As readers can imagine, Hank and I have been conversing about the Marcott paper beyond what has been shown in this blog.
As some of the more astute readers may know, Hank is a professional numbers guy. As readers would note, in his guest posts, rhetorically, he’s not very bombastic. Well, he’s not bombastic at all. He lays the numbers out, his approach, and his findings. It’s all rather dispassionate. This is his unbiased approach. He constrains himself to the ethos and ethics of his profession and personal conduct.
I would assert that if our climate scientists would conduct themselves in this manner, I’d have very few climate issues to write about. But, they don’t. The lie, obfuscate, distort, and otherwise play the role of an advocate instead of operating in a manner the public expects from our scientists and mathematicians engaged in the climate issues.
So why am I telling you all this? Hank and I had a little back and forth about the proxy graphing. There was some things to show, or rather highlight, but, Hank didn’t really think it proper to do so. His professionalism and approach didn’t really allow for it. I was going to write something a bit more bombastic, but, I couldn’t really, because my criticism is on what Marcott didn’t show and didn’t insist on letting people know what they really did. In other words, their attempt at deception. So, I can’t in good conscience show only what I want shown while criticizing Marcott and that group of idiots.
Here’s the graph I wanted shown. This is from Hank’s work……
Hockey Stick Found!!!!
There is a hockey stick in their data!!! It just goes the other way! This is post 1950. So what did Marcott et al do? They erased this data and the splice some stupidity in it’s place. In the graph above, I on top of circling in red the real hockey stick, I also drew some green lines. This has been touched on the in comments of Hanks last post, but I’d like to reinforce this. Now, this is interesting all by itself.
You see, here’s Hank’s graph without the hockey stick…….
This is the same graph of the same data, but the hockey stick left off. And this is the reason why it is pronounced now. Team Marcott had to include a hockey stick or it would have been just another confirmation of what we all already know. The hockey stick radically affects the scaling. Add a few thousand years to the axis and presto! No discernable MWP or LIA on the graph!
Marcotts data actually confirms the LIA and MWP.
A note, one of the 9 proxies that continued beyond 1950 was actually two very separate sites. It’s reflected in the name……. Agassiz & Renland. For a possible explanation of the dramatic downward hockey stick, here is map color coded for the 24 proxy sites which had data up to 1900 (the criteria for Hank’s work).
The blue pins are the ones with data after 1950. The green are all the other sites. (Note, because of the scope, some of the pins are not discernable.) Now, we can all remember Hank’s admonishment as to not reading too much into the hockey stick because of the huge drop off of the proxies. But, it’s interesting to note the extremes the blue pins are located at. Recall the temps were all converted to anomalies.
Of the 9 (10) proxies which had data going beyond 1950 3 were from Chironomid transfer function, 4 were from Pollen MAT. The double proxy, Agassiz & Renland, was from Ice Core d18O, borehole temp, and one was UK’37.
An interesting note: For purposes of detecting high resolution temp changes, as team Marcott pretended to do, Chironomid and pollen shouldn’t have been used in the study.
Long-distance transport of pollen into high alpine lakes makes temperature inferences from pollen transfer functions unreliable. Due to the uncertainties of the methods, predictive errors of the transfer functions, and variability caused by local catchment/lake characteristics, only long-term trends in climate can be inferred. High-resolution studies using diatoms, chironomids, and pollen for climate reconstruction are probably not meaningful during periods with small changes in climate (,18C). Future research should concentrate on low-resolution, multiproxy, and multilake studies to further understand the relationship between the proxies and climate.
So, Hank’s right, we shouldn’t read much into the sharp downward hockey stick. On the other hand, wouldn’t it had been marvelous if team Marcott was actually honest about their findings? Because they didn’t like what they saw, they simply erased the material they didn’t like and replaced it with high resolution crap that didn’t belong on the low-resolution proxy graph.
Here’s the list of names of the people who get a gazillion Pinocchios for their efforts for the team…… Shaun A.Marcott,* Jeremy D. Shakun, Peter U. Clark, Alan C. Mix
For people who may think I’m over the top by calling the stooges of team Marcott dishonest, I lose all sense of propriety when people lie to me and the public. And this is exactly what these knotheads did. Here, we call a spade a spade.
Personally, I’m glad this group of pinheads decided to do this. Every time someone wants to blather about the LIA and MWP being regional, I’m just going to reference the data compiled by Marcott.
I can’t wait for the discussion of the divergence problem with pollen….. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!