Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global warming shouldn't be happening


  • Please log in to reply
85 replies to this topic

#61    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 16 March 2013 - 05:08 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 14 March 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

doug said
"The charts labeled "Marcott Recon - Low Series," "Marcott Recon - Medium Series" and "Marcott Recon - High Series" were not in Marcott's paper.  They are the ones I am referring to as "forgeries."
why do you state they are forgeries? are you saying they do not match the data linked below?
They were not in Marcott's paper.  The claim, or at least implication, is that they were.  That is false.

Quote

Neither was the one labeled "Fig. 5" in Post 20.
that was from another multi proxy reconstruction to compare to marcott, if you read post#20 you will realise this.
That is obvious from the post, itself, but again, you failed to provide a source, implying that it was Marcott's:  it's not.

Quote

"And neither was the one labeled "All Marcott Proxies."
it was plotted, like the black and white ones, from the data provided by Marcott, linked below.

"what is the ending year for the proxies shown in "All Marcott Proxies? I suspect that the 20th century, at least most of it, has been edited out."
do you have any evidence for your suspicions that everyone is lying to you?

here is the data
http://www.sciencema...atabase.S1.xlsx
from here:
http://www.sciencema.../1198/suppl/DC1
Actually, these links don't reference any data.  The first is some definitions, apparently used by Marcott in the article and the second is a link to Marcott's article, which doesn't provide the data, either.  Didn't read them before you posted them?
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#62    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 16 March 2013 - 05:25 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 16 March 2013 - 10:34 AM, said:

Doug says
" "Robust" means resistant to outliers and small departures from model assumptions.  In other words:  Marcott's model is unduly sensitive to variation.  If you graph it, it will show a lot of bumps and wiggles that other models don't."
Marcott stated that just the uptick/blade was not robust, he was not referring to his entire reconstruction.
I stand corrected:  The blade is not robust; it shows a lot of detail that the rest of the reconstruction omits.

Quote

"I don't understand where you're coming from:  is your whole argument based on denial that global warming is even happening?  If not, what's the big deal about a model that shows the 20th century getting warmer?"
it should be quite clear since i have explained and asked several times -
What is quite clear is that Marcott, Mann, et al. have reached conclusions that you don't like.  As I have noted before:  you are basing the assumption of a large drop in temps since the MWP on a free-hand drawing by Lamb.  There is no data to support that conclusion and later researchers are showing that the drop is not as dramatic as Lamb assumed.  This undermines the denialist dogma that the twentieth century temperature rise is a return to "normal," so we don't have to worry about it.

What you don't seem to note is that Marcott said that 25% of the Holocene was warmer than present.  Your dogma is safe for the time being.

Quote

most of his proxy data do not reach well into the 20th century and do not show the uptick, yet his final reconstruction shows the uptick, so how did he get the uptick?
Marcott's reconstruction in part used Mann's 2008 reconstruction.  Mann's reconstruction ends in 2001.  It includes several datasets that I work with, including the McCurtain County, Lake Winona and Hot Springs shortleaf pine chronologies, all of which end in the 1980s.

Quote

unless you can prove otherwise, I posit that the marcott graph is a deception based on either manipulation of data or a mathematical artifact, marcott's curt response to a detailed question about the uptick "the blade is not robust" is very insightful i think.
I have those chronologies on EXCEL.  I will be glad to email you a copy.  That ought to be sufficient proof.  You can then track them through Mann and on to Marcott.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 16 March 2013 - 05:25 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#63    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:07 PM

"They were not in Marcott's paper.  The claim, or at least implication, is that they were.  That is false."
I never claimed or implied the graphs were in marcotts paper. They are just plots of the data he used, go read what i said again.
http://www.unexplain...2
i've already even clarified that here:
http://www.unexplain...45#entry4699044
is that how you conduct discussion? by pretending others are saying things they are not saying.

"Actually, these links don't reference any data. The first is some definitions, apparently used by Marcott in the article"
the first link contains the data.
you need to learn to navigate your spreadsheet, you are just looking at the readme section of the spreadsheet database.
do you see some strange buttons labeled metadata, temperature stacks, odp-109D...etc. try clicking the left mouse button over some of those strange buttons.

"and the second is a link to Marcott's article, which doesn't provide the data, either."
click "database S1" to get the data.
http://www.sciencema.../1198/suppl/DC1

"Didn't read them before you posted them?"
yes i read them, i've plotted some of the graphs as well and they don't show an uptick.
apology accepted.


#64    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 16 March 2013 - 07:36 PM

doug said
"The blade is not robust; it shows a lot of detail that the rest of the reconstruction omits."
if marcott's 20th century uptick shows detail that the rest of the reconstruction does not show, then the 20th century uptick that marcott shows could have occurred many times in the past, and indeed other studies do show that it has.

but again, this sidesteps the point that the uptick does not occur in the data, as shown by the graphs previously, so how did he get the big uptick?

Edited by Little Fish, 16 March 2013 - 07:43 PM.


#65    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 16 March 2013 - 08:14 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 16 March 2013 - 07:07 PM, said:

the first link contains the data.
you need to learn to navigate your spreadsheet, you are just looking at the readme section of the spreadsheet database.
do you see some strange buttons labeled metadata, temperature stacks, odp-109D...etc. try clicking the left mouse button over some of those strange buttons.
What I need to do is look at the bottom of the page.  Sorry about that.

I guess I'm so used to your use of denialist websites that I just didn't look real close.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#66    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 16 March 2013 - 08:33 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 16 March 2013 - 07:36 PM, said:

doug said
"The blade is not robust; it shows a lot of detail that the rest of the reconstruction omits."
if marcott's 20th century uptick shows detail that the rest of the reconstruction does not show, then the 20th century uptick that marcott shows could have occurred many times in the past, and indeed other studies do show that it has.
I have already explained why it couldn't.  The reason is cross-dating.  The low ends of the twentieth century chronologies have to match up with the high ends of the others.  It's called intercorrelation.  The highest intercorrelation coefficient is usually (but not always) the place where the two sets match.  This is how Marcott and Mann built their chronologies.

Here's how I know that they don't belong somewhere else:  I have collected samples for eleven site chronologies, myself, taking the samples from living trees.  I know the date of each core because I wrote it down at the time.  I took them back to the lab and cross-dated them, then combined the ring width measurements to create a chronology going back to 1881.  I then took Stahle's chronologies (McCurtain County, Lake Winona and Hot Springs), the same ones that Mann used, and checked the dating against my own collection:  they're accurate within about six months.  Mann used Stahle's chronologies and Marcott used Mann's.  Stahle's dating agrees with mine and Mann's intercorrelates with Stahle's.  So if there's a mistake, it's Marcott's and you need to say where it is.  Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke.

Quote

but again, this sidesteps the point that the uptick does not occur in the data, as shown by the graphs previously, so how did he get the big uptick?
Maybe you can't read, either.  Above I noted that Mann's dataset ends in 2001 and includes Stahle's three chronologies that end in 1980 and 1982.  That's where the uptick came from!  It's in Stahle's data.  Mann used Stahle's data and Marcott used Mann's.  Not only that, I'll bet it's in a dozen plus of those other chronologies as well.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#67    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 16 March 2013 - 10:01 PM

doug said
"I noted that Mann's dataset ends in 2001 and includes Stahle's three chronologies that end in 1980 and 1982.  That's where the uptick came from!  It's in Stahle's data.  Mann used Stahle's data and Marcott used Mann's.

I find no reference to "Mann's dataset" or "Stahle's data" in the Marcott paper.
click the "METADATA" tab in the database. the end column labeled "Reference" lists the proxies used, there is no mention of Mann or Stahle. can you explain?
http://www.sciencema...atabase.S1.xlsx
scroll back to the first column labeled "Location/Core" - which proxy(s) are you talking about?

"Not only that, I'll bet it's in a dozen plus of those other chronologies as well."
i'll take that bet, do you know that many of those proxies do not even have data points in the 20th century, there are very few with datapoints after ~1950. some have their most recent data point ~1000 years old.

Edited by Little Fish, 16 March 2013 - 10:13 PM.


#68    Big Bad Voodoo

Big Bad Voodoo

    High priest of Darwinism

  • Member
  • 9,582 posts
  • Joined:15 Nov 2010
  • Gender:Male

Posted 16 March 2013 - 11:16 PM

Ice ages and global warming are natural proces. They were there before us.

JFK: "And we are as a people, inherently and historically, opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings.
For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy..."

#69    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 17 March 2013 - 10:42 AM

Marcott uptick trick discovered?
another hidden decline?
i'm sure we'll soon find out.

http://wattsupwithth...-marcott-et-al/


#70    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 17 March 2013 - 03:45 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 16 March 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

I find no reference to "Mann's dataset" or "Stahle's data" in the Marcott paper.
Figure 1E.  Listed are:  "Mann08(Global),""Mann08(NH)," "Moberg05," "WA07" and "Huange04."

Quote

click the "METADATA" tab in the database. the end column labeled "Reference" lists the proxies used, there is no mention of Mann or Stahle. can you explain?
Stahle's chronologies are part of Mann's reconstruction (See Fig. 1E).  If Marcott used Mann's dataset, then he was including Stahle's.

Mann's reconstructions were terrestial.  Marcott's is marine.  Marcott included Mann's reconstructions only in the illustrations.  They are not part of Marcott's sea-temperature reconstruction, but they are part of the published article.

Quote

http://www.sciencema...atabase.S1.xlsx

"Not only that, I'll bet it's in a dozen plus of those other chronologies as well."
i'll take that bet, do you know that many of those proxies do not even have data points in the 20th century, there are very few with datapoints after ~1950. some have their most recent data point ~1000 years old.
The following have most-recent dates after 1909 - the year the "uptick" began:
#11 - 1950; #21 - 1931; #22 - 1931; #23 - 1939; #25 - 1911; #31 - 1912; #42 - 1939; #43 - 1999; #44 - 1994; #50 - 1933; #57 - 1952; #62 - 1938; #63 - 1938; #67 - 1960 and #68 - 1953.  By my count, that's 15 - I win!


On the subject of your scatter plots:  they are nice illustrations of statistical noise, but if you intend to use them as a basis for denying global warming, you'll have to come up with something other than noise.  There is probably a climate signal in there.  Why don't you do the number-crunching needed to bring it out?  Then you can see for yourself what the data says.

Here's how:
First, address BFB's concern that some of the datasets have large error rates.  Do that by calculating intercorrelation rates for all 73 of them.  Choose some appropriate number and exclude anything with a lower intercorrelation (In dendrochronology we use 0.35, but you might prefer a different number.).

Next, correct for high-side bias (I explained how to do this above.).

Next, average the results by year.  That's your climate signal.  Plot it.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#71    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 17 March 2013 - 03:56 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 17 March 2013 - 10:42 AM, said:

Marcott uptick trick discovered?
another hidden decline?
i'm sure we'll soon find out.

http://wattsupwithth...-marcott-et-al/
I checked that refernce.

As I pointed out on another thread, McIntyre is the guy who totally misunderstood a COFECHA printout and then, deleted part of it from one of his attacks.  He is an engineer with no training and little knoweldge of climatology.

His problem seems to be the difference produced when published age is substituted for marine age.  I am at a total loss to explain how McIntyre got his model, unless:
where the original proxy contained no data, he substituted a zero.

Also, why did he use only 31 of the 73 models?  Cherry-picking?

You need better sources.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#72    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 17 March 2013 - 07:27 PM

View PostDoug1o29, on 17 March 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

I checked that refernce.

As I pointed out on another thread, McIntyre is the guy who totally misunderstood a COFECHA printout and then, deleted part of it from one of his attacks.  He is an engineer with no training and little knoweldge of climatology.

His problem seems to be the difference produced when published age is substituted for marine age.  I am at a total loss to explain how McIntyre got his model, unless:
where the original proxy contained no data, he substituted a zero.

Also, why did he use only 31 of the 73 models?  Cherry-picking?

You need better sources.
Doug
Two other thoughts here:
1.  That article has been out for ten days.  It would take me weeks to do a project that size.  How did McIntyre manage to do it in less than ten days?
2.  One way he might have got it out so soon is to take shortcuts.  One of them is not checking the cross-dating.  Corrected cross-dates is one way the published dates could differ from the marine dates.  Hmm!

And Little Fish is accusing Marcott of ignoring cross-dates.  Hmm!  Again!
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 17 March 2013 - 07:29 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#73    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,799 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 18 March 2013 - 10:29 AM

Let us not forget how conclusively McIntyre failed to critique Manns original work - using the same deceptive techniques.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#74    Little Fish

Little Fish

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,000 posts
  • Joined:23 Jul 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The default position is to give a ****

Posted 19 March 2013 - 09:04 AM

Doug said
"Figure 1E.  Listed are:  "Mann08(Global),""Mann08(NH)"
Fig 1E is just comparing previous reconstructions with marcott's reconstruction which is NOT WHAT YOU CLAIMED.
you claimed marcotts uptick came from using mann's datasets WHICH HE DID NOT, so how did marcott get a big 20th century uptick when his datasets do not have it.

"If Marcott used Mann's dataset, then he was including Stahle's."
but marcott DID NOT use mann's datasets, so where did marcott's uptick come from?

"Mann's reconstructions were terrestial.  Marcott's is marine.  Marcott included Mann's reconstructions only in the illustrations.  They are not part of Marcott's sea-temperature reconstruction, but they are part of the published article."
But that is NOT WHAT YOU CLAIMED, so how did marcott get a big 20th century uptick when his datasets do not have it.

"The following have most-recent dates after 1909 - the year the "uptick" began:
#11 - 1950; #21 - 1931; #22 - 1931; #23 - 1939; #25 - 1911; #31 - 1912; #42 - 1939; #43 - 1999; #44 - 1994; #50 - 1933; #57 - 1952; #62 - 1938; #63 - 1938; #67 - 1960 and #68 - 1953.  By my count, that's 15 - I win!
"
none of those proxies contain marcott's 20th century uptick WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED (and you misstated many of those dates).
so how did marcott get his 20th century uptick when none of his proxies show it.


#75    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 5,752 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 19 March 2013 - 12:56 PM

View PostLittle Fish, on 19 March 2013 - 09:04 AM, said:

Doug said
"Figure 1E.  Listed are:  "Mann08(Global),""Mann08(NH)"
Fig 1E is just comparing previous reconstructions with marcott's reconstruction which is NOT WHAT YOU CLAIMED.
you claimed marcotts uptick came from using mann's datasets WHICH HE DID NOT, so how did marcott get a big 20th century uptick when his datasets do not have it.

"If Marcott used Mann's dataset, then he was including Stahle's."
but marcott DID NOT use mann's datasets, so where did marcott's uptick come from?

"Mann's reconstructions were terrestial.  Marcott's is marine.  Marcott included Mann's reconstructions only in the illustrations.  They are not part of Marcott's sea-temperature reconstruction, but they are part of the published article."
But that is NOT WHAT YOU CLAIMED,
Sorry if I was not clear.

Quote

so how did marcott get a big 20th century uptick when his datasets do not have it.
Just like I explained in post #70 under the heading "Here's how."  And he couldn't have produced that result if it wasn't in the data.

Quote


"The following have most-recent dates after 1909 - the year the "uptick" began:
#11 - 1950; #21 - 1931; #22 - 1931; #23 - 1939; #25 - 1911; #31 - 1912; #42 - 1939; #43 - 1999; #44 - 1994; #50 - 1933; #57 - 1952; #62 - 1938; #63 - 1938; #67 - 1960 and #68 - 1953.  By my count, that's 15 - I win!
"
none of those proxies contain marcott's 20th century uptick WHICH IS WHAT YOU CLAIMED (and you misstated many of those dates).
so how did marcott get his 20th century uptick when none of his proxies show it.
You are missing the point:  your plots show random noise.  You haven't even tried to pull out a climate signal.  Do the number crunching and you will have one.  That uptick is in the data.  All you have to do is get off your a-- and do the work and you will see it.
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users