NASA Ranks This August Warmest On Record

He actually drew attention to the Mann hockey stick, because Mann changed instrumentation ( from proxy to thermometers for the last sixty years). The instrumental data and tree ring/sediment data diverged in the latest decades. Scientists would have investigated the descrepancies, but activists don't bother, there's more money in sensationalism.
Molchmeister

 

Nothing seems to have stopped these scientists from investigating the discrepancies.

Papers on the divergence problem

 

And none of those provide a good explination. Until an explination exists other thsn we assume it is anthropogenic tree rings are useless proxies.

Of course an explination is staring you right ib the face any time you walk into an arboretum. Its at a controlled optimum temperature. Trees have an optimum growth temperature. This means that they have a parabolic relationship to temperature and are therefore useless as a temperature proxy.

 

Just a little wide of the mark there. Whether you accept their explanation or not, no one is preventing them from investigating the issue. If the answer is so clear, why don't you publish it?

 

The scientific method in 61 seconds

[video=youtube_share;viaDa43WiLc]http://youtu.be/viaDa43WiLc[/video]

 

Not a surprising assessment from (un)Skeptical Science. A cartoonists blog on CAGW alarmism.

Problem is, none of that portion of the IPCC assessment was drawn from peer-reviewed material. Nor was it consistent with the documents sent to external reviewers.

 

What you and all your denialist friends continue to ignore is that the basic hockey stick model of recent temperature change has been confirmed repeatedly by other climate scientists. Are they all on the take? Of course, never seen a denialist who didn't see a conspiracy behind it all.

 

You are right, using Mann's algorithms, as they did. Put in red noise and it forms a hockey stick.

 

How would you know? You and your denialist buddies treat peer reviewed material like an ebola virus. You only peddle nonsense from denialist sites that has been explained and refuted 1000s of times by real science.

 

Now now, don't have a hissy fit. Just pointing out to you the facts. You see, good science is putting all the facts, algorithms, and data for others to duplicate, unlike Michael Mann made warming.

 

Already been published see Loehle 2007.

 

So not only have scientists not been prevented from investigating the divergence issue, they've even solved it. Thanks for proving my point.

BTW, if the tree ring divergence issue is the reason Mann's hockey stick has been disproven, shouldn't we see a significant difference between Mann and reconstructions which exclude tree rings, like Loehle and McCulloch 2008?

 

You mean the Loehle reconstruction that Mann called "awful"? Again, splicing two entirely different records together to come up with the hockey stick is a mistake that many make and does not reflect what a continued proxy record would show.

From Loehle,

"I would also note that Moberg et al. 2005 in Nature (the low-frequency signal component) looks very similar (but he is an approved person, so no one gives him grief about it). No unprecedented warming in recent decades, just a repeat of what looks to me like a periodic pattern of warming and cooling."

 

Both Loehle's and Mann's reconstructions show about .01 °C/decade cooling from 800 AD to 1700 AD, followed by about .02 °C/decade warming from 1700 AD thru 1900 AD. Loehle can criticize Mann's work all he wants, but the results are still the same.

Even Loehle's 2007 reconstruction stopped at 1935 though, because proxies are not available for the last half of the 20th century. Fortunately, we have actual temperature records for that time period. When current warming trends are about .2 °C/decade, ten times what they were before the 20th century, how is the "hockey stick" graph wrong?

 

Actually, it was Mann criticizing Loehle's work.

 

The water proxies are also unreliable since they show water temperatures, not surface temperatures. Most of the proxies used in these reconstructions are water based proxies.

- - - Updated - - -

What will the thermometer temperatures look like if they have been averages 60, 100, or 200 years? We can only guess until we see 30, 50, or 100 years in to the future.

 

Denialist me? You don't really believe in science do you ? I Don't deny the globe will be ice free, its all happened before. Evolve/Adapt or die.
Molchan

 

Like maybe a long long time ago, say in one of those extinction events. Curious that it should be happening now don't you think, or maybe the climate scientists actually are on to something with their AGW explanation for recent climate change. Strange to be getting this radical hockey stick leap upward in temperature during our interglacial Holocene, whose temperature has been drifting downward for the last 6 thousand years.

 

naw, nothing is happening now.

 

Look up "average global temperature" and get back to us when you understand it.

 

Polar sea ice coverage set a record low in 2012.

Though the last couple of years have seen coverage that is higher than that record low, the coverage still remains low -- the 2014 coverage was the 6th-lowest on record.

That is expected variability -- typically when you hit a record low or high, the next few years will show a reversion toward the mean. That does not mean heating/cooling has stopped -- you have to examine the long-term trend line to determine that.

 

No you are simply engaging in a fraud. Putting so nany of the reconstructions together yoy cant nake heads or tails of them and then stamping on a bright red high resolution CRU temperature graph on the end over all the reconstructions.

Your graph is a simple fraud. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Unfortunately most dendros choose to ignore Loehle and still use tree rings.

 

As per the topic of this OP the US is the most complete record in the world. If the US record is so biased by the shenanigans of two people Hansen and Schmidt how can we have any confidence in the global record.

 

The preliminary results from NASA-GISS put Sep 2014 at +0.77C, making it the warmest September on the record.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Don't worry, the deniers have very objective criteria for determining whether data is good or fraudulent. If they like the data, it's real, and if they don't like it, it's fake.

 

naw, massaged data doesn't make it so, but in your mind. Fail!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!