Hockey Stick Found In Marcott Data!!!!

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!!!!

image

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…….

image

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). 

image

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.  Smile 

I can’t wait for the discussion of the divergence problem with pollen….. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! 

This entry was posted in Climate. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Hockey Stick Found In Marcott Data!!!!

  1. PhilJourdan says:

    That’s not a hockey stick! That is a 9 iron! 😉

  2. copernicus34 says:

    this is a good post, and this is the thing that bothers me the most. marcott and co. know full well what they are doing by this nonsense. its a very dangerous road these ‘scientist advocates’ are going down. it appears, from my vantage point, that no amount of information that would question the assumed orthodoxy would be acceptable for them to question themselves. these scientists advocates are there own worst enemy, and actually if you think about this; they are shooting themselves and their ’cause’ in the foot by drumming up unscientific methodology to ‘prove’ something. i find it highly ironic that folks with no scientific degree (but clearly with ounces of common sense), could end up saving science.

    • suyts says:

      What really gets me is the fact that they thought they could get away with this. They keep bringing up hockey sticks and each time it’s easier and easier to debunk. It’s like these people are not only dishonest, but they’re incompetent, as well.

    • tckev says:

      I totally agree. Good science is being tainted by all this politically driven dross.

    • PhilJourdan says:

      Copernicus34 – what bothers me the most is that the paper was “peer reviewed” and yet none of the “peers” picked up on any of the fallacies.

      So much for the value of “peer review”.

  3. kim2ooo says:

    ack I can’t find my repost button

  4. suyts says:

    Off to see about spheres on a plane!!! BBL!

  5. Lars P. says:

    Eh James, I have the feeling of a deja vue!
    I have seen already this. Somebody erasing the downwards inconvenient proxy data and replacing it with different data from other sources? Where was it?

    Thanks for the series of posts! The Marcott paper is really nicely debunked, debunked, debunked.
    Great post, great series!
    Brilliant done Hank and James! And thanks for posting this too! Great to see what was in the data!

  6. DaveG says:

    Foot in mouth disease is alive and well in the water melon community. Thank God!

  7. Mariana Torres says:

    This work will HAVE TO BE WITHDRAWN!

    • DirkH says:

      Sure. But only after it made headlines the world over. That was its purpose. Marcott and Shakun have done the dirty deed and will be richly rewarded.

  8. AFPhy6 says:

    Regarding that map of pins on the globe: If you were to rebuild it on a map that better showed areas accurately, it would be even more clear that the post-1950 data is poorly distributed.

    Using as reference, the Wiki article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Map_projection … it seems to me that if you placed your pins on the “Goode homolosine” or any of the other “equal area” projections such as “Mollweide projection” would result in far better representations of this spatial data and it would be easier to see, at a glance, how such a data set ought not be used.

    • AFPhy6 says:

      addendum…
      “… should not be used” would have been better written as,
      “… should not have been considered to be representative of post-1950 global average temperatures.”

    • suyts says:

      Thanks AFP. You’re probably right, but, I was using Map point, and that’s the default. I think most reasonable people can look at the map and make the proper discernment, still. If I do find people unable to do so, I’ll change it.

      As to the verbiage, yes, it’s a bit awkward, but, I was trying to make the point about high resolution vs low. In that team Marcott pretended high resolution, they shouldn’t have been used, regardless of pre or post 1950. You don’t slap unlike things onto the same graph, or rather one shouldn’t.

  9. miked1947 says:

    It took 5 or 6 years for MBH to get shredded! Recently all that is needed is a press release for the shredding to start. This one was way to easy! I suspect they may well have known that and it was deliberate to discredit Mann. It is almost as if they were doing a Monty Python skit about the state of climate science and Paleo research specifically. 😉
    Just my opinion.
    What more could Climate Realists want. We got CG3 and Marcott in the same week! Next thing we know the MET will admit no warming for a period that destroys the CAGW meme!

    • DirkH says:

      What we are seeing is the deteriorating quality of warmist acolytes. The pioneers were Schneider,Holdren, Ehrlich and Lovelock; master manipulators if you have ever seen some.
      Then came a bunch of B-rate scientists – Hansen with his past as being wrong about the Venus atmosphere, Mann with his oceanographic background, willing to distort dendro with self-written “statistics” programs.
      Now with Marcott and Shakun we have the third generation; mass-bred followers coming probably from “climate scientist” puppy mill courses.

      What were the rewards?
      Schneider: TV career, big wig UN honcho.
      Lovelock: millions of book sales.
      Ehrlich: millions of book sales.
      Holdren: white house czar.
      Hansen: loads of awards from every liberal foundation and every aristocratic European family.
      Mann: loads of grants, donations from left wing billionaires. Free lawyers.

      Marcott, Shakun: A PhD (?). They’re throwaway towels. Hoping to break it big… but the money has already been made… tools.

      • miked1947 says:

        That’s about it! However Monty could not have written a better parody than the one they are living.

      • PhilJourdan says:

        ” “climate scientist” puppy mill courses.”???? Now that is an image that will stick with me a very long time! LOL

        • DirkH says:

          I got bombarded with ads from the uni of Barcelona where they have courses for Eurocrats, global governance and climate science. There are other such places as well, for instance one in Belgium that delivers fresh Eurocrats to Brussels. They breed these types of people; it is strategically planned. In the US, probably at NCAR in Colorado.

          Woody Allen was up to something when he filmed The Sleeper there.

    • HankH says:

      It took Steve Mac 5 – 6 years to get his hands on the data and methodologies from MBH. Then after that a few days to shred it. The journal Science published the data with the Marcott abstract this time so it took only a few days to shred it from the time it was published.

  10. slimething says:

    Now if we could only get Obama’s missing thesis…..

  11. slimething says:

    Excellent work BTW.

  12. Hi suyts
    I must be completely dumb. I didn’t follow the Marcott thing from the beginning. Would it be possible to give a small brief explanation for what you’ve laid out in this post? Sorry for being lazy

    • suyts says:

      Sure Shub. But, almost all of this is from Hank’s work. I don’t know where you want me to start, so I’ll start at the the start.

      Like you, I pretty much ignored the Marcott paper. But, Hank didn’t. Marcott’s work, of course is from proxies. The data and proxies were made publicly available by the paper’s SI. Hank dug them out and looked for the hockey stick. Hank noticed that most of the proxies didn’t extend to the current time. (Marcott put his “present” at 1950). You can read Hank’s first post on this here….. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/the-hockey-stick-resurrected-by-marcott-et-al-2012/

      It’s a nice read. The long and short of it is that there was no hockey stick in Marcott’s data. I noticed Mike Mann snarking about the “skeptics” responses to Marcott, and so I added a bit to the conversation with an explanation of what I believe that Marcott did. It also demonstrates why one can’t just splice a high resolution graph to a low resolution graph…… https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/11/the-dagger-in-the-heart-maybe-a-remedial-explanation-of-marcotts-hs-blade-mikey-whats-that-about-a-dagger/

      In the mean time, Hank decided to take a more robust approach to trying to find Marcott’s hockey stick. Hank found 24 proxies which extended at least to 1900 and ran them. It was through this exchange that we noticed the downward pointing hockey stick in the Marcott data. You can read Hank’s short post here…. https://suyts.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/more-fishing-for-hockey-sticks-in-marcott-et-al-2013/

      Which brings us to this post. I wanted to highlight what Marcott’s data actually showed. First, the downward HS which is in no way represented in the graph Marcott put out to the public. Still because of the the spatial distribution of the few remaining proxies which showed the downward HS, it isn’t proper to infer much from them. But, I also wanted to note the effects of a HS blade at the end of the proxy study. When a HS blade is added to the end of the proxy, regardless of the direction, it distorts the scaling of the graph. When one removes the blades of the hockey sticks, which is probably the best representation of the data, then the scaling becomes more proper. When this occurs, we can then more easily see the MWP and LIA represented in the data.

      Shub, I hope this adequately answers your question. Feel free to ask more if you have more.

      James

  13. EEB says:

    But…but…97% of climatologists agree…or was it 98%…OH OH and 9 out of the 10 hottest years EVER occurred…uh…recently…and…and…YOU GET ALL YOUR MONEY FROM THE KOCH BROTHERS, you…doo-doo head!

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

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

Leave a Reply to slimething Cancel reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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