@gcnp58 .."Got that? They *compare* their reconstruction for the time period from 120 years before present with the instrumental record to reach their conclusions"
So they compare proxy records (that are smoothed) to short term instrumental records to reach their conclusion? Wow, that is scientifickyish.
You do know of course they redated the core tops to get a fake uptick though right? I would consider it data tampering or falsification of data. To alarmists though, it's standard operating procedure.
"Facts? We don't need no stinking facts!"
Does anyone wonder why I don't trust the constant upwards adjustments of Gistemp? What a complete crock of **** this field is. At least with Hansen leaving maybe they can slowly start to use actual science.
@Hey Doofus..."Nothing you can ever post here has the slightest credibility, because you have shown hundreds of times that all you care about is distorting and lying about science."
So, Marcott redates proxy data to get a nice uptick to his temperature reconstruction for the 20th century, goes on to state that warming in the 20th century is unprecedented in over 11,000 years, when found out goes on to state that the 20th century data isn't robust and should be ignored....and you think all Mike cares about is distorting and lying about science?
You people are completely psychotic.
First of all they use Mann's faulty reconstructions that use different proxies for different times. It isn't scientifically appropriate to use thermometer proxies pasted on the end of tree ring proxies when the tree ring proxies fail. The rise in the last 100 years would not be visible in the graph because the noise in the data is far greater than a couple degrees. It is interesting that they erased the noise (uncertainty) from the graph older than Mann's fraud.
IMO, it is like putting a Neanderthal skeleton on the Piltdown Mann's head. It doesn't make it any more credible. It is more of a whitewash and a distraction.
I agree with Pielke as well.
Are you joking or not this time, because I can defend my position, but it's not worth the effort if you'll just come back and say you posted this on a lark. So, are you jerking off here or are you serious?
edit: Mike, don't get huffy. You are the one who is on record asking what seems like serious questions, which then have elicited serious responses, which you then insult by claiming that you were joking when you asked the question. I just wanted to make sure this wasn't another one of those jokes from you, that really aren't very funny. You tend to get all irritated when people point out that your prior behavior can influence how people deal with you. For the record, I think most of what you post is a joke, even when I respond to it seriously, but not for the same reasons you do. But I digress.
Ok, here's the deal with the Marcott study. You skeptics *hate* it because it kind of shows that whatever is happening with global surface temperature, it's pretty different from what has happened over the last 10,000 years or so. Needless to say, you'll cling onto any drifting piece of rubble to keep your head above water. But the claim it represents scientific misconduct is silly. What the furor shows is that skeptics can't deal with nuance and they categorically reject any evidence showing that what they want to believe isn't true.
Let me give you an example, you take the fact that the paleo reconstructions are not statistically robust for the last 120 years as evidence that Marcott and Shakun were lying. But here is what they actually say:
"Based on comparison of the instrumental record of global temperature change with the distribution of Holocene global average temperatures from our paleo-reconstruction, we find that the decade 2000-2009 has probably not exceeded the warmest temperatures of the early Holocene, but is warmer than ~75% of all temperatures during the Holocene. In contrast, the decade 1900-1909 was cooler than~95% of the Holocene. Therefore, we conclude that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene in the past century. Further, we compare the Holocene paleotemperature distribution with published temperature projections for 2100 CE, and find that these projections exceed the range of Holocene global average temperatures under all plausible emissions scenarios."
Got that? They *compare* their reconstruction for the time period from 120 years before present with the instrumental record to reach their conclusions. I don't see how this represents scientific misconduct. If you assume that the paleo reconstruction and the instrumental record are accurate, then intercomparing them makes perfect sense. And since their "non-statistically robust" last part of their reconstruction is identical to the instrumental record, what does it matter which one they use? Perhaps you can explain how this in misconduct to me. Pielke sure can't (he moves right past the fact that comparing the paleo reconstruction to the instrumental record demonstrates there is something unusual about how warm the planet has gotten). But then, you would lick poop from his boots if he told you what you want to hear. Which he does. Which is why he does it. So it works out well that way.
The temperature rate thing, well, that's more complicated, but you can't even understand the comparison aspect so what really, is the point? Maybe you could fall back on you meant this question as a joke? Could work.
edit: Final thought. Even if Marcott doesn't show the 20th century warming, he almost certainly has the previous 10,000 years right. So unless you reject the instrumental record (which, lord knows, a lot of you do), you can't get around the fact that his conclusions are dead-bang right. Temperature now is warmer than 75% of the past, and you have to go back 7500 years to find conditions as warm as now. Even if Marcott's reconstruction began 500 years ago the main conclusions would be the same, surface temperature in the 20th century looks very different from most of the holocene. See, you guys are arguing about something that is really beside the point. This isn't surprising, since you are so far gone in fear-stoked denial that you can't think straight, but it doesn't make it incorrect. Pielke is making accusations he can't support, and they will come back to hurt him, since he loses a lot of credibility when he makes inflammatory statements. I realize though it is a complete waste of time trying to tell you people anything. You are, in a word, uneducatable and at this point I only hope you live long enough to realize how stupid and wrong you all are.
What this does is destroy what little credibility science and scientists have, it is such a shame when you cannot trust scientists to seek the truth.
Whoever Marcott and whatever his study is, has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with your massive investment here in deliberate ignorance of science. Nothing you can ever post here has the slightest credibility, because you have shown hundreds of times that all you care about is distorting and lying about science.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
's
^^^ What he said
The AGW blogosphere (which unfortunately includes the MSM) was all a twitter about a recent study by Shaun Marcott on an 11,500 year paleoclimatology global temperature reconstruction. The exciting part was what has been termed the "uptick" in the 20th century of the reconstruction. Here is an example report from Mother Jones: http://www.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2013/03/new-hockey-stick-graph-scarier
However, it didn't take long for the skeptic blogosphere to pull apart that study (which presumably was peer reviewed but really, what does that give you in climate science?). After a few weeks, Marcott finally responded in a Q&A format at RealClimate.org:
__________________________________________________
"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
Thus, the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack is not statistically robust, cannot be considered representative of global temperature changes, and therefore is not the basis of any of our conclusions."
"Q: Is the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years?
Our study did not directly address this question because the paleotemperature records used in our study have a temporal resolution of ~120 years on average, which precludes us from examining variations in rates of change occurring within a century."
To summarize using Marcott's own words: "the small number of datasets that extend into the 20th century (Figure 1G) is insufficient to reconstruct a statistically robust global signal" http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
______________________________________________________
We see Marcott being asked if the rate of global temperature rise over the last 100 years was faster than at any time during the past 11,300 years and his answer was that they did not directly address that question. He was also asked what the paleo reconstructions show for the last 100 years to which he answered: "... the 20th century portion of our paleotemperature stack ... is not the basis of any of our conclusions."
Yet, if we go to the Mother Jones articles it is quoting Marcott saying this: "In other words, the rate of change (last one hundred years) is much greater than anything we've seen in the whole Holocene,". That sounds like a conclusion to me.
And all of that is even before we get into the difference between his thesis and the new study and other statistical problems with it. Sometimes media sources don't get the study right, sometimes the scientist is misquoted but really, this entire episode has been a train wreck.
If you think otherwise, can you defend your position?
