Now that the paper is published, scientists other than the ones who did the Pals , I mean Peer Review, have started to look into the cow's entrails and they are finding all sorts of interesting "things"
"Let’s look at some specific features of the Marcott et al. curve. As shown in more than 3,000 publications, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is widely recognized to have been somewhat warmer than present Figure 1). In the past 10,000 years, at least six other warm periods of magnitude equal to the MWP occurred; nine other warm periods that were 0.5°C warmer than the MWP occurred; two warm periods that were 1°C warmer than the MWP occurred; and three warm periods that were 1.5°C warmer than the MWP occurred. All of these periods warmer than the MWP clearly contradict the Marcott et al. conclusions.
The Marcott et al. conclusions that “Current global temperatures of the past decade … are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history” and “Global mean temperature for the decade 2000-2009 ….are warmer than 82% of the Holocene” are clearly contrary to measured, accurate, real-time data and thus fail the Feynman test, i.e., they are wrong."
There's an Ouch! for you.
Visually, the new paper seems to have some easily Mk 1 Eyeball discernable problems.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/validity-of-a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/#more-81907
The game continues, the planet is not behaving like the computer models predicted.
You can believe computer models that do not work and the people who have a vested career and financial interest in pushing these models or you can believe the actual data, what is actually happening.
"Let’s look at some specific features of the Marcott et al. curve. As shown in more than 3,000 publications, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) is widely recognized to have been somewhat warmer than present Figure 1). In the past 10,000 years, at least six other warm periods of magnitude equal to the MWP occurred; nine other warm periods that were 0.5°C warmer than the MWP occurred; two warm periods that were 1°C warmer than the MWP occurred; and three warm periods that were 1.5°C warmer than the MWP occurred. All of these periods warmer than the MWP clearly contradict the Marcott et al. conclusions.
The Marcott et al. conclusions that “Current global temperatures of the past decade … are warmer than during ~75% of the Holocene temperature history” and “Global mean temperature for the decade 2000-2009 ….are warmer than 82% of the Holocene” are clearly contrary to measured, accurate, real-time data and thus fail the Feynman test, i.e., they are wrong."
There's an Ouch! for you.
Visually, the new paper seems to have some easily Mk 1 Eyeball discernable problems.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/11/validity-of-a-reconstruction-of-regional-and-global-temperature-for-the-past-11300-years/#more-81907
The game continues, the planet is not behaving like the computer models predicted.
You can believe computer models that do not work and the people who have a vested career and financial interest in pushing these models or you can believe the actual data, what is actually happening.