McIntyre is that:

1) The former was, otherwise, respected in his field (continental drift was rejected in his day because no one could come up with a mechanism - it took another 40 years before one was found);

2) The former had a real science education; and

3) The former was actually right because he knew what he was doing.

 

[westwall]

What? As a hydrogeologist (not a hydrologist), I find the bulk of the scientific research on climate change to be very compelling. What I find disturbing and annoying is that so many people are so easily swayed by people who bring no appropriate scientific skill sets or credentials to the table. What I find even more annoying is that these people who bring no appropriate scientific skill sets or credentials to the table expect to be treated as peers. It's like expecting to survive heart surgery performed by a dish washer. It is a sad statement about the state of education today.

Why do you place so much emphasis on credentials? I place the emphasis on what is factually correct. The credentialed "consensus" scientists of the day thought that Wegener was a quack.

But, like McIntyre, he was correct and the consensus scientists were flat assed wrong. Put another way, anyone who places credentials over facts has chosen to no longer think for themselves and is no longer a true scientist, who's raison d'etre is the pursuit of knowledge....wherever and whoever advances that knowledge.

And, you still haven't addressed the HARVARD study, with all those credentials you care so much about, that says acidification is bollocks.

Having credentials does not equal authority. We have credentials in professions for many very good reasons. Among them are:

1) It assures people that the professional in question has received the appropriate training, both on the job, and through educational experience, to qualify him/her to perform in the profession in question.

2) People with credentials, particularly professional certifications are expected to meet high standards of performance, educational training, and can lose their certifications (and not be allowed to perform in said profession) if they fail to meet these standards.

3) It insures that everyone working in said profession is essentially on the same professional page, and have a high level of understanding of the work they are expected to perform.

As I've pointed out, you would not expect an allergist (though he has many years of medical training) to perform spine surgery on you. I dare say you would not.

These credentials weed out that snake oil salesmen from the dedicated, knowledgeable professionals, and the people who know what they are doing from those who don't. If it perfect? No. but it is the best we have.

If you don't believe this is true, hire a sail boat captain to perform your next colonoscopy. Let us know how that works out for you. And for the record, the difference between Wegener and McIntyre is that:

1) The former was, otherwise, respected in his field (continental drift was rejected in his day because no one could come up with a mechanism - it took another 40 years before one was found);

2) The former had a real science education; and

3) The former was actually right because he knew what he was doing.

And what happens to those credentials and how people view them, when the "snake oil" salesman are the ones with the credentials? Any time you have to falsify as much data as Hansen has you have become that snake oil salesman...what's worse is the public has figured it out.

Whenever I look at Yahoo or the UK newspapers and they are touting the newest and greatest of the global warming fear mongering the overwhelming majority of comments are anti AGW. By 90%. That wasn't true 5 years ago.

I have a feeling that when Phil Jones stated that he couldn't find his raw data, in effect claiming the "dog ate it" he and the AGW cheerleaders lost them. They can't trust anyone who would so boldly lie as he did and it became very clear through the CLIMATEGATE emails that they had and have a lot to hide.

Scientists don't hide their results. How can the scientific method work when you don't release anything for others to check your work


And once again you fall back on the tried and true medical specialty false analogy. Climatologists are not magicians. Nor are they very good at math. If they were a statistician wouldn't be showing them their mistakes all the time......now would he?

 

[orogenicman]

Why do you place so much emphasis on credentials? I place the emphasis on what is factually correct. The credentialed "consensus" scientists of the day thought that Wegener was a quack.

But, like McIntyre, he was correct and the consensus scientists were flat assed wrong. Put another way, anyone who places credentials over facts has chosen to no longer think for themselves and is no longer a true scientist, who's raison d'etre is the pursuit of knowledge....wherever and whoever advances that knowledge.

And, you still haven't addressed the HARVARD study, with all those credentials you care so much about, that says acidification is bollocks.

Having credentials does not equal authority. We have credentials in professions for many very good reasons. Among them are:

1) It assures people that the professional in question has received the appropriate training, both on the job, and through educational experience, to qualify him/her to perform in the profession in question.

2) People with credentials, particularly professional certifications are expected to meet high standards of performance, educational training, and can lose their certifications (and not be allowed to perform in said profession) if they fail to meet these standards.

3) It insures that everyone working in said profession is essentially on the same professional page, and have a high level of understanding of the work they are expected to perform.

As I've pointed out, you would not expect an allergist (though he has many years of medical training) to perform spine surgery on you. I dare say you would not.

These credentials weed out that snake oil salesmen from the dedicated, knowledgeable professionals, and the people who know what they are doing from those who don't. If it perfect? No. but it is the best we have.

If you don't believe this is true, hire a sail boat captain to perform your next colonoscopy. Let us know how that works out for you. And for the record, the difference between Wegener and McIntyre is that:

1) The former was, otherwise, respected in his field (continental drift was rejected in his day because no one could come up with a mechanism - it took another 40 years before one was found);

2) The former had a real science education; and

3) The former was actually right because he knew what he was doing.

And what happens to those credentials and how people view them, when the "snake oil" salesman are the ones with the credentials? Any time you have to falsify as much data as Hansen has you have become that snake oil salesman...what's worse is the public has figured it out.

Right. And he has falsified so much data that he will likely never see the light of day, having been thrown in the deepest dungeon in GITMO for his crimes. Oh wait...

Whenever I look at Yahoo or the UK newspapers and they are touting the newest and greatest of the global warming fear mongering the overwhelming majority of comments are anti AGW. By 90%. That wasn't true 5 years ago.

Erm, am I supposed to apologize for all the stupid people posting online? How is that my fault? More importantly, how does so many uninformed people giving their uninformed opinions at yahoo or at the UK rags falsify AGW?

 

[flacaltenn]

Having credentials does not equal authority. We have credentials in professions for many very good reasons. Among them are:

1) It assures people that the professional in question has received the appropriate training, both on the job, and through educational experience, to qualify him/her to perform in the profession in question.

2) People with credentials, particularly professional certifications are expected to meet high standards of performance, educational training, and can lose their certifications (and not be allowed to perform in said profession) if they fail to meet these standards.

3) It insures that everyone working in said profession is essentially on the same professional page, and have a high level of understanding of the work they are expected to perform.

As I've pointed out, you would not expect an allergist (though he has many years of medical training) to perform spine surgery on you. I dare say you would not.

These credentials weed out that snake oil salesmen from the dedicated, knowledgeable professionals, and the people who know what they are doing from those who don't. If it perfect? No. but it is the best we have.

If you don't believe this is true, hire a sail boat captain to perform your next colonoscopy. Let us know how that works out for you. And for the record, the difference between Wegener and McIntyre is that:

1) The former was, otherwise, respected in his field (continental drift was rejected in his day because no one could come up with a mechanism - it took another 40 years before one was found);

2) The former had a real science education; and

3) The former was actually right because he knew what he was doing.

And what happens to those credentials and how people view them, when the "snake oil" salesman are the ones with the credentials? Any time you have to falsify as much data as Hansen has you have become that snake oil salesman...what's worse is the public has figured it out.

Right. And he has falsified so much data that he will likely never see the light of day, having been thrown in the deepest dungeon in GITMO for his crimes. Oh wait...

Whenever I look at Yahoo or the UK newspapers and they are touting the newest and greatest of the global warming fear mongering the overwhelming majority of comments are anti AGW. By 90%. That wasn't true 5 years ago.

Erm, am I supposed to apologize for all the stupid people posting online? How is that my fault? More importantly, how does so many uninformed people giving their uninformed opinions at yahoo or at the UK rags falsify AGW?

Actually -- believe it or not --- getting thrown into Gitmo could be less important than having the elite members of former NASA glory write and sign a declaration saying how embarrassing Hansen et al are to them and their legacy.. Did happen.. Uh Ha.. It did...

I'd be crushed..

 

[orogenicman]

Right. Meanwhile, NASA's official position is that AGW is real, and continues to conduct research on the matter. Next.

 

[gslack]

Right. Meanwhile, NASA's official position is that AGW is real, and continues to conduct research on the matter. Next.

Nah, they do research. Making often bad decisions based on that still on going research is what the media and you do...

 

[IanC]

Willis has done a good job of posting up the proxies and showing how many of them fail to meet the criteria laid out in the Marcott methodology. Marcott?s proxies ? 10% fail their own criteria for inclusion | Watts Up With That?

but the main problem is still pasting high resolution high variance recent data onto low resolution low variance historic data

Abe- I am assuming you will continue to duck my straightforward request to identify which Marcott or Shakun paper you were refering to, so I will bump up two of my threads that discussed them at the time. here are thumbnails of the proxies used. isnt it amazing how such wildly different shapes can be combined to form a nice smooth line with so little uncertainty?

 

[Abraham3]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

and

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198

[[Apologies, initially pasted the first link in twice]]

These two papers were WIDELY discussed and earned mention in the mainstream media. I should have thought given that and the context of our discussion that you would have been able to identify which papers were most likely intended by "Marcott 2013" and "Shakun 2012" Putting precisely those terms and no others into Google took me directly to both papers. No alternate possibilities were presented.

Just a few points about your display of proxy data.

Those graphs are the temperature reconstructions from proxies located in different places all over the world. Note the vertical scale. When attempting to calculate the average temperature of the entire planet, it will be necessary to combine temperatures from the hollows of the Antarctic mountains to the sand dunes of the Gobi desert. Right? Such datasets will subtend a relatively large vertical expanse of your workspace. Thus your first plot.

Second, the conversion ratios between proxy parameters and temperature are almost never linear or constant over time (thus "the decline").

The data presentation you've posted is disingenuous; intended to make the process look faulty in a manner you should know it was not.

When you found yourself criticizing the Marcott paper for the way his data "looked" you should have realized you'd taken a wrong turn.

 

[Abraham3]

Another wee point. Uncertainty is uncertainty. It is not a guaranteed measure of absolute error. A large number of your comrades (and a fair number of YOUR sources) treat +/- X degrees as an admission of a known X degree error in the data.

Regarding "ducking" your requests. As noted, the references I provided "Marcott 2013" and "Shakun 2012" had and have been sufficiently precise for dozens of different conversations, here and elsewhere, by myself as well as that of others. I was not convinced your claim to any uncertainty was genuine. Additionally, today is the first time this thread has been posted in since JULY 30TH. I suspect it was a VERY long ways down the list. Having failed to post in it is only "ducking" to someone looking to make accusations regardless of the facts of the matter.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Ian, if you didn't take all you data from crank denialist sites, you claims of being a skeptic would be taken a little more seriously.

That's rich...trying to defend Marcott..even when he admits that his hockey stick is a fraud.

That's rich...trying to defend Marcott..even when he admits that his hockey stick is a fraud

indeed

--LOL

 

[IanC]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

and

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

[[Apologies, initially pasted the first link in twice]]

Just a few points about your display of proxy data.

Those graphs are the temperature reconstructions from proxies located in different places all over the world. Note the vertical scale. When attempting to calculate the average temperature of the entire planet, it will be necessary to combine temperatures from the hollows of the Antarctica mountains to the sand dunes of the Gobi desert. Right? Such datasets will subtend a relatively large vertical expanse of your workspace. Thus your first plot.

Second, the conversion ratios between proxy parameters and temperature is frequently neither linear nor constant over time (thus "the decline").

This data presentation is disingenuous; intended to make the process look faulty in a manner you should know it was not.

hahahaha! look faulty?

I am trying to show people how uncertain proxy data is. not only is the data uncertain but the methodology for choosing the proxies and then standardizing them also adds more uncertainty.

the OP actually starts off questioning why Shakun truncates CO2 at the beginning of the interglacial. the reason, of course, is that temps start going down while CO2 continues to rise. that dilutes the message somewhat doesnt it?

proxy reconstructions are a good and necessary thing. so are climate models. the problem arises when they are presented to an unsuspecting public as 'a sure thing', and the conclusions drawn from them as solid evidence. Shakun had very little evidence about the CO2 levels yet made pronouncements as if he did, to the press. Marcott made a reasonable paleoreconstruction for his PhD thesis but then added a hockeystick at the end incorrectly and went out on a press release tour.

 

[Abraham3]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

and

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

[[Apologies, initially pasted the first link in twice]]

Just a few points about your display of proxy data.

Those graphs are the temperature reconstructions from proxies located in different places all over the world. Note the vertical scale. When attempting to calculate the average temperature of the entire planet, it will be necessary to combine temperatures from the hollows of the Antarctica mountains to the sand dunes of the Gobi desert. Right? Such datasets will subtend a relatively large vertical expanse of your workspace. Thus your first plot.

Second, the conversion ratios between proxy parameters and temperature is frequently neither linear nor constant over time (thus "the decline").

This data presentation is disingenuous; intended to make the process look faulty in a manner you should know it was not.

hahahaha! look faulty?

I am trying to show people how uncertain proxy data is. not only is the data uncertain but the methodology for choosing the proxies and then standardizing them also adds more uncertainty.

the OP actually starts off questioning why Shakun truncates CO2 at the beginning of the interglacial. the reason, of course, is that temps start going down while CO2 continues to rise. that dilutes the message somewhat doesnt it?

proxy reconstructions are a good and necessary thing. so are climate models. the problem arises when they are presented to an unsuspecting public as 'a sure thing', and the conclusions drawn from them as solid evidence. Shakun had very little evidence about the CO2 levels yet made pronouncements as if he did, to the press. Marcott made a reasonable paleoreconstruction for his PhD thesis but then added a hockeystick at the end incorrectly and went out on a press release tour.

I have just flipped through this entire thread. I find nothing from you concerning Shakun truncating CO2 data at the beginning of the interglacial. So you will have to explain that charge if you want to talk about it.

As to running down Marcott because he put a 20th century proxy on the end of his data: that charge has always appeared to me to be a ridiculous stretch. You described the rapid temperature rise of the 20th century as a "preconceived conclusion". Sorry, Ian, but that boat has sailed.

Try again.

 

[IanC]

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html

and

A Reconstruction of Regional and Global Temperature for the Past 11,300 Years

[[Apologies, initially pasted the first link in twice]]

Just a few points about your display of proxy data.

Those graphs are the temperature reconstructions from proxies located in different places all over the world. Note the vertical scale. When attempting to calculate the average temperature of the entire planet, it will be necessary to combine temperatures from the hollows of the Antarctica mountains to the sand dunes of the Gobi desert. Right? Such datasets will subtend a relatively large vertical expanse of your workspace. Thus your first plot.

Second, the conversion ratios between proxy parameters and temperature is frequently neither linear nor constant over time (thus "the decline").

This data presentation is disingenuous; intended to make the process look faulty in a manner you should know it was not.

hahahaha! look faulty?

I am trying to show people how uncertain proxy data is. not only is the data uncertain but the methodology for choosing the proxies and then standardizing them also adds more uncertainty.

the OP actually starts off questioning why Shakun truncates CO2 at the beginning of the interglacial. the reason, of course, is that temps start going down while CO2 continues to rise. that dilutes the message somewhat doesnt it?

proxy reconstructions are a good and necessary thing. so are climate models. the problem arises when they are presented to an unsuspecting public as 'a sure thing', and the conclusions drawn from them as solid evidence. Shakun had very little evidence about the CO2 levels yet made pronouncements as if he did, to the press. Marcott made a reasonable paleoreconstruction for his PhD thesis but then added a hockeystick at the end incorrectly and went out on a press release tour.

I have just flipped through this entire thread. I find nothing from you concerning Shakun truncating CO2 data at the beginning of the interglacial. So you will have to explain that charge if you want to talk about it.

As to running down Marcott because he put a 20th century proxy on the end of his data: that charge has always appeared to me to be a ridiculous stretch. You described the rapid temperature rise of the 20th century as a "preconceived conclusion". Sorry, Ian, but that boat has sailed.

Try again.

and why would the Marcott2013 thread have information about Shakun2012? you refused to answer the simplest request just to clarify which paper you had refered to, so I bumped one of each to the top. are you really so obtuse that you cannot find the thread with 'hide the decline' in the title?

 

[IanC]

Read McIntyre’s latest here

Related articles

McIntyre finds the Marcott ‘trick’ – How long before Science has to retract Marcott et al? (wattsupwiththat.com)
The Marcott-Shakun Dating Service (climateaudit.org)
Hiding the Decline: MD01-2421 (climateaudit.org)
The Hockey Stick, Broken Again (powerlineblog.com)
How Marcottian Upticks Arise (climateaudit.org)
Marcott’s hockey stick uptick mystery – it didn’t used to be there (wattsupwiththat.com)

there have been some very serious 'inconsistencies' pointed out for Marcott2013. how did they get past peer review and when will they be addressed by the authors?

saigon- if you have some some articles defending M2013 I would certainly be interested in reading them. what is your opinion on yet another of the Team's papers being so slipshod?

Abe- this post makes a mockery of Marcott's 20th century addition. there are other thread with even more explanations of the inconsistencies and errors of Marcott2013. I would look for them but I have a funny feeling that you arent taking in any info, so it would just be a waste of my time.

you never did answer whether or not you defend 'hide the decline'.

 

[Abraham3]

Why would I think to find a discussion of Shakun and interglacial CO2 in a thread titled "Hide the Decline"?

 

[Abraham3]

Marcott did not use his 20th century proxy data in arriving at his paper's conclusions.

That the 20th century's temperatures rose sharply and did not fall sharply is an established fact, not a "preconceived conclusion".

The use of paleoclimatic proxies REQUIRES calibration against modern instrumented measurements by some means. There was nothing deceptive about appending 20th century instrument data to the latter end of proxy data. It is a common practice and it is clearly indicated in the legend and the discussion. Your complaints that the world is filled with idiots to whom the data must be tailored is specious.

 

[Abraham3]

you never did answer whether or not you defend 'hide the decline'.

I don't recall ever having been asked the question.

IF, you are asking me whether I have any problem with what Jones actually did in the process he described as "hide the decline", the answer is a firm "no".

Do you?

I do recall having asked you about this point. Did you answer it somewhere and put the question back to me? If so, I missed it.

 

[IanC]

you never did answer whether or not you defend 'hide the decline'.

I don't recall ever having been asked the question.

IF, you are asking me whether I have any problem with what Jones actually did in the process he described as "hide the decline", the answer is a firm "no".

Do you?

I do recall having asked you about this point. Did you answer it somewhere and put the question back to me? If so, I missed it.

ok, I'll bite. what do you think 'hide the decline' means.

 

[Abraham3]

you never did answer whether or not you defend 'hide the decline'.

I don't recall ever having been asked the question.

IF, you are asking me whether I have any problem with what Jones actually did in the process he described as "hide the decline", the answer is a firm "no".

Do you?

I do recall having asked you about this point. Did you answer it somewhere and put the question back to me? If so, I missed it.

ok, I'll bite. what do you think 'hide the decline' means.

This can't be too difficult to figure out. Start with the point that I do not believe any of the parties involved are dishonest: That they are trying to trick anyone. I believe "hide the decline" concerns the well known divergence problem with tree ring proxies moving into the 20th century; just like every dendrochronologist and paleoclimatologist told us.

To what do you think it refers?

 

[Abraham3]

I don't recall ever having been asked the question.

IF, you are asking me whether I have any problem with what Jones actually did in the process he described as "hide the decline", the answer is a firm "no".

Do you?

I do recall having asked you about this point. Did you answer it somewhere and put the question back to me? If so, I missed it.

ok, I'll bite. what do you think 'hide the decline' means.

This can't be too difficult to figure out. Start with the point that I do not believe any of the parties involved are dishonest: That they are trying to trick anyone. I believe "hide the decline" concerns the well known divergence problem with tree ring proxies moving into the 20th century; just like every dendrochronologist and paleoclimatologist told us.

To what do you think it refers?

That is, dealing with the divergence problem.