A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years.

I thought you knew what was wrong with Marcott and Shakun.
==================

For those not familiar with Marcott, start here!

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2013/4/6/tamino-does-climate-audit-covers-josh-214.html

It is worth Googling "Climate Audit" and "Marcott".

So EM are you seriously or even in jest trying to tell us that it's currently warmer than the Holocene Optimum, or even close? Get a grip.

That poor cartoonist missed a chance. Where's the elevator shooting, whoosh, to the top?

It fooled Obama, but surely EM, you are smarter than he is.
==============

My opinion: perhaps if Steve McIntyre had been more careful in explaining himself, more interested in communicating reality than in demeaning the results, and less indulgent of his own sneering, people might refer to him rather than me when mentioning the impact of proxy droupout, and the “dot earth” blog might be referring to his posts rather than mine as “illuminating.”

Also my opinion: if Steve McIntyre were really interested in the science rather than just killing hockey sticks, he might have applied the “differencing method” himself and discovered that the uptick is still there (but reduced in size) when the impact of proxy dropout is dealt with, whether one uses the re-calibrated ages or the original published ones.

But that would require him actually to do some science.

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/for-the-record/

He has a point. Yet again the auditor swings wildly but fails to connect that killer blow. No wonder his obscure blog is dying a slow death.

Gosh. An EM-Phil Clarke tag-team with Tamino t-shirts! One with a cartoon (not even funny), the other using his quotation scrapbook.

It's amusing to see Tamino call for a debate, he of the heavy censoring.

One word for Tamino: Jolliffe. Add Ian to make it two.
=========

I am by no means a climate change denier. My strong impressive is that the evidence rests on much much more than the hockey stick. It therefore seems crazy that the MBH hockey stick has been given such prominence and that a group of influential climate scientists have doggedly defended a piece of dubious statistics.
Misrepresenting the views of an independent scientist does little for their case either. It gives ammunition to those who wish to discredit climate change research more generally. It is possible that there are good reasons for decentred PCA to be the technique of choice for some types of analyses and that it has some virtues that I have so far failed to grasp, but I remain sceptical.

Ian Jolliffe

(my bold) .

Fair enough, though of course Wahl and Amman showed the impact of decentering on the MBH reconstructions is negligible. Not that you'd ever learn that from the Auditor.

Dammit, I wasn't going to get drawn back into HS wars....

Phil Clarke, if Marcott had "proved" the Hockey Stick, why was it worth funding Gergis to produce her own proof to prove Marcott?

I note a cooling after the wheel was invented. Climate Science remains intent on reinventing a broken wheel, but the climate isn't warming, so why should anybody continue to finance any of it?

With Mrs Cameron having lost Greenpeace's hold over No 10 Downing St, and the UK Government's policy, the future is looking brighter, provided the lights don't keep go out too often.

PAGES2K also included Marcott. Surreal climate science.

Yet Phil defends this 'piece of dubious statistics'. And over and over again, dubious statistics are used to attempt to recreate the straight handle of the hockey stick.

Nature was more than neglected, she was actively suppressed. How long do you think your false narrative can last?
==================

and over and over again, dubious statistics are used to attempt to recreate the straight handle of the hockey stick.

we reconstruct surface temperature at hemispheric and global scale for much of the last 2,000 years using a greatly expanded set of proxy data for decadal-to-centennial climate changes, recently updated instrumental data, and complementary methods that have been thoroughly tested and validated with model simulation experiments. Our results extend previous conclusions that recent Northern Hemisphere surface temperature increases are likely anomalous in a long-term context. Recent warmth appears anomalous for at least the past 1,300 years whether or not tree-ring data are used. If tree-ring data are used, the conclusion can be extended to at least the past 1,700 years, but with additional strong caveats. The reconstructed amplitude of change over past centuries is greater than hitherto reported, with somewhat greater Medieval warmth in the Northern Hemisphere, albeit still not reaching recent levels.

Mann et al 2008.

The Hockey Stick Team unstraighten their own handle. Seems to be a Straw Mann argument.

Phil. but Mann and his mannikins still maintain the fiction that the MWP is a regional effect and don't bend the handle far enough. The higher sea levels than today during the MWP (and the earlier RWP) are a dead give away that the high temperatures were global and greater than today's. Unless of course sea levels were higher in the northern hemisphere.

Why would anyone think sea levels were higher during the MWP?

Phil. You are going to get such an earful from golfCharlie.

Basically Medieval (and Roman) docks lie substantially above the level where they would be built to suit today's sealevel - even in areas where land is currently subsiding. There was an extended discussion of this very matter some months ago here on BH.

Over to you golfCharlie.

ACK, actually this is far more entertaining!

http://notrickszone.com/2016/09/13/massive-cover-up-exposed-285-papers-from-1960s-80s-reveal-robust-global-cooling-scientific-consensus/#sthash.Do7LQBVx.8wORMBQU.dpbs

Apparently someone called William M Connolley, a well known Green, helped to disappear papers about the 1970's ice age scare. Some of the well known authors have played such a part in the heat age scare, even telling President Obama what to think, they would look a bit stupid now.

No wonder Dave and Sam needed to make an early exit.

EM does your graph identify anything that might have caused the Ice-Age Scare?

Oh shucks golfCharlie. And here I was expecting you to belt out "Rhyfelgyrch Gwyr Harlech" and put Phil to the sword.

You should know that the 1970s scare was a very local affair, confined to the climate illiterati of the northern hemisphere. Wikipedia have been doing us all a tremendous service, removing information that would confuse proto-sceptics.

GC, That is truly an hilarious piece. Ken Richard wants us to believe that there hundreds of papers from the 1960s, 70s and (interestingly) the 1980s that did warn of ongoing or imminent global cooling. So I checked one of them at random.

It said there is no evidence that further cooling is likely in the immediate future

http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/254014a0

Very entertaining. Got any more?

BTW a quick Google indicates that the Roman Docks at Trieste and fishtanks along the Tyrrhenian Coast were constructed around a sea level about 0.6m below modern levels.

https://www.academia.edu/12941163/SEA_LEVEL_AND_PALEOENVIRONMENT_DURING_ROMAN_TIMES_INFERRED_FROM_COASTAL_ARCHAEOLOGICAL_SITES_IN_TRIESTE_NORTHERN_ITALY_

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257652397_Late_Holocene_Sea_Level_Reconstructions_Based_on_Observations_of_Roman_Fish_Tanks_Tyrrhenian_Coast_of_Italy

ACK, Phil Clarke relies on William M Connolley to erase inconvenient truths so they do not interfere with the Green Washing of Science, History, Geography, Geology, Archaeology etc.

But you are absolutely right about the places above sea level, where our predecessors chose to park their boats. Perhaps they were very strong and liked to lift their boats up a few feet above sea level every night.

Of course EM's chart mentions Zheng He. Was it the Chinese prior to 1430s in the MWP who produced the maps and charts that Europeans were to rely on for their discoveries?

Or lower them half a metre, if they were Roman.

BTW what is your time range for the MWP? Harlech was constructed in the 1280s, and has since been cut off from the sealine by encroaching sand dunes. It happens.

Phil Clarke, glad you liked it. Here is an absolute cracker from TR Karl

"Decreasing Diurnal Temperature Range in the United States and Canada from 1941 through 1980

T. R. Karl a, G. Kukla b and  J. Gavin b

aNOAA/National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC 28801 bLamont-Doherty Geological Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, NY 10964

Journal of Climate and Applied MeteorologyVol. 23: Issue. 11: Pages. 1489-1504
(Issue publication date: November 1984)Received Date: April 19, 1984
Final Form: July 26, 1984DOI: 10.1175/1520-0450(1984)023<1489:DDTRIT>2.0.CO;2

Abstract

An appreciable number of nonurban stations in the United States and Canada have been identified with statistically significant (at the 90% level) decreasing trends in the monthly mean diurnal temperature range between 1941–80. The percentage of stations in the network showing the decrease is higher than expected due to chance throughout the year, with a maximum reached during late summer and early autumn and a minimum in December. Monte Carlo tests indicate that during five months the field significance of the decreasing range is above the 99% level, and in 12 months above the 95% level. There is a negligible probability that such a result is due to chance. In contrast, trends of increasing or decreasing monthly mean maximum or minimum temperatures have at most only two months with field significance at or above the 90% level. This is related to the tendency toward increasing temperature in the western portions of North America and decreasing temperature in the east.

The physical mechanism responsible for the observed decrease in the diurnal range is not known. Possible explanations include greenhouse effects such as changes in cloudiness, aerosol loading, atmospheric water vapor content, or carbon dioxide. Change in circulation is also a possibility, but it will be difficult to isolate since the patterns of the decreased diurnal temperature range have high field significance throughout much of the year, relatively low spatial coherence, and occur at many stations where individual trends in the maximum and minimum temperature are not statistically significant. Our data show that the trends in the maximum and minimum temperatures may differ considerably from trends in the mean."

Isn't it really sweet the way carbon dioxide is the last Greenhouse Gas he considers. Whatever happened to Tom Karl?

Did you see the howler by Schneider? Or what about the one by John Holdren? Hilarious bunch of comedians.

Phil Clarke (5.27pm) when you were googling, did you somehow bypass some entries? like

http://www.kwaad.net/SeaLevel-MiddleAges-LittleIceAge.html

ACK, Skeptical Science rely on William M Connolley for disinformation about the Ice Age Scare, and the allegation is that he has tried to cleanse Wikipedia etc.

Phil Clarke relies on William M Connolley and Skeptical Science.

Phil Clarke is quick to accuse others of fraud.

I am not a Firearms expert, but the ability of others to take aim at distant targets, and still shoot their own Hockey Team in both feet is remarkable.

Well, as the conclusion was

- Since the ending of the last Ice Age sea level has risen by about 120 m. During the Holocene (the past 10.000 years) the last 35 m of rise have occurred. At first, the rate of rise was very high (>80 cm/100 years). Later (about 7000 years ago) it slowed down considerably, viz. to an average rate of 5 cm/100 years over the last 3000 years around the Atlantic. Since 1810 the rate has increased again, viz. to 19 cm/100 years along the Dutch coast for the period 1891-2012. Some authors claim that a minor fluctuation of sea level of about 30 cm has occurred during the temperature optimum of the Middle Ages and the ensuing Little Ice Age. The present website is about this fluctuation.

- In view of the small magnitude (about 30 cm) of the Medieval sea level fluctuation, the reliability and accuracy of the methods and data used are crucial. As Rahmstorf (2011) puts it: To trace the subtle variations of sea level of the last two millennia, more precise methods are required than for the huge and rapid rise of sea level during the first half of the Holocene. This problem has given rise to a rather large number of studies of Medieval sea level change (see the Publications list at the end of the site). No agreement or consensus has been reached so far on the matter.

I didn't see the relevance.

Phil Clarke, you quote Rahmstorf. What is the relevance?

Meanwhile, why did William M Connolley try to eradicate the 1970s Ice Age Scare, written about with glowing levels of confidence by Karl, Holdren, Schneider etc?