Saturday
Mar162013
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill OMG
Mar 16, 2013 Climate: MWP Climate: McIntyre McIntyre's latest post on the Marcott hockey stick is simply astonishing.
Mar 16, 2013 Climate: MWP Climate: McIntyre 
Buy
Books
Click images for more details
Currently discussing
-
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
The Benefits of Using Tutorbin for Custom Writing Services -
Apr 18 - chricton123
on
Is Junk Science becoming endemic?
Links
A few sites I've stumbled across recently....
-
Science blogs
-
Political blogs
-
Other blogs
Subscribe
Copyright © 2006-2013, Bishop Hill All rights reserved.
Reader Comments (157)
Paul Matthews wrote: "Indeed it is astonishing. But most people won't understand what is going on because of his ironic style."
You are being too felicitous towards those of us whose understanding of climate science and paleontology is limited. :>} On the contrary, McIntyre's ironic style adds context to my limited understanding of the science involved. If he can make fun of it that way, it suggests he's confident that it's not a serious paper. He's rarely proven wrong on anything. The errors he's uncovered are obviously egregious.
I've tried to repost your comment to Science on Revkin's blog at the NYT. We shall see if they publish it. Very well stated.
re: Bruce Alberts of Science and "tightening scientific belts"
maybe his focus should be upon "tightening scientific standards"
In light of what dubious work can get published in his magazine, he should worry more about raising standards....
and we seem to be talking about a Science pal reviewed paper that has a scythe up or down depending on how the author seantists add a last few fictitious numbers on one of their many proxies
your interest in holocene patterns , and deflect the attention from this fraud, is of no concern to anyone
Mar 16, 2013 at 8:39 PM | Skiphil
"Climate Science ... when homeopathy is not the cure."
Climate Science ... demonstrating that the power of statistical reasoning is unbounded by reality.
Climate Science ... where proxies for temperature fire the imagination like oil paint on canvas.
Argh! Looking back at the lesswrong article I cited in my other post, I find it *does* refer to "fraud". Twice, in fact: "blends over into scientific fraud" and "the moral equivalent of deliberate scientific fraud". I don't know how I managed to mess up the text search before, sorry. Note, though, that Yudkowsky is comfortable calling Gould a scoundrel directly, while when Y tries to relate (what he knew at the time) about what G did to scientific fraud, he uses "blends over into" or "moral equivalent of" qualifiers. I claim that's not him going soft on G, but just trying to relate the usual narrower connotation of "scientific fraud" to what G was known to have done.
I fear that we beginning to need a Statesman, one with intelligence, independence, foresight and fortitude, a true "Churchillian" type.
Where you find such an animal I have no idea, especially given that the capability of the last two bunches have plumbed depths previously unforeseen I think we are better backing an outsider in the Grand National!
Never before in the field of human conflict have so many succumbed to having hands up their clouts!
Inevitably we will realise that we are being violated, that we have accepted the nice warm comforting hand on the thigh without any considerations to possible ulterior motives. Whilst sadly the charms have been accepted as Fait accompli by the naive, hopefully those who are aware will break a few wrists!
Well I watched that Revkin Shakun interview interview in more detail and I find it interesting because I think any layman can see the subjectivity in the guy, and would be wary of what he is trying to sell.
Revkin seems to be trying to gently introduce questions of the resolution - prompted by Robert Rhode of the BEST - who Revkin says: "Was worried about the time scale issue" (2:40), Revkin clearly honeys these more probing questions by passing warm words from Mann who believes Shakun has no problems and should have confidence in his work. So immediately we know Mann forgives and backs this, and Rhode raises questions.
I found some of what was said so striking in the interview I had to transcribe it for my own satisfaction and thought it would be worth putting here...
They then talk about the coming anthropocene with Shakun saying again the future will be at an elevated temperature for a period because of humans.
The clear and astonishing thing it seems to me is, is that Shakun, by his own words, admits his paper can't be showing anything about the coming anthropocene, by his own definitions?!
Shakun admits that what we see so far could be the same as any "blip" hidden in the last 12,000 years. He obviously has mapped out in his head a future that has temperature rising, and I think you can almost see the beginnings of the delusion that he has shown this somehow, but his paper doesn't even model the future.
Taking this together with Marcott admitting to Steve McIntyre that his 20th century is "not robust" I find myself scratching my as to how any sentient being could say this paper *informs* us about anything regarding the high resolution 20th century compared to the low resolution 10,000 years before.
I know this is just my layman incredulity, but I have to say this seems an easy case to make as really bad and sloppy science. I can't imagine what extra information could inform a more expert person as to the veracity of the claims in this paper.
Scientific fraud is illegal, right?
Right?
And a huge WELL DONE to Steve McIntyre. Mate, you so deserve world recognition.
Thanks, TLITB
I watched that Shakun video, too. I found him strangely vague, not in the sense of having limitations to the data and study which mean you can't answer every question, but vague in that he did not display a strong grasp of the resolution issues in the study's own terms. He kept referring to the future and his expecations of 21st century warming rather than show that he had rigorously analyzed the kinds of issues that Rohde raises. Of course, now that it is all falling apart he will have a lot more to worry about than the pre-20th century resolution issues!
TLITB: That "50 year blip' thing annoyed me. How does he know there wasn't a fifty year blip of temperature spikes every five years on average during the Holocene?
He doesn't. Nor does he know what will happen in the 21st century with temperature readings. He mentions a 4 degree rise like it's written in stone. Based on focking what? If Revkin had been observant and, shall we say, suitably skeptical, he would have asked him about the flatlining of temperatures in the past 15 years which has destroyed the credibility of the computer models.
And don't get me started on the proclamation that we are now entering the "Anthropocene."
To be fair to Shakun, he's a victim of indoctrination. That his professors could have allowed this thing to be published in the condition it's in is inexcusable. The real villains in this debacle are Peter Clark and Alan Mix. You may have noticed that Revkin emailed Marcott and got a response from Clark. The paper is in big trouble and similar to the behavior that resulted in the exposing the fatal problems in the Gergis paper when Karoly assumed leadership as the public voice, the elder author on the paper is now assuming command to try and limit the damage.
Will Marcott et al suffer the same fate as Gergis et al? I think that's the only question now, although certainly Steve and company need to finish their analysis to see how truly bad it is.
McIntyre's "Marcott style" reconstructions show each implausible results well before the instrumental record.
Alkenone proxies
A Dalton minimum with temperatures equaling the Medieval Warm Period ?
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/alkenone-comparison1.png?w=600&h=480
Northern hemisphere
An extreme Northern hemisphere minimum in 1900 ?
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/moberg-vs-marcott.png?w=720&h=480
Southern hemisphere
A unprecedented southern hemispheric warming taking off in 1750 ?
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/mj03-vs-marcott_sh.png?w=720&h=480
There appear to be huge issues with the proxies and / or their dating.
Additionally, here, variability of past temperatures is not only strongly reduced by proxy resolution (as mentioned by Marcott and Mann), but also by proxy quality and dating issues (as NOT mentioned by Marcott and Mann). If dates do not correspond among the proxy set and if some of the proxies do not represent temperature partly or at all and if, according to McIntyre, proxies were used despite known issues, maxima and minima will get dispersed and the scale of variation in the past becomes meaningless.
Mar 17, 2013 at 1:14 AM | not banned yet
What is your point?
McIntyre's "Marcott style" reconstructions show each implausible results well before the instrumental record.
Alkenone proxies
A Dalton minimum with temperatures equaling the Medieval Warm Period ?
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/alkenone-comparison1.png?w=600&h=480
Northern hemisphere
An extreme Northern hemisphere minimum in 1900 ?
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/moberg-vs-marcott.png?w=720&h=480
Southern hemisphere
A unprecedented southern hemispheric warming taking off in 1750 ?
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/mj03-vs-marcott_sh.png?w=720&h=480
There appear to be huge issues with the proxies and / or their dating.
Additionally, here, variability of past temperatures is not only strongly reduced by proxy resolution (as mentioned by Marcott and Mann @ Revkin), but also by proxy quality and dating issues (as NOT mentioned by Marcott and Mann). If dates do not correspond among the proxy set and if some of the proxies do not represent temperature partly or at all and if, according to McIntyre, proxies were used despite known issues, maxima and minima will get dispersed and the scale of variation in the past becomes meaningless.
Adding to the news media collection of the Leopard upthread, and also in response to Mr. Entropic claiming that only BH denizens could see anything new or different being claimed by the imploding Marcott et al. (2013) study, here are some more links. First, in news media (mostly US and Canada), and then the official PR circular from Oregon State. Note that claims are being made for (1) most rapid temp. increases in Holocene, (2) record-breaking or near record temps., and (3) dramatic extension and confirmation of Mann's "hockey stick." So it may not be sound science, but the public is being inundated with claims of something new, dramatic, important, and frightening arising from this study.
The Associated Press (AP) article by Borenstein has been replicated in many local and regional publications, since the AP is a wire service like Reuters.
Also interesting to note that, ala Gergis, the lead author and officially listed media contact of the study seems now to have been displaced for damage control by the senior author (in the former case David Karoly, and now Peter Clark). Clark took over contact with the New York Times/Dot Earth's Andy Revkin, and did not answer questions but rather promised an upcoming FAQ.
Here is some of the media stir created by this study:
I picture Steve McIntyre as an Arnie type figure as: "The Auditor". I'm sure Josh could do something with it.
TLITB & theduke
Precisely.
Stratigraphy is governed by the International Commission on Stratigraphy
The International Commission on Stratigraphy obtains its authority by being authoritative. That is, for about 1 1/2 centuries some very clever people have spent a lot of time and effort into devising and refining an internationally recognised system. Stratigraphy is a very complex specialist area.
I wish I could state that I find it extraordinary that Shakun and Revkin either don't know or don't care about stratigraphic convention. Unfortunately, riding roughshod over internationally agreed standards and methodology is typical of the hubris of these people.
Sigh.
Per Andrew's tweet referencing the NASA "Arsenic Life" controversy, another much hyped and splashy paper in "Science" mag. that went down in flames, it will be worth comparing the two episodes as this one unfolds further. In Dec. 2010 "Science" published a paper in microbiology which claimed to discover a new form of life not based upon phosphate but upon arsenic fueling DNA. In that case the authors were making a grand but (it turned out) unfounded claim that seemed unlikely (or at least requiring a very high bar of evidence) to many in the field, so it did not take long for debunking to be widely accepted by microbiologists and then science media.
In the current case we have a grandiose paper that serves the expectations, preferences, and hopes of many in the field, so it may be more difficult to get the critique heard or widely accepted. Just look at how prolonged the process of dealing with seriously flawed papers by Mann and friends has been.
Hype and controversy over "Arsenic Life" paper
"This Paper Should Not Have Been Published"
Scientists see fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life.
By Carl Zimmer | Posted Tuesday, Dec. 7, 2010
My mamma always said fraud is as fraud does. Lets review the facts, as outlined by Steve.
Marcott's thesis paper produced a reverse hockey stick.
Marcott et al produces a hockey stick, although both papers share many of the same data sets.
The data provided with Marcott et al does not produce a hockey stick.
A reduction in samples due to a series of dropouts at the end of the series can produce hockey sticks.
Does it even seem remotely possible that Marcott et al, a.) Didin't stumble on to his mistake in thr Marcott thesis, b.) Mistakenly submitted a data set that doesn't produce a hockey stick and c.) Didn't alter the dates of selective series to produce a desired result?
Not robust indeed! This is what happens when bad behavior like Mann's goes unpunished.
Science magazine reasserts its status as supermarket tabloid of science.
The Rapid Response Team will have put out a call for all Gleickian types to urgently come forward. More lies, more deceit, it's the only way to save the children, don't ya know.
Mar 16, 2013 at 10:00 PM | TinyCO2
I wish I could be as optimistic about the exercise of standards and common sense on the part of the IPCC as you are, TinyCO2.
However, in no small measure thanks to the machinations of WG1 Co-Chair Thomas Stocker, during the process of "responding" to the recommendations of the InterAcademy Council (IAC)'s 2010 "Review of the procedures and processes of the IPCC", they've got this covered ( i.e. specifically excluded).
When the IPCC in its Stocker-guided wisdom decided to "disappear" a longstanding (but rarely practiced) "rule" to the effect that any cited gray/grey literature was to be clearly flagged as such in the references (because such flagging was deemed to be "impractical"), they introduced a brand new rule:
Needless to say the new, improved rules are deafeningly silent regarding whether or not
propagandamaterial produced by advocacy groups such as WWF, Greenpeace, FOTE etc. are "acceptable sources of material for IPCC reports".For more gory details pls see: IPCC and non-peer-reviewed sources: Task group says, ‘let’s disappear the rule’
I am quite sure, like many readers on this blog doubtless noted - on my initial cursory viewing of Marcotts effort, the immediate thought was "it's a crock".
Another able defenestration, by noted forensic statistician Mr. McIntyre has demonstrated what everyone expected, that Marcotts' chowder of numbers - is a crock.
In the UK, the Fraud Act 2006 states (my bold):
Did they know their paper was untrue or misleading or is it just more of the incompetence which always shows a hokey stick?
Mar 17, 2013 at 7:34 AM | Phillip Bratby
They couldn't possibly be this incompetent surely? I reckon it's fraud.
McIntyre's plots speak for themselves, this reconstruction is even for hockey stick science outstandingly poor if not worse.
Alkenone "Reconstruction"
The main source of proxies. Marcott style they do not only reverse the down tick but show a Dalton minimum at around the same temperature as the Medieval Warm Period.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/alkenone-comparison1.png?w=600&h=480
Northern hemisphere reconstruction:
A weired downturn with a little ice age minimum around 1900. How did that cold spell get unnoticed in instrumental records ?
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/moberg-vs-marcott.png?w=720&h=480
Southern hemisphere reconstruction
And an unprecedented warming starting ... in 1750.
http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/mj03-vs-marcott_sh.png?w=720&h=480
Pre Little Ice Age temperature range is absurdly reduced. This is in part acknowledged by the authors due to very low frequency resolution.
However, the temperature range gets additionally reduced, because proxies are not tested/calibrated and massive dating issues. This inconsistencies will inevitably disperse maxima and minima and bias towards a straight horizontal line with almost no information content.
But a straight line is still an ideal starting point for anyone to craft an instrumental uptick at one end.
Worst study for a long time. But redating by hundreds of years and even more than a thousand years with massive influence on results requires more action than just a retraction IMHO.
My twopenneth on the fraud question.
I think all this discussion of fraud misses a lot – a lot worse actually – that a pathological culture is actually the normality in climate science. I’d say think of the NASA shuttle disasters as a reference examples. Did anyone want to kill astronauts? No, but the culture at NASA did that twice with many ways that it could have been avoided.
Here it is worse because we don’t see big explosions on our screens. Human intervention has the opportunity to mould the perception any way it wants. Imagine if the bosses at NASA had that power?
For instance, in climate, the disasters can be talked away and actually blamed on the critics who warned of them! They even get to label them as “deniers”. ;)
Having the power to talk away and use the system only encourages a system that avoids self-assessment and paradigm shift, and hardens the arteries of certainty.
Nobody designed this system. It just arose from historical and political pressure that still awaits a decent social observer to document many years from now.
Here we have a system where the lead author, Marcott clearly has no stake in the up-tick part, going as far to admit it is not robust when questioned, however the bulk of his doctoral thesis is needed for the past 10000 years. Shakun (and others?) come along and have a different take on what the science means so provide the extra oomph! Or PR BOOM! at the end.
These are the guys you are going to see Revkin talk to not Marcott. I think I am right here, but I now realise that Revkin doesn’t mention Marcott once in his interview with Shakun!
To paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke I think we see this:
Any sufficient mediocrity, arising in a sufficiently pathological system, can be indistinguishable from fraud
;)
Hilary Ostrov: What you write is true and relevant. But I'm not convinced it tells us what the IPCC will do. If they ignore Marcott et al I will be delighted. If they include it, at the last minute, based on the rule changes you describe, even better. This is so bad it looks like the ultimate poison pill.
Paul Matthews: Bravo on your excellent comment to Science. But I agree with theduke. We don't need Steve McIntyre to use rude words. He's making quite clear how bad this is. As the Bish says, simply astonishing.
This is a test case, rather like in an earlier period the appearance of Conquest's Great Terror was, or the invasion of Hungary or Czechoslovakia. You could tell immediately the party line hacks from the sincere guys with some intellectual integrity by how they reacted. Not necessarily that they abandoned socialism or marxism, but they took the facts and evidence on their merits and adjusted their views accordingly. The hacks resorted to obfuscation and personal attacks.
Listen to Hobsbawm's interviews again. You'll see the sam thing at work.
They claim that it's as warm today as it ever has been during Holocene?
During Optimum Holocene 8000-5300 years ago Norway had no glaciers and Forrest on Hardangervidda, large flat area 1300-1400 meters above sea. Today we have lots of glaciers and Forrest's up to about 1000 meters.
I am going to believe them when the glaciers are gone and there is Forrest again on Hardangervidda
The two graphs below show how Marcott changed a slope of about 0.1 degree C increase in temperature in the century from 1850-1950 to about 0.9 C by redating the proxies.
Regression of temperature anomaly vs published age:
http://tinypic.com/r/29gflw4/6
vs. Marcott age:
http://tinypic.com/r/2r3lg5f/6
The Excel file containing all 73 proxies (9480 measured values) from which the graphs were made is on Dropbox.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/75831381/Marcott%20temps%20including%20METADATA.xlsx
Maybe when their hockey sticks straighten out they will learn how to play cricket.
(Paul Matthews - thanks for your explanation. I had no idea what this was all about until I read your post).
Re: Phillip Bratby
> Did they know their paper was untrue or misleading or is it just more of the incompetence which always shows a hokey stick?
In September 2011 they submitted a paper to Nature which was accepted in February 2012 and published in April 2012.
In July 2012 they submitted a paper to Science which was published in January 2013.
Both papers share many of the same proxy reconstructions. Both papers re-calibrated the dates using CALIB 6.0.1 with IntCalib09 calibration.
Some of the dates, using the same data and calibration, differ by as much as a 1000 years.
TerryS: Precisely!
The "Science" paper abstract trumpets the headline: "Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time."
Are we saying that, regardless of whether the data have been deliberately (or even fraudulently) "adjusted", the methodology employed could not possibly arrive at that conclusion?
While people are free to design graphs that reflect their vision of the world, and to meet a particular 'market demand' by such as the IPCC, it is not easy to tie them to real data. A resolute statistician such as Steve McIntyre can quickly find problems with the linkage and the logic. Three cheers for him! But his work could be made redundant.
In this age of post-normal deconstructivist relativity (or whatever it is currently called), why don't climateering graphologists just publish their works as artistic contributions, to help share their vivid insights with the rest of us?
Trendy mags such as Nature or Science or The Lancet could produce colour-supplements with such work. There! All that tiresome statistical stuff disposed of at a stroke.
Everyone could take part in appreciating this creative merging of science and art. Imagine the chatter as fashions came and went, as chiaroscuro displaced the red line on a mellow background to convey those exhilarating rises that are such an essential and engaging part of the genre.
I'm not really interested in microanalysing the data handling of the paper. If his data analysis technique has improved since he wrote his thesis, that's what experience is for.
I'm more interested in the temperature pattern of the Holocene. The graph shows a pattern to be expected of an interstadial at this stage, except for the upward twitch at the present end.
Do you regard the shape of the temperature graph as wrong?
If so, what shape should it be?
On what evidence?
Mar 16, 2013 at 11:33 PM | Entropic man
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Each of the 73 proxies used produces a different temperature profile for the period which they cover.
Since they are all different, it follows that they cannot all be right. Indeed, at the very minimum 72 of the 73 proxies must be producing an incorrect temperature profile.
The task is to identify which if any of them properly reflects the temperature profile of the Holocene. Can you tell me which of the 73 proxies is correct?
The author should have gone through each and every one of the proxies on an individual basis and explain why each is producing a different temperature profile and which proxy he considers to be most properly reflecting the true temperature profile and why he holds that view. The job is to weed out every unreliable proxy, and to use the unreliable proxies merely as an indicator of possible error margins in the study.
The problem is that the average of 'crap' is 'crap'. You cannot get good data from poor data, no matter how many times you average the poor data. Say for example, I have a hundred unsuccessful lottery tickets and I average the numbers out, would my average be the winning lottery numbers? If I took a thousand unsuccessful lottery tickets and averaged those numbers out, would I get the winning lottery numbers? The answer in both cases is obviously not, well at any rate, the odds of my averaging being successful is no better than simply picking 6 numbers at random..
Further to my last post, to emphasise the point I make, I have slightly simplified matters when suggesting that at least 72 of the 73 proxies used must be wrong.
I am aware that they cover different periods and are taken from different locations etc. However, I consider the thrust of my point to be valid: to the extent that any proxy covers a similar period to another proxy and these proxies show different temperature profiles, an explanation is called for. That explanation might be that they relate to different latitudes etc, but nonetheless an explanation is required. Some proxies might produce temperature profiles that they are so extraordinary that they ought to be regarded as being not potentially sound, ie., to be viewed as an outlier (but of course, a valid explanation as to why such a conclusion is drawn, needs to be set out).
They claim that it's as warm today as it ever has been during Holocene?
During Optimum Holocene 8000-5300 years ago Norway had no glaciers and Forrest on Hardangervidda, large flat area 1300-1400 meters above sea. Today we have lots of glaciers and Forrest's up to about 1000 meters.
I am going to believe them when the glaciers are gone and there is Forrest again on Hardangervidda
Mar 17, 2013 at 8:50 AM | Jon
////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
I hate proxies, they need to be viewed with extreme caution since they have huge uncertainties. One major problem being tuning.
One of the best tests for a proxy is to judge it against historical data. If it does not reflect what we know to be true from historical data, one immediately knows that there is a problem with the proxy. For example, we know that during the Viking warm period, Greenland must have been many degrees warmer than today; Iking settlements are being revealed as the glacier retreats, the Vikings could not have successfully farmed (with their equipment and knowledge) unless the temperatures were many degrees warmer than today. We know that in Roman times, wines were being grown in the boarder region between England and Scotland. That cannot be done today. again, we know that temperatures in the northern UK must have been a couple or more degrees warmer than today. Any proxies that cover this region/latitude should reflect what we know from historical records of temperatures and if the proxy does not, then there is a problem.
Accordingly, I fully agree with Jon. What we know about Norway at those latitudes should be reflected in the relevant proxies, and if not, there is a problem with the proxy(ies).
Incidentally, the Hardangervidda scenery is stunning. I can thoroughly recommend a trip there (and to the Fjord country on the western coast). Simply breath taking.
I wonder whether Marcott is even a willing passenger on this roller-coaster. I wonder whether somebody senior to him in the uni has come along with a promise to beef up his paper and get it into AR5 by using methods which are, shall we say, open to debate. The senior doesn't care what happens to the paper afterwards if it gets in. Marcott will be facing the flak alone. Duplicitous, or just dupe?
michael hart
Oh dear, McIntyre was cherrypicking.
I have just read Marcott's thesis. The graph in the thesis which McIntyre displays, Fig. 4.2a is one of a group and does not go to the present. Hence the lack of an uptick. The other three graphs in the figure, b,c, and d, all go to the present and all show the uptick.
Similarly Fig. 4.3a cuts off early and has no uptick, while e and f continue to the present and show the uptick.
This is why I prefer to make my own decisions rather than being told what to think. Read chapter 4 of the thesis for yourself, rather than relying on an appeal to an inaccurate authority.
skiphil
Mann thinks its important; you think its important. I still think there's nothing new here. Any paleoclimate or paleobotany regular would have sketched a graph of similar form any time over the past 40 years.
What Marcott et al have done is to reduce the 95% confidence limits bounding the uncertainty. That may be what Mann is getting excited about. For the first time, he can say, with high confidence, that global temperatures are moving into territory not seen before in the Holocene.
Entropic Man,
Precisely. It has been added subsequent to the Marcott thesis by the dubious redating described by McIntyre in his latest post. http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
(I also note that the thesis arrogantly described what was going to be submitted to Science or Nature and then submitted something changed in a questionable manner.)
It is a shame you persist in wilfully ignoring evidence presented by McIntyre, evidence accompanied by high quality technical insights from himself and other commentators. You appear to be attempting a quite transparent effort to belittle the man and hence his arguments.
If you wanted to learn, you really could learn a lot by reading at McIntyre's website. I find your behaviour and attitude to learning unbecoming in an ex-science teacher (as you claim to be).
richard verney
I've been on the Hardanger plateau. Beautiful country. Your description of a warmer Norway is not inconsistent with Marcott et al.
Look at Figure 2 here
http://www.uio.no/studier/emner/matnat/geofag/GEG2130/h10/undervisningsmateriale/lateglacialHoloceneGlFluctNesje93.pdf
You will notice the lack of Norwegian glaciers at the peak of the Holocene 5000-8000 years ago; along with a temperature pattern within the 95% confidence limits Marcott et al.
As we approach that peak again, the Norwegian glaciers are retreating.
http://www.glims.org/glacierdata/data/lit_ref_files/andreassen2008.pdf
EM
Some of us are highly trained palaeoclimatologists. Some of us highly trained palaeoclimatologists were actually highly trained at UEA by the supreme palaeoclimatologist, Geoffrey Boulton.
Some of us highly trained UEA palaeoclimatologists think you are spouting bullshit
michael hart
I learn a lot from sites like Mcintyre's.
The papers he attacks most fervently are usually the most informative.
Hector Pascal
Is that Geoffrey Stewart Boulton OBE, FRS, FRSE, British geoscientist, and Regius Professor Emeritus of the University of Edinburgh?
He was a member of the Independent Climate Change Email Review Commission that cleared CRU and Professor Jones after Climategate.
Precisely the same insider with his hand in the till.
Geoffrey cut a fine figure in his his lectures. They were excellent: he was well prepared and fully up to date. He was informative and entertaining. A great lecturer, and I benefitted a lot from that.
He was also a black country boy dressed in tweeds, a cravat and a fake Oxbridge accent. Geoffrey was a great faker, and went on to demonstrate that faking it will always convince the gullible.
Geoffrey was my inspiration. He was the man who taught me that to build a career, faking will always substitute for substance.
Hector Pascal
What would he say if he knew you'd taken up with this lot?
Entropic Man, Mar 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM:
"Oh dear, McIntyre was cherrypicking.
I have just read Marcott's thesis. The graph in the thesis which McIntyre displays, Fig. 4.2a is one of a group and does not go to the present. Hence the lack of an uptick. The other three graphs in the figure, b,c, and d, all go to the present and all show the uptick.
Similarly Fig. 4.3a cuts off early and has no uptick, while e and f continue to the present and show the uptick."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Are you quite sure about that? It's pretty clear that McIntyre is showing figure 4.3a, NOT 4.2a. It's not that hard to work out - the giveaway is that 4.3a is identical to the one McIntyre shows and 4.2a looks completely different (you know... different coloured lines, different labeling, and so on).
Meanwhile, the thesis explains "e-h, Same as a-d but extended through the last 11,300 years". In other words, 4.3e is the same as 4.3a except that, instead of going back about 2000 years, it goes back 11,300 years. Nothing about continuing any further into the future, or continuing to the present. It's just that the time series is compressed.
Richard Verney 1132
That is exactly what l have always thought, and l call it "commom sense", something which seems to elude psyentists.