Source is Hank’s fun flipped.
Does It Matter If Marcott Spliced Or Not?
After a few posts on Marcott, I’ve been content to let others dig deeper into this…. this…. I’ve no words for it, other than it’s a complete debacle for alleged science, and a validation of skeptics in more ways than I can count.
I didn’t make too much of these things when I saw them, and I’m not sure what to make of them now …… other than either way you slice it, it’s hysterical.
Let’s back up for a minute. The other day, I wrote my dagger post, which attempted to explain how graphics can easily be manipulated, and that Marcott had done just that. The post was meant to discuss the resolution and frequency issues. I was also convinced that they spliced something on to the end of the their proxy graph. But, that was before it was revealed that they’ve engaged in time travel, move proxy dates up and down the time line.
In a very quick graphing, I posted this, yesterday……
All I did was sort the temp values from low to high, which, of course, moves the things up and down the time line. I kept the dates with the values to illustrate this.
I did this too show that splicing isn’t necessary when time and resolution mean nothing.
Dirk at WUWT makes this point…….
It looks like Marcott and Shakun tried to re-date proxies until the resulting curve resembles Mann’s reconstruction (and M&S forgot or didn’t care that since 1850 Mann’s is CRUTEM).
MAYBE M&S have even optimized their proxy re-dating algorithmically to minimize the difference to Mann. And so they have ended up with their bizarre proxy-re-dating (and proxy culling before 0 BP == 1950 AD).
In other words, maybe they fiddled with their proxy data until they matched Mann’s hockey stick.
But, this comment was in a thread which discussed a comment from Steve Mac’s Climate Audit from Jean S……
Hah! There is some additional fun in Marcott’s main plot (Figure 1A). Mann’s hockey stick there is the global EIV-CRU from Mann et al. (2008), which means that there is no actual reconstruction post 1850, since it’s the Reg-EM produced EIV reconstruction! So they have now essentially “grafted the thermometer record onto” Mann’s reconstruction. To his credit, Mann has always been careful to plot the post 1850 part in EIV reconstructions in a different color. He is actually explicitly warning in his data description spreadsheet that the values for 1850-2006 are instrumental data.
So in Marcott et al Fig 1A we have a comparision in the interval 1850-1950 between their reconstruction (uptick) and Crutem3 (LAND only) (annual?) intrumental record (no uptick). But that’s not all, folks! See the associated uncertainties … Mann et al (2008) uncertainties (which seem to match in the plot to those given in the spreadsheet, i.e., 2 sigma, whereas Marcott et al uncertainties are 1 sigma) are naturally calculated only up to 1849 (as there is no actual reconstruction afterwards), but in the Figure 1A they continue all the way to the end. Where did those 1850-2006 uncertainties come from?
Jean even provides a close up of one of the graphs I put in my post…..
Now, this is all very entertaining. Did they splice? It doesn’t matter because if they didn’t splice the thermometer record on it, as Dirk states, they could simply manipulate their own proxy data to be just like the thermometer record used by Mann.
So, it’s a difference without a distinction. They either spliced or they manipulated until the graph was exactly like the instrumental record.
Which brings me to this curious exchange. The day before Jean saw these interesting details, Anthony had this post up.
Anthony was having a bit of fun with Joe Romm……
The events are described by Anthony…..
I got his back almost immediately from Romm at 6:45AM PST:
Now you are denying the instrumental record, too?
This made me laugh, because neither Romm’s graph, nor Marcott’s, has the instrumental record in it, only Marcott’s reconstructed temperature and Romm’s red line “projected” add on. Plus, as McIntyre points out, Marcott et al did NOT splice on the instrumental record:
Even more curious is that Mike Mann entered the discussion…….
Now, this sent Anthony in a different direction. We all know Anthony doesn’t deny the instrumental record. He puts a lot more stock in it than I do. So, he conversed with Romm in protest of the characterization that he would deny the instrumental record.
Mann did post this shortly after the exchange between Romm and Anthony……
Remember, it is a distinction without a difference as to whether or not actual data was spliced or the data was manipulated to replicate the instrumental record.
How is it that Romm and perhaps Mann (we don’t know exactly what Romm relayed to Mann), immediately believed that the instrumental record is part of the the Marcott hockey stick? Read the middle tweet by Mann.