/sci/ - Science & Math

>>9823468
>>Most charts you see talking about ice ages and Earth temperature use proxy data, single data points across periods from 100-150 years, then when reaching common day plot the temperatures day by day, giving you the hockey stick graphs.
>Wrong, all but one of the hockey stick graphs have the same data resolution throughout.

You are so full of crap. When they actually do this, they cherry pick the data or "re-date" to get the pre-determined result. Pic related. Marcott redated proxies (ignoring published dates) to turn a downturn into an uptick. Got to hide the decline, huh?

>>8652846
Ah yes, the fraudulent Marcott. The guy who redated proxies to make the hockey stick temperatures go up instead of going down. It was his own way of "hiding the decline.| But he got caught. and had to walk his nonsense back in RealClimate, "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."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

The irony here is incredible. Anon posted fraudulent data to defend data fraud. Would anyone other than a shill do such a thing?

PS Shill anon will now proceed to say that the late 20th century data is irrelevant even though that data is exactly what's relevant.

>>8546627
>>8546546
>>8546524
What was posted in that paper, is related to Marcott's construction which he admitted was bogus for the late 20th century, at yes, your favorite climate site: RealClimate. Pic related: one of the redated proxies he used. Marcott's admission:

"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."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

And some of the papers that debunk the hockey stick:
a. “Corrections to Mann et al (1998) proxy data base and northern hemisphere average temperature series” S McIntyre & R
McKitrick Energy & Environment Vol. 14 (2003) p. 751-777
b. “Reconstructing past climate from noisy data” H von Storch et al Science Vol. 306 (2004) p. 679-682
c. “Hockey sticks, principal components and spurious significance” S McIntyre & R McKitrick Geophysical Research
Letters, Vol. 32 (2005) L03710
d. “Highly variable northern hemisphere temperatures reconstructed from low- and high-resolution proxy data” A
Moberg et al Nature Vol. 433 (2005) p. 613-617
e. Wegman Edward, Scott D W and Said Yasmin H 2006: Ad Hoc Committee Report to Chairman of the House Committee
on Energy & Commerce and to the Chairman of the House subcommitteeon Oversight & Investigations on the Hockey-stick
global climate reconstructions. US House of Representatives,Washington USA. Available for download from
ITTP://energycommerce.house.gov/108/home/07142006Wegman Report.pdf
f. “Reconstruction of temperature in the central Alps during the past 2000 yr from a delta18O stalagmite record” A Mangini, C
Spotl & P Verdes Earth & Planetary Science Letters, 235 (2005)p. 741-751

P.S. Better call in the rapid response team. Maybe they can do the Gish Gallop.

>>8250003
> Pic of Marcott fraudulent graph.
Marcott redated proxies; changing published dates to ad hoc dates to reverse the direction of recent proxies. Pic related. He got caught so he walked his nonsense back in unRealClimate, "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."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

>nb4 Better not say anything bad about Marcott, he's my buddy.
I will never hesitate to point out crap science that lies somewhere between deceptive and fraudulent. Deal with it.

>>7417428
>That appears to be the same data as the previous chart (note how it only goes up to 1855), with speculation based on a cyclical model. So no new data at all in fact. Why would you ignore temp data from the entire AGW period if you are trying to argue that AGW doesn't exist

Paper is from a different reference, apparently their own analysis of the raw data, see the graph. More importantly the actual data from
>>7417279
shows about a 0.50 degree increase from 1700 to 1855. Based on actual GISP2 data. Your graph shows a ridiculous jump of 2.5 degrees during the same time range. This is pre-AGW. What is the source for that 1855 data point? Because its not GISP2 data. And this graph:
>>7417428
has been thoroughly debunked. That sad trick of taking very high resolution (essentially continuous) instrumental data and tacking it on to data that has a resolution of about 100 years,is statistical nonsense. Put the blade of that hockey stick through a 100 year moving average. It disappears! Not to mention Marcott's redating of the temp proxies (using dates significantly different from the published dates) to change down turning data into upturned data. Pic related, the results of Marcott's redating.

Good article debunking the Marcott hockey stick:
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/were-not-screwed
Written by a professional statistician, someone who can untangle serious statistical mistakes.

>>7290790
Marcott's graph (in the upper left corner of your pic:>>7290747) did not originally have a big upward tick (in his dissertation). But guess what, he redated the proxies to change them from downward going to a big uptick. Pic related.

>>6702821

You're cherry picking which proxy you like. And as stated before in
>>6702624
>nb4 But look at Marcott!
>Marcott has been debunked. His proxies actually decline in the recent past, but he redated them (way off) to create an incline.

Marcott got caught fraudulently redating his proxies to get the uptick. The correctly dated proxy has a downturn, see attached. But you've got to "hide the decline," right?

In any case, when push comes to shove, he admitted that the uptick had no statistical significance.

" 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."
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/f our conclusions."

And that was in an AGW believer website!!