Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
archer95446

Global warming shouldn't be happening

86 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

you just made that up.

Those two graphs were not in the article. I have it right here in front of me. You represented them as being Marcott's. I don't think you're deliberately lying, but if your source made a "mistake" and you repeated it, it is now your mistake.

the graphs were plotted from the proxy data given by Marcott's paper. none of them show a 20th century uptick.

Again, these are not in Marcott's paper. Perhaps they were plotted from the same proxies, but if so, it was done by somebody else. Please cite the source.

"Look at the chart scale again: that's three-tenths of a degree Celsius. You misread the chart."

i did not "misread" the chart, you need to re-read my post, and stop pretending i was referring to the other chart.

I re-read your post, in fact, the entire thread. You were referring to Marcott's Figure 1B. At that point, you had posted only Figure 1B and the three forgeries. The scale on Figure 1B never drops below -0.8 degrees C for the entire Holocene, nor goes above +0.5 degrees C. That's a temperature run of 1.3 degrees - not 3.0 degrees. In fact, NOT ONE of Marcott's charts have a range wider than two degrees; ALL of those that show temperature use scales graduated in 0.2-degree intervals.

incoherent utterances aside, you have not addressed anything i said in my posts.

The reason you don't understand what I posted is that you haven't bothered to learn how science is done.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

"The graph was not sourced from the paper"

which graph are you talking about that "was not sourced from the paper"?

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."

Neither was the one labeled "Fig. 5" in Post 20.

And neither was the one labeled "All Marcott Proxies." And while we're at it: 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.

All these are from other sources. Please tell us where you got them.

Doug

Edited by Doug1o29

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Useing 30 proxies out of 73, nearly half of the poxies which is filled with errors, to make a temperature reconstruction is either completly stupid or a deliberate move.

We both know that using data which can make temperatures either decrease or increase by up to 2-4 degress isn't the best idea if you wanna make a temperature reconstruction. This is not rocket science.

It would be the same if I used a barometer which has been shown to differ 10% in atmospheric pressure values to forcast the weather. How accurate do you think my forcast would be if I used this barometer??

I emailed Marcott. No reply yet.

There are ways to minimize and/or correct the effects of error. You can't combine multiple proxies without using them. You are always beset by error.

If you are going to include, or exclude, a proxy, you need a reason for doing it. I don't know what Marcott's reasons were. One criticism I have of his paper is that a lot of stuff he should have included, like justifications, wasn't included. I suspect that's due to space limitations. Excluding a series because it shows (or doesn't show) a particular trend is verboten. The only relevant questions are: can it be dated with sufficient accuracy, and how well does it intercorrelate with the other series?

Another thought: these are sea temperatures. They won't match up exactly with air temperatures.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one you posted originally. Who's creation was it ?

Br Cornelius

The graph labeled "B" with the heading "Years (BP)" is Marcott's Figure 1B. Marcott included 19 charts/graphs in the article. This is the only one Little Fish has posted.

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The author of the paper Marcott himself has now distanced himself from the blade of his graph, stating it is "not robust", this is only after he let the media promote the alarmism.

"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.

The solution to the problem: calculate a running average or use another form of smoothing. Marcott used a 100-year spline; a little short, but if you want to include the 20th century, you can't use a very long one.

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?

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The graph labeled "B" with the heading "Years (BP)" is Marcott's Figure 1B. Marcott included 19 charts/graphs in the article. This is the only one Little Fish has posted.

Doug

Thanks for clarifying. When people use graphs without sources and when they haven't read the original paper it is wise to check.

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug said "Those two graphs were not in the article."

I never said the black and white graphs were in the marcott article.

you struggle with reading comprehension.

"You represented them as being Marcott's.

The graphs are plots of the proxies used by marcotts paper.

I did not represent those graphs as being marcott's graphs, they are just plots of the data he used, go read what i said again.

http://www.unexplain...2

wow, so many pages of obfuscation, its difficult not to conclude this obfuscation is deliberate.

its quite simple : the blue and pink graph is marcott, the black and white graphs given in the above link are plots of the individual proxies that marcott used. marcott made available the data in the supplemental information, so recreating the individual plots would be somewhat trivial. below are all the plots done more clearly : there is no clear 20th century uptick in the individual proxies, so where did the dramatic uptick in the marcott reconstruction come from if its not self evident in his proxies?

http://wattsupwithth...ies/#more-81951

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doug said :

"I re-read your post, in fact, the entire thread. You were referring to Marcott's Figure 1B. At that point, you had posted only Figure 1B and the three forgeries. The scale on Figure 1B never drops below -0.8 degrees C for the entire Holocene, nor goes above +0.5 degrees C. That's a temperature run of 1.3 degrees - not 3.0 degrees. In fact, NOT ONE of Marcott's charts have a range wider than two degrees; ALL of those that show temperature use scales graduated in 0.2-degree intervals.

go and read my post#20 again here:

http://www.unexplain...15#entry4693190

here is what i said - "look at the top chart, around 500 AD it swings 3 celcius in a short period of time, now look at the variance on y axis the bottom chart."

"You were referring to Marcott's Figure 1B"

i was not referring to marcott.

the top chart is not marcott, it is another reconstruction, and it shows the MWP similar to today's temperature (unlike marcotts), it also shows the fluctuations swinging 3 celcius in short period of time (unlike marcotts).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

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.

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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 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 - where did Marcott's dramatic uptick come from?

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?

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.

Edited by Little Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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.

"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.

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"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.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198/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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

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.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

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
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Br Cornelius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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.

"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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.