Global Warming & Earth’s Global Temperature Measurement

[andypro7]

Read what I wrote, andypro7:
A simple explanation that Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures before ~1900. to the Marcott et al. paper and so supports their conclusion that current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)

NO, it does NOT. Saying it over and over again does not make it so.

Just so you understand, this is NOT my opinion of what McIntyre's work and his graph shows. He actually explains it RIGHT THERE on the page YOU SENT ME TO.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Just so you understand, this is NOT my opinion of what McIntyre's work and his graph shows.

I understand that your opinion is that two close lines on a graph before ~1900 are actually wildly different, andypro7 .
This does not change the facts in the graph on Steve McIntyre's blog: A simple explanation that Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures before ~1900. to the Marcott et al. paper and so supports their conclusion that current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)

The How Marcottian Upticks Arise blog has analysis of how the post 1900 uptick came about. I have no problem about that analysis. The Marcott et al. paper itself notes that post 1900 reconstructions are dubious and so they do not use them in their conclusions.

ETA: I will emphasize this for you, andypro7:
* The graph in the blog supports the conclusion of the Marcott et al. paper.
* The rest of the blog is the same as what the what the Marcott et al. paper found - the 20th century part of the stack is dubious. But Steve McIntyre ignores that the authors state that they did not use the "uptick" in their conclusions.

 

[andypro7]

* The graph in the blog supports the conclusion of the Marcott et al. paper.

Nope, still doesn't. But I believe that climate science would suggest that if you say it 11 more times, then they can call it science

* The rest of the blog is the same as what the what the Marcott et al. paper found - the 20th century part of the stack is dubious. But Steve McIntyre ignores that the authors state that they did not use the "uptick" in their conclusions.

You're actually now almost, but not quite, getting close to being in the ballpark. The key word here is 'when'.

Oh, and by the way, if you're saying that the 20th century part of the stack is dubious, which it is, then how can you assert that the 20th century warming is so abnormal?

Oh, and don't try to say that they used proxies up until 1900, but then used the temperature record. That would be BAAAAAD science, not really science at all. Especially since Marcott and McIntyre both reveal that those proxies have 'muting' properties, so that anything you compare them to will look greater, if you use an entirely different data set. Which, incidentally, is a very Mannian thing to do. (I'm sure you don't know this, but that's how McIntyre proved Mann's hockey stick was a fraud).

 

[RealityCheck01]

[* The rest of the blog is the same as what the what the Marcott et al. paper found - the 20th century part of the stack is dubious. But Steve McIntyre ignores that the authors state that they did not use the "uptick" in their conclusions.

You're actually now almost, but not quite, getting close to being in the ballpark. The key word here is 'when'.

You did read what you highlighted and see there is no 'when" in it, andypro7 ?

I am saying that before Steve McIntyre wrote his posts about the Marcott et al. paper, the Marcott et al. paper stated that they do not use the 20th century part of the stack in their conclusions . Thus his posts about the uptick are redundant because they did not use that part of their reconstruction in their conclusion. They are an interesting analysis that supports the Marcott et al. decision to not use them but that is all.

I am staying that the obvious good science is to use proxies as far as possible (e.g. to 1900) and then use the more reliable temperature record from then on.

I am sure that you have never read any papers about the hockey stick graphs despite my providing links to citations of the science. Otherwise you would not fantasize about McIntyre "proving" Mann's hockey stick was a fraud.

A vague "'muting' properties" assertion without any citations to the scientific literature is not good, andypro7.
Please provide citations to the scientific literature on the 'muting' properties of proxies and how that stops them from being used with instrumental records.
FYI: Steve McIntyre elsewhere in his blog states "Most people have been distracted by petty issues like splicing instrumental and proxy records... " (in one of his many blogs about hockey stick papers, presentations and anything else that mentions the hockey stick!).

A fantasy that two close lines on a graph before ~1900 are actually wildly different still does not change the facts in the graph on Steve McIntyre's blog: A simple explanation that Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures before ~1900. to the Marcott et al. paper and so supports their conclusion that current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)

 

[eclipsenow]

NO, it does NOT. Saying it over and over again does not make it so.

Just so you understand, this is NOT my opinion of what McIntyre's work and his graph shows. He actually explains it RIGHT THERE on the page YOU SENT ME TO.

How about you stop being so lazy and actually copy and paste the relevant paragraphs. Here you are badgering us to read your links and insisting we just can't understand what you're on about and are not smart enough to blah blah blah but you're too lazy to actually demonstrate the relevance of your data link and how it counters our arguments!

 

[andypro7]

You did read what you highlighted and see there is no 'when" in it, andypro7 ?

I am saying that before Steve McIntyre wrote his posts about the Marcott et al. paper, the Marcott et al. paper stated that they do not use the 20th century part of the stack in their conclusions

Nope. How many times do I have to tell yo that just saying something doesn't make it so. I know that's how climate 'science' works, but this is real science.

The McIntyre paper that YOU LINKED TO, is dated March 15th, 2013. It was posted by McIntyre just days after Marcott et al was published, and after many, many, many, many, many major publications and climate gurus hailed it as proof of the hockey stick (much like you're doing now with the Mann hockey stick - which, by the way, you still don't understand)

After REAL scientists like McIntyre and several others exposed the fraud in Marcott's fake hockey stick, then, on MARCH 31ST, Marcott came out and admitted that the 20th century was not robust. And of course, he only admitted it because he'd been caught.

Those are the FACTS. I told you, it's all about WHEN. This proves that something you've been asserting over and over and over has been wrong all along.

Now, I could link to hundreds of different pro-warmer publications, Marcott and his team's own words, the actual text in the originally published article that ALL claim the great 20th century warming without even so much of a mention of the less than robust data. But I won't I'm tired of doing your homework. It would be useless, you'd rather remain wrong than learn the truth.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Nope. ...

I did not link to any McIntyre paper, andypro7. Papers are published in journals.

I understand that your opinion is that two close lines on a graph before ~1900 are actually wildly different, andypro7 .
This does not change the facts in the graph on Steve McIntyre's blog: A simple explanation that Steve McIntyre's graph shows similar Holocene temperatures before ~1900. to the Marcott et al. paper and so supports their conclusion that current global temperatures are ~75%/82% of the Holocene)

The How Marcottian Upticks Arise blog has analysis of how the post 1900 uptick came about. I have no problem about that analysis. The Marcott et al. paper itself notes that post 1900 reconstructions are dubious and so they do not use them in their conclusions.

ETA: I will emphasize this for you, andypro7:
* The graph in the blog supports the conclusion of the Marcott et al. paper.
* The rest of the blog is the same as what the what the Marcott et al. paper found - the 20th century part of the stack is dubious. But Steve McIntyre ignores that the authors state that they did not use the "uptick" in their conclusions.

This blog entry is dated Mar 15, 2013 at 5:10 PM. You know that it was published after the Marcott et al paper was published which is really obvious because the blog entry refers to the paper !

Snipped text to get to a couple of lies
* There is no "fraud in Marcott's fake hockey stick". There is their recognition that the 20th century reconstruction should not be used. They do not use it. They have no "blade" in their hockey stich :.
* Marcott was not "caught".

ETA: Marcott et al never mention a hockey stick. They do not cite Mann et al 1998. They do cite M. E. Mann et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 105,13252 (2008).

ETA2: Climate science from real climate scientists: Response by Marcott et al.

Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?
A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. 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. Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record. Although not part of our study, high-resolution paleoclimate data from the past ~130 years have been compiled from various geological archives, and confirm the general features of warming trend over this time interval (Anderson, D.M. et al., 2013, Geophysical Research Letters, v. 40, p. 189-193; http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2012GL054271-pip.pdf).

I was wrong about the "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." sentence being in their paper.

SkepticScience for example quotes 'hockey stick' Real Skepticism About the New Marcott 'Hockey Stick' (10 April 2013)

A new global temperature reconstruction over the past 11,300 years by Marcott et al. (2013) has been described as 'the new hockey stick,' and adopted into 'the wheelchair' by Jos Hagelaars by including temperatures further in the past and projected for the future (Figure 1).

That description is bad given Marcott et al did not use the 20th century part of their reconstruction in their conclusions.

 

[andypro7]

nothing

So, you're just going to ignore the fact that you've been saying this whole time that Marcott et al was upfront about the 20th century data not being robust, but I've just shown that, in fact, they were NOT up front about it and only said those things AFTER they had been exposed??

You're really showing how non-factual, non-reasonable, and non-scientific most of you guys are.

 

[andypro7]

I was wrong about the "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." sentence being in their paper.

Again, hockey stick math. No, you are wrong when you said this:

I am saying that before Steve McIntyre wrote his posts about the Marcott et al. paper, the Marcott et al. paper stated that they do not use the 20th century part of the stack in their conclusions

That sentence is absolutely factually and utterly provably FALSE.

Marcott only came out and said it AFTER he had been exposed as a fraud.

After. After. After.

What lengths you will go to to believe your delusion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, hockey stick math. No, you are wrong when you said this:

I am saying that before Steve McIntyre wrote his posts about the Marcott et al. paper, the Marcott et al. paper stated that they do not use the 20th century part of the stack in their conclusions

That sentence is absolutely factually and utterly provably FALSE.

Marcott only came out and said it AFTER he had been exposed as a fraud.

After. After. After.

What lengths you will go to to believe your delusion.

How is it a fraud to use real measurements of temperature?

"Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record."

 

[andypro7]

How is it a fraud to use real measurements of temperature?

"Our primary conclusions are based on a comparison of the longer term paleotemperature changes from our reconstruction with the well-documented temperature changes that have occurred over the last century, as documented by the instrumental record."

It's fraud because after it was released, in statement made by the various people on the project, as well as 'Science', the wrongly said, and very, very emphatically I might add, that this was proof of great 20th century warming, without ever revealing that the data used to show this warming was 'less than robust'.

It was then up to the real scientist, like McIntyre, to uncover the fraud and cause them to release a statement admitting their fraud.

But even if you don't like that, it's even more than that. I'd tell you, but Reality Check didn't figure it out yet, so I don't want to let the cat out of the bag.

 

[RealityCheck01]

So, you're just going to ignore ....

No I am going to ignore that you are lying about Marcott et al not being upfront because they state that they made that point upfront in their paper:
Response by Marcott et al.

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. 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. ...

 

[Loudmouth]

It's fraud because after it was released, in statement made by the various people on the project, as well as 'Science', the wrongly said, and very, very emphatically I might add, that this was proof of great 20th century warming, without ever revealing that the data used to show this warming was 'less than robust'.

How are the direct instrumental temperature readings "less than robust"?

 

[andypro7]

How are the direct instrumental temperature readings "less than robust"?

Eh, I'd tell you to read the rest of the thread, but it is getting pretty long.

Short version:

Marcott, et al didn't use the published dates for the ocean cores, instead they substituted their own dates. The published dates show a sharp decline in the 20th century, while the new hockey-sticked Marcott made up dates show the rapid increase in temps. Voila - instant hockey stick.

Par for the course.

 

[RealityCheck01]

It's fraud because after it was released, ...

Wrong, andypro7: Marcott et al were not responsible for any of your so far imaginary statements about their paper.
5th March 2015 andypro7: Please quote where Science says that Marcott et al was "proof of great 20th century warming".

Anyone who read the paper can see that it is noting to do with evidence for global warming. What they show is
* "These temperatures are, however, warmer than 82% of the Holocene distribution as represented by the Standard5×5 stack, or 72% after making plausible corrections for inherent smoothing of the high frequencies in the stack (6) (Fig. 3).".
* "In contrast, the decadal mean global temperature of the early 20th century (1900–1909) was cooler than >95% of the Holocene distribution"
* "Climate models project that temperatures are likely to exceed the full distribution of Holocene warmth by 2100 for all versions of the temperature stack (35) (Fig. 3), regardless of the greenhouse gas emission scenario considered (excluding the year 2000 constant composition scenario, which has
already been exceeded)."

 

[Loudmouth]

Eh, I'd tell you to read the rest of the thread, but it is getting pretty long.

Short version:

Marcott, et al didn't use the published dates for the ocean cores, instead they substituted their own dates.

The published dates show a sharp decline in the 20th century, while the new hockey-sticked Marcott made up dates show the rapid increase in temps. Voila - instant hockey stick.

Par for the course.

They didn't use that data in their conclusions. They used the instrumental measurements. They concluded that there has been warming.

"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."

It seems that you can't see the forest for the trees.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Short version:
Marcott, et al didn't use the published dates for the ocean cores, instead they substituted their own dates. The published dates show a sharp decline in the 20th century, while the new hockey-sticked Marcott made up dates show the rapid increase in temps. Voila - instant hockey stick.

Shorter version: Marcott, et al analyzed the entire reconstruction from their proxies, realized that is was not robust for the 20th century and ignored that part of the reconstruction.

 

[andypro7]

Shorter version: Marcott, et al analyzed the entire reconstruction from their proxies, realized that is was not robust for the 20th century and ignored that part of the reconstruction.

Nope, that is not what happened. But keep saying it, maybe one day it will become true.

It's all in the link you sent me. READ IT AGAIN.

 

[Loudmouth]

Nope, that is not what happened. But keep saying it, maybe one day it will become true.

It's all in the link you sent me. READ IT AGAIN.

Forest for the trees . . .

You seem to be confusing the graph with their conclusions. You do realize that their conclusions and the graph are separate things, right?

 

[andypro7]

Forest for the trees . . .

You seem to be confusing the graph with their conclusions. You do realize that their conclusions and the graph are separate things, right?

Be more specific. I'm responding to a lot of things here, so I don't get what you're trying to get at here.