The Dagger In The Heart? Maybe….. A Remedial Explanation Of Marcott’s HS Blade ……. Mikey? What’s That About A Dagger?


This is a fairly lengthy post, but I think it’s an easy read.  For people advanced in graphing and smoothing, you can skip some of mid parts.  It’s intended for laymen to come to a better understanding. 


This?  image  LOL, more like this.  image

Mikey Mann is babbling again!  From Tom Nelson……

Twitter / MichaelEMann

Watching the pro #climatechange #denial smear artists spinning desperately in wake of new article ( …). Dagger in heart?

Rolling on the floor laughing  Uhhmm, no Mikey, It’s done skeptics worlds of good!  You guys were pretty boring lately.  I mean sure, there’s ton’s of material to poke fun, still, but it gets monotonous.  Well, to tell the truth the hockey stick idiocy is monotonous, but, at least this is a newish twist. 

In a post yesterday, Hank did some heavy lifting for us.  I thought I’d try some light lifting.  Dr. Curry referenced Hank’s post over at Climate Etc.  So, I wandered over to see what was being stated.  Rud Istvan was the main writer of the post.  It’s an interesting and accurate take.  Here’s the part I wish to focus on……

The paper contains a comparison in Figure 1B to a version of the TAR hockey stick chart in which the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) disappeared, and ‘Mike’s Nature trick’ was used to ‘hide the [recent proxy] decline’ by pasting in thermometer temperatures. The paper found good agreement of their reconstruction with Mann et al.’s previous reconstructions:  “indistiguishable within uncertainty”.

Istvan illustrates a graph from the SI, which Hank and I discussed in our email exchanges. 


He then goes on making the same comparison Hank did with Ljungqvist’s work. 


Now, I’m never really particularly interested in the distant past other than having the well known warm and cool periods being accurately represented relative to what’s happening today.  And, that’s the objection to this paper.  They started with proxies and ended with thermometer readings.  Where, exactly, they got the thermometer readings is a question.  In the SI they mention Mann like a gazillion times and attach a curious label to his work….. “(CRU-EIV)”.  And, no, I haven’t bothered to run down exactly what that means.  Did the CRU adopt Mann’s lunacy?  IDK.  But, here’s the bombshell in what Istvan is writing about, IMHO. 

How has the MWP almost disappeared again, just in time to perhaps go missing in IPCC AR5? Science’ supplemental information says the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120. The proxy selection was deliberately weighted toward ‘low frequency’ resolution, since the entire Holocene was being assessed. Figure S18c  (below) shows there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods. …. In other words, for periods less than three hundred years, white noise in is white noise out (no matter whether the Monte Carlo sampling interval is 20 or 120 years) while for periods over 2000 years the output is about 90% ‘valid’ signal.] The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

Is that what they did?  Did they resort to the graphing equivalent of high school parlor tricks?  Let me see if I can explain this for us common lay people.  The period of time at resolution smooths out variances.  I’ll use graphs from the WFT site to illustrate.  We can pick a time period, any time period to show this.  For our purposes, we’ll pick a small time period and then expand it.  Let’s look at HadCrut3’s rendition of earth’s temps for the period 1950-1970.  I’ve circled some of the extremes shown in this monthly resolution graph…….


See all of those noisy jagged lines?  Note where they are at in relation to the scale on the left and the scale on the bottom.  I drew some lines for reference.  Let’s say we want to smooth this out from a monthly resolution to an annual resolution.  That is, we want the annual mean and not the monthly.  We’ll end up with a graph like so……..


Hey!!!  Wait!!! What happened to the scaling?!?!?!?!??!?!? 

While the timeline on the bottom remained the same, The scale on the left changed!!!  Look at the first circled part on each graph.  Notice that on the first graph the temperature anomaly was less than -0.5 C.  But, now, it’s just barely less than -0.3C.  And, the same happens with the extremes at the top!  The very top extreme was 0.2C, and now it’s 0.0C!!!  And this is how it is.  The longer the time period viewed, the less extremes we’ll see.  And this is what is wrong (among other things) with Marcott’s HS graph. 

It doesn’t matter what he spliced on the end of the graph, and as Hank demonstrated yesterday, he did splice something on there.  If it was Mann’s absurdities or HadCru’s temps it matters not one whit.  Recall what Istvan quoted from the paper’s SI itself and his comments…… 

……the average resolution of the 73 paleoclimate series is 160 years, and the median is 120. …… there is no statistically valid resolution to the combined proxy set for anything less than 300-year periods ……  The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

Whatever Marcott spliced on the end of the graph, we do absolutely know it wasn’t at a 2000 year resolution, it wasn’t even at a 300 year resolution.  Nor was it at 120 year resolution.  We know this because we hardly have 150 years of temp data altogether!  So, what does the spliced time period look like?  Let’s look to see when the “blade” of the hockey stick appears.  (the huge jump at the end of the graph).  For this purpose I believe figure S4a is the best to determine this…….


The description of the graph is describe in the SI…..

Fig. S4: Temperature reconstructions separated by method. (a) 5×5 degree weighted temperature envelope (1-σ) of the jack-knifed global temperature anomaly (30% removed light gray fill; 50% removed dark gray fill), RegEM infilled anomaly (light purple line), standard temperature anomaly (blue line) and Mann et al.’s(2) global temperature CRU-EIV composite (darkest gray).

The anomaly used, “Temperature anomaly is from the CE 1961-1990 average.”

Now, I drew a straight green line to help with the timing.  Given that their “zero” is 1950, I’d say the uptick starts at about 1900, and we should note that in this graph, the blue line does not extend past 1950.  That’s more bit of chicanery itself but for another post.  So, what does our temp anomalies say about 1900 to 1950?  Now, remember, we want to put this at the same meaningful resolution as the rest of the graph for an apples to apples comparison.  But, we can’t!!!  Sad smile  We only have 50 years to deal with.  So clearly we can’t do the 2000, 300, or even the 150 year resolution!  So, let’s go get enough years to show the 1900-1950 interval with proper smoothing…. or as proper as we can get.  Now, remember the scaling at the left……


This is temp data from 1875-1975 with 50 year smoothing.  We have an increase of about 0.25 C.  Now, scroll back up to fig S4a.  That’s not what they did.  Their increase is 0.8C.  Where did they get that?  Maybe the just got confused and spliced the entire temp record on there.


Even here we see a raise of about 0.45 C at 50 years, which isn’t close to their 0.8.  Where did they get the 0.8 C raise? 

Here’s what I think they did.  From their SI……

We chose a 20-year time step in part to facilitate comparison with 91 the high-resolution temperature reconstructions of the past millennium.

But, recall, their proxies don’t have that resolution.  Which is what you would expect from proxies dating back thousands of years.  You can’t look at a piece of sediment and say, “oh look!  It averaged 55.7 degrees F in 1050!”.  But, that’s what our mischievous friends did at the end of their graph.  I give you a 0.8C rise in temps from 1900 with a 20 year smoothing. 


Here’s what the same temps and time period looks like at even 100 year resolution…..


Yes, a whooping 0.11 C increase.  And even that is too high resolution for the graph. 

To illustrate what this would look like instead of having that silly blade, I’ll erase the blade, and draw reverence lines for the start of the blade and the end with the proper rise at only 100 year resolution (which is smaller on average than most of their proxies used.) 


Mikey?  What was that about a dagger?  Rolling on the floor laughing

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to The Dagger In The Heart? Maybe….. A Remedial Explanation Of Marcott’s HS Blade ……. Mikey? What’s That About A Dagger?

  1. philjourdan says:

    Mikey’s problem is that he does not realize that his word is not gospel to the heretics!

    • suyts says:

      Well, he’s got more problems than that! But, that’s one of them!

      • philjourdan says:

        When you think you are god, that is your biggest problem. It is like Harpooning the great white whale! Come to think of it, it is exactly like that! 😉

        • cdquarles says:

          😀 (Main hard drive is dying, if not dead, so I’m using my ‘backup’ OS and drive and hoping that I can clone/copy over the contents and recover the OS)

        • PhilJourdan says:

          Ghost – great for cloning! I would throw the old drive in an external USB case and clone it to another – you can even get a bigger one to clone to. Ghost is good.

  2. DirkH says:

    “The paper itself said, “…our temperature stack does not fully resolve variability at periods shorter than 2000 years…”

    Is that what they did? Did they resort to the graphing equivalent of high school parlor tricks? ”

    It sure looks a lot like it. And the NYT thinks this is a stake through the heart of skepticism?
    It only shows that climate scientists know nothing about signal processing. They are not only pseudoscientists and charlatans but very amateurish charlatans. And NYT journalists are not exactly Electrical Engineers, QED.

  3. HankH says:

    Good article, James. As you noted in our e-mail exchanges, I was coming at this from a different angle of looking at my matrices and seeing poor HF resolution not attributable to my method. Of course, the low temporal resolution of the proxies was evident from the get go but I don’t like to talk about anything I haven’t run statistical analysis on yet. I ran statistical analysis on my matrices and determined there was no statistically significant difference in the variance of my matrices vs. the raw proxies. That told me the proxies did not have decadal resolution. It wasn’t so much a discovery as it was a confirmation.

    Anyway, having noted the low temporal resolution of the proxies, my focus was to make some graphs and circle around to that issue later. I see Rud Istvan already has and provided a good statistical analysis that aligns well with my more intuitive observations. I don’t see how an event with decadal resolution got ferreted so accurately out of proxies that don’t have sufficient temporal resolution to say anything on a decadal scale.

    Yes, we came to the same conclusions from different angles.

    • DirkH says:

      Climate scientists seem to be totally ignorant of the frequency domain. As I come from signal processing and filtering I always ask them, climate is brown noise, and weather is chaotic, so what stops the chaotic energy from seeping into the low (climate) frequency bands, I never get an answer, they don’t know what I’m talking about….

      • HankH says:

        LOL, when I did my article on “Measuring Sticks” I was pointing out that rather common problem. When I see a 30 year graph of temperatures and it’s showing a linear trend line, I think “yes, but in the bigger picture, what is the real trend?”

        There is an almost obsession with short term trend lines in representing climate data. Much abuse comes from it. Words like “unprecedented” get inappropriately applied to the conclusion.

      • cdquarles says:

        😀 and to top all of that off, they confound biological stress responses with the final common pathways of said stress responses and claim that the result is a linear transfer function to temperature.

    • suyts says:

      “Good article, James. “ …… thanks Hank, that’s quite a complement from a stats guy!

      “Yes, we came to the same conclusions from different angles.”

      Math and stats can be very complex things. But, if applied properly, there’s a clarity about the numbers regardless of the complexity applied. Many won’t understand the distinction, I’m not a stats guy, but, I love numbers and math. It’s a different perspective. It’s pretty nice when people can have different perspectives and see the same thing. This has been a hoot!!

      Thanks again!

  4. Alfred Alexander says:

    Thank you for writing this for laymen.
    I am not up to layman yet,but I am working on it.

  5. Jason Calley says:

    Great posting, very well done! Clear, well explained and absolutely devastating.


  6. bernie says:

    Nice job guys. It will be interesting to see how the team explains this “trick”.

  7. Joe Prins says:

    Great stuff. Even I understood most of it. Tried WFT and it works!
    Need to “sticky” this, somehow.

    • suyts says:

      No can do! If I were to “sticky” a post it would be Hanks. But, I can’t do Hank’s because my first post of the day, every day, is more important. But, I do appreciate the thought! Thanks.

  8. suyts says:

    Thank you all for the kudos! Hank’s the one who nailed it and Mr.Istvan helped me see more clearly the things which were bothering me about this silly HS.

  9. Lars P. says:

    Hey, James did it again! Very nice post, great stuff!

  10. Theo Goodwin says:

    Brilliant work and easily accessible for everyone. Thanks.

  11. Peter Taylor says:

    Much appreciate this work – i thought it was another hockey stick, but it is nice to have it clearly laid out as such….how about you try a letter to Science?

    • suyts says:

      Hmm, now that’s a thought! I’d need access to the paper itself, I guess that’s not a real problem. But then I’d need someone to put it in less layman and more sciency stat terms……..

      Welcome Peter.

  12. Latitude says:

    Did they really say they verified Mann’s work??…..isn’t that like dropping a cake, and trying to put it back together…..

    …..I’ve been following the migration of the Winnebagos home…it’s the largest migration in this country

    • suyts says:

      LOL, I wouldn’t come north just yet! But in 2-3 days, it’s suppose to be 70+deg and sunshine here!!!

      Replicating failed work is simply that. I’m fascinated that they thought we wouldn’t notice. It doesn’t matter how many times it’s done. Replicating wrong is simply that.

      • Latitude says:

        This is a hot piece of detective work….I had to read it twice for it to sink in…..
        It must really suck to be them…..LOL

      • suyts says:

        Naw, it was just something I saw and then after conversing with Hank and seeing the post at Judith’s I figured out what the heck was bothering about that silly graph. I’m fairly ashamed that it took me that long to see it.

        But, you don’t expect that sort of stuff from publishing scientists, either.

        • Latitude says:

          remind me to tell you about the major university….that discovered a new coral disease
          …until we told them that fire worms eat the tips off every spring

        • suyts says:

          LMAO!!! Do you have something to link?

        • HankH says:

          LOL, I guess they weren’t looking in the spring.

        • Latitude says:

          Hank, they were only looking in the spring……spring break was their field trip…lectures, visiting scientists, the whole deal….
          They even went so far as to culture and name a bacteria that was responsible…..a really common one that’s everywhere…..published….the works
          It was a huge deal for them…..until we heard about it

          it quietly disappeared

        • HankH says:

          Holy cats! Not even identifying the bacteria as a common variety means that they did their research in a vacuum and probably had a few too many shots of tequila. When it comes to publish or perish, they did both at the same time.

      • suyts says:

        Maybe it’s spring fever for me, but, wouldn’t this deserve a revisit? And shouldn’t an old curmudgeon be forced to escort young college ladies to the beach and ocean to ensure they collect the data correctly this time?

    • miked1947 says:

      Last I heard those Winnies were on the endangered species list and they are having trouble with their breeding grounds. It will only be another couple of years of watching the migration if CAGW restrictions go full force and kill of that breed.

  13. Leon0112 says:

    An example from the financial world is to look at annual return to US stocks for 1987 and the daily returns to stocks for the same year. Quite a different story!

  14. Leon0112 says:

    Just a note from someone observing from the sidelines. It appears as if “the Team” is not very good at statistics and math. It reminds me of the line popularized by Mark Twain…”There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics!”

    • suyts says:

      You’re correct on both of your comments. Your first one being very astute. It is exactly in that manner.

      Your second comment is also astute. But values isn’t something that ilk excels at.

  15. tckev says:

    IMO a 1,500 year smoothing period would be the best. (Nice LP filter)
    Could you plot that for me?

  16. copernicus34 says:

    i think and hope we can assume those within the mann collusion camp know what is being done with this. they know that this is debunked. at some point, someone within alarmist circles will have to display some scientific integrity and call this sort of chicanery out. no matter how much it pains them to admit that some circle of climate science is being hijacked by a certain element. i kind of equate it to the islamofascists taking over the muslim faith, or at least perceiving themselves as driving jihad. its the same thing with this ugly cabal of climate warmists; they need to grab back the field and install data integrity into the system, much like moderate muslims need to save their faith. what they are doing, and its ramification if carried to its logical conclusion (ie working to change disciplines not even related to climate) is perhaps even more dangerous than we all in here realize.

    fantastic find and explanation

    • miked1947 says:

      Just like the original HS they will fight tooth and nail. After they lose the battle they will claim they won and were correct all along. Sad thing is many will believe their lies, as many still believe the Hockey stick is a valid global temperature history!
      These people can lose all the battles and still win the war. 😦

      • miked1947 says:

        I place the blame on the Luke warmers that are trying to get them to do science better when they are not even doing science. You can not fix STUPID!

    • suyts says:

      With both issues, public perception is there. Fewer and fewer adhere. In both instances, only harm comes from clinging to failed ideas.

  17. miked1947 says:

    I read a comment by a person that has been in this for many years. He was claiming there might be problems with this paper but what you wrote about was probably not one of the problems! MY reaction was WTF! But he is a Middle of the roader on this. We will have to see what brilliant results he comes up with. I will be watching.
    No matter what Lat says, I think you did a good job explaining this for others! 😉

  18. miked1947 says:

    😉 😉

  19. Glenn says:

    Good post for non-experts, thanks! Would the corollary to this demonstration be that claims of “unprecedented” contemporary warming cannot be supported, since the resolution of the proxies can’t rule out periods of similar warming in the past? I would find that to be a useful aspect to this issue.

    • suyts says:

      Glenn, thanks,and yes, that was implied and one of the logical conclusions to the information offered. If the proxies don’t have such resolution, then they don’t have such resolution. I don’t know why warmists can’t understand such a simple realization.

  20. Rud Istvan says:

    James and Hank, thank you both for extending my thoughts. I was focused more on the obvious MSM ‘fastest ever’ meme flowing from my ebook. You have extended and deepened the basic science. Thank you. The world will be a better place for your endeavors.

    • suyts says:

      Rud, I can only reflect the thanks back. As can be seen, much of my post was derived from your thoughts and observations. My thanks are due you. Hank got me started on the post a couple of days ago, and yesterday, when he posted, it occupied my mind. It wasn’t until I read yours on Dr. Curry’s that I was able to write this post.

    • HankH says:

      Rud, and thank you. I read your excellent post over at Judith’s site. It seems we were all on a fresh scent with that paper. I believe we each, in our own way, intuitively realized there were things that couldn’t be explained.

      I’ve worked with Ljungqvist’s proxy reconstructions and his datasets extensively and was able to match his results. His reconstruction went out to 2000. When I saw Mancott’s paper purporting to be based on proxies, my first impression was “no way – not unless you wrangled some proxies from another planet!”

      Anyway, thank you for your contribution as well. Together, we each add a piece to the puzzle. All my best, Hank.

    • miked1947 says:

      What you have none has brought this out for discussion on a site where this type of discussion needs to be done. Good luck with the defenders of this type of Pseudo Science!

  21. miked1947 says:

    Marcott ended at 1950 but with average resolution of 120 years they basically stopped at 1950, then they just overlaid a Mann et al paper over it to show how well they compared. It appears as if they extended their study past 1950 but what you see is Mann et al. What Marcott really shows is the globe is cooling from the Holocene Optimum. You need to throw away Mann etal as none of that portion is relevant to this study. The issue is that Marcott did not completely separate the two studies in his graph which lead others to believe his graph shows something the study does not.
    It is still a POS Pseudo Science regurgitation attempting to defend Mann. The paper that published it should be shunned by scientists that want to remain respectable, if there are any left.

    • miked1947 says:

      It seems as if Marcott actually believes the junk he wrote! It is time he learned the first lesson in digital programming. He needs to go to a blackboard and write 11.300 times “GIGO”! Maybe after that he will understand that Garbage In can only result in Garbage Out. This paper is a good example of that principle!

    • suyts says:

      Yes, it is.. … perfectly good GIGO! But the splicing, that was just malfeasance. I wish I could ascribe it to something else, but, I refuse to believe he’s that stupid.

      • miked1947 says:

        I just watched his interview with Revkin! It was delibetate. “The “Elevator trough the roof” He actually attached the model runs also. that is why the shaft is called the Super Hockey Stick and they got Skeeter’s attention with it!
        I have been reading the exchange at Judy’s!

      • philjourdan says:

        Never attribute to malice what can also be explained by stupidity.

        • DirkH says:

          As all warmists, when one shoots the CO2 arguments down, immediately fall back to Malthusian arguments, arguing that we need to cut down our standard of living anyway, I consider them stupid AS WELL as evil.

        • philjourdan says:

          Intent is the difference between evil and stupidity. Once you educate someone on their ignorance, any future adherence to the ignorance is evil.

          Many are both. However, the vast majority (the antithesis of the VRWC) are merely stupid.

        • Jason Calley says:

          I would have to modify your statement slightly to “Never attribute to malice what can also be REASONABLY explained by stupidity.”

          The problem is that plain stupidity would get errors on both the warm and the cold side. Also, plain stupidity would not refuse correction when errors were pointed out. We have a group of self-described “climate scientists” who consistently, time after time, year after year, alter and misreport even the most basic data. Additionally their “errors” seem to overwhelmingly be on the side of a heating planet and almost never on the side of a cooling trend, not even when speaking of smaller, local areas. When their mistakes are pointed out they just yell louder.

          What they have done cannot be REASONABLY described as stupidity. They are NOT stupid. They are liars and fraudsters.

  22. miked1947 says:

    This is a diversion from something more important they are trying to pass as real science. Mikey is famous for diversions! The entire Chicken Little Brigade, for that matter, that is why SS was formed.

  23. tckev says:

    The Mannian method of heart stabbing –
    “In real science we always draw our curve first, then plot our data. That way, you always know what you’re going to get. Otherwise, only Gaia knows what kind of non-scientific junk you may come up with,”

  24. miked1947 says:

    I should not go visit those sites! This one will shake out the chaff from the wheat! I wonder how long until it is withdrawn?

    • suyts says:

      It’s an interesting question. Will they keep it as long as no one “officially” protests? They can hardly pretend they don’t know this is here. I’ve too many views for them to pretend.

      • miked1947 says:

        I spent time at Judy’s site last night and plan to follow the circus at some other sites today. This is almost getting as much play as other of Mike’s tricks. Equal to or even greater play than the Steig fiasco. It even compares with BEST for quality. 😉

  25. Pingback: Confirmation of AGW - Page 3 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

  26. tallbloke says:

    Reblogged this on Tallbloke's Talkshop and commented:
    James at suyts space demolishes Marcott et al, Mike Mann and the NYT spinsters

  27. Mike Mangan says:

    You’ve accomplished nothing. Mann and their ilk operate with impunity. The media will accept their work without question. The “science journals” will, too. Politicians, bureaucrats, academia? They’re on board, too. We have a much bigger problem here than just bad science. It’s dawning on the likes of Mann, Gleick, and Lewandowsky that they can say or do anything they want and get away with it. What the hell has happened to our system that allows that?

  28. Doug Proctor says:

    The paper needs to be withdrawn and revised.

    That would be all it takes: withdrawn so the egregious error wrt the last 11,200 years of warming can be corrected.

    A Mannian-oops would result.

  29. Very easy to follow. Thanks for a great post again!

    You speak with the clarity of ten ordinary men!

  30. Nate says:

    James, I have the paper if you want a look at it.

    • suyts says:

      Nate, the offer is greatly appreciated. It has already been offered. After some consideration, I don’t think it proper.

      It’s maddening that people release garbage to the media, and the world simply accepts it as gospel without allowing us to examine it.

      If the issue continues and/or controversy ensues I’ll just buy the silly thing. It keeps things on the up and up.

      Now, you could tell me if you think there’s something in there worth getting at. 😉


      • kim2ooo says:

        It’s maddening that people release garbage to the media, and the world simply accepts it as gospel without allowing us to examine it.

        HEAR HEAR!

  31. Paul Matthews says:

    James, in fact there is not much of interest in the paper itself, it’s only 4 pages and mostly figures. The SM and the excel file are all you need to see that the paper is rubbish – look at figs S5 and S6 (what happened to that hockey stick?!) and figs S10 and S12, and the numbers in the temperature stacks in excel spreadsheet. They have NH temp going up 1.9C in 20 yrs, and SH temp going DOWN 0.6C in 20 yrs.

    • suyts says:

      Thanks Paul. I’ll save a few bucks then. Yeh, the SI is something else. It’s like they don’t even try to hide their ineptitude, anymore.

  32. Frank says:

    A PS to the post here :
    See the hockeystick in the paper: and compare it to the 120y- running Mean from BEST: .
    It’s nice, isn’t it?

  33. Tim says:

    The ‘climate scientists’ (self styled) who are driving the ‘dangerously warming world meme’ are probably not so stupid, but just hoped that everyone else was. Whatever their abilities in Maths and Statistics, they have the ear of the MSM and are still leading them by the nose.

    They have been exposed in their false doctrine so many times now, that any self respecting scientist would long since have shut up for fear of losing all respect in their disciplines and possibly losing their jobs as well. This has not happened, and there must be a good reason for it. I guess they were set up or bribed to do it, and perhaps when the scam originally started they believed in it. They now have job security and good incomes which are dependent on holding the line. Where is the money coming from is the question that needs answering.

    • Me says:

      Gravy Train!

    • DirkH says:

      Tim says:
      March 16, 2013 at 3:21 pm
      “The ‘climate scientists’ (self styled) who are driving the ‘dangerously warming world meme’ are probably not so stupid,”

      I disagree:
      Marcott co-author Shakun on their approach to the Shakun et al. (2012) study
      “It was really simple science,” he said. “We said, we’ve got 80 records from around the world, let’s just slap them together, average them into a reconstruction of global temperature.”

      • Tim says:

        Yes, I am sure you can find some who have jumped on the band-wagon for whatever reason who are stupid or acting so. But the main contenders would long ago have stopped promoting CAGW if they didn’t see money in it. The ones who are really stupid are the politicians who blindly follow the meme; as well as being very badly educated, at least in absolutely basic science. The name Obama comes to mind.

  34. Pingback: A Thanks To Hank! Remember People — You Saw It Here First! More Marcott! | suyts space

  35. Pingback: Did Romm And Mann Give The Game Away? | suyts space

  36. Pingback: Myles Allen Was Wrong Before He Was Right!!! LOL, Yeh I’d Hide That Behind A Paywall, Too!!! | suyts space

  37. I’m starting up a new internet blog directory and was wondering if I can submit your site? I’m trying to grow my directory
    gradually by hand so that it retains top quality.

    I will make sure and put your website in the proper category and I’ll also use, “The Dagger In The Heart? Maybe.. A Remedial Explanation Of Marcotts HS Blade . Mikey? Whats That About A Dagger? | suyts space” as your anchor text. Make sure you let me know if this is alright with you by mailing me. Many thanks

  38. Pingback: Met Office Only A Few Months Behind Suyts Space!!! | suyts space

  39. Pingback: LOL!!!! Sciency People At RC Still Have This Graph Up! | suyts space

  40. Pingback: 2013 in review | suyts space

  41. Bindidon says:

    Message from the future back to an ill-thought post…

    … this post is based on a classical mistake due to Paul Clark’s slight misinterpretation of what is a sampled mean.

    When you build a mean sampled over x months in WFT, the min-max delta evidently is influenced by these x months. For e.g. HadCRUT3vgl 1850-today:
    – 24 months: 1.1 dec C
    – 240: .8
    – 480: .6
    – 720: .5
    – 900: .4

    You can perfectly see this in

    The WFT mean over x months starts at ‘from time’ + x/2 and ends at ‘to time’ -x/2, thats’s obviously correct; but the temperature scale is modified too, what is not.

    Marcott’s data as presented in the 2013 paper is correct.

    • suyts says:

      Uhmm …. no. You’re an idiot. The post is about the resolution of the time/temp series. It is absolutely incorrect to splice two different data series with two different time resolutions together. There is no honest mathematician nor statistician who would believe it to be correct. Marcott’s data may be correct, the interpretation of the data is certainly incorrect. Read the post, then, come back and tell me what is wrong with the post. …… You are now approved to freely comment on this site.

    • DirkH says:

      Oh, and now I looked at your application of moving averages.

      “The WFT mean over x months starts at ‘from time’ + x/2 and ends at ‘to time’ -x/2, thats’s obviously correct; but the temperature scale is modified too, what is not.”

      WFT computes everything correctly. You seem to have problems understanding the effect of low-pass filtering ; a moving average is one of many possible low pass filters; partially removing high frequency components.

      To better understand this, you can gradually increase the length of the moving average window and watch how the processed signal changes. I’m sure there’s tons of youtube tutorials about this. It is digital filtering 101; the science is called digital signal processing. A moving average is a finite impulse response filter or FIR filter.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s