And what constitutes peer review in Climatology?
For those wishing to read the paper before passing judgement on it, there is a scanned copy of the paper linked below.
My apologies for the source, but this is the only non-paywalled place that I could find the actual paper. Don't bother with the blog post if you don't want to, just skip down a little to find the scanned paper. The quality isn't great, but it is readable.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.nz/2013...
It is interesting to note that the authors themselves recognised potential weakness in the method used to temporally align the differently time sequenced data sources. Check what they say in their last paragraph.
Steve McIntyre is really outdoing himself with an in-depth analysis of the resurgent 'Hockey Stick' from the Marcott-Shakun team at Oregon State University. OSU is redefining what it means to "manipulate data." I suspect that they could market their techniques to other government agencies like the California Air Resources Board, which has long sought to find convenient correlations where there are none.
Many thought the original thesis by Marcott was written very well, however it later was basterdized by the OSU global warming zealots to show the 20th century blade where none existed under the original thesis. Even skeptics feel bad for Marcott as it appears he was used by the fanatic OSU warmers.
It should at least be changed and show a more realistic change. Maybe they should change the scale to 0.05 degree intervals on the vertical to show a more drastic change in temperatures? What would it look like if the vertical scale was 0.3, 0.4, or 0.5? The trick with the "hockey stick" is showing a drastic change in temperature. If it were on a 2 degree vertical scale, it would almost show no variance in temperature. Just remember how tiny we really are and how our tiny climate scientists try and micromanage the information to show a more extreme result. The "Hockey Stick" graph is irrelevant in showing any proof of AGW (i.e. Global Warming). The compelling information is in the continued warming capabilities of CO2 which has been shown to be nil. http://beforeitsnews.com/science-and-tec...
Let's all remember that according to NASA, global temperatures have only risen 0.5-0.6 Celsius since 1880 and is well within natural climate variability.
I really wouldn't trust much of what Steve McIntyre says as he usually makes most of it up. McIntyre's own data would have created a hockey stick given his choice of principal components, but McIntyre rejected it because it just didn't feel right to him.
Marcott's paper is consistent with the data showing that we reached a maximum interglacial temperature about 6000 years ago and that the Earth had been cooling until man started emitting carbon dioxide, now at a rate of about 30 billion tons per year. Marcott's work is consistent where it overlaps the many temperature reconstructions of the last thousand years. This is shown in the reference below, which is the skeptics guide to the medieval warm period.
No. It has already been endorsed by MM, and this new hockey stick has been declared 'scarier' that the first. That is, apparently, the standard for peer review in climate science.
It all depends on what the big money wants, if they view it as a viable threat, or just insignificant, or a promotional item. Follow the money. Truth seems to be a constant casualty in the realm of Climatology.
Peer review, apparently in the area of Climatology, is up to a very few closed minded, self professed authorities. Remember, the Hockey Stick, was 'peer reviewed' and glorified by those, yet was proven to be bogus by the 'unwashed' scientists.
Did you actually bother to read the paper?
Or do you just regurgitate whatever suits your politics?
Well it ought to be, it's Cr@p
http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/
And what constitutes peer review in Climatology?
