There is just so much bullshit promulgated by the Koch bro and big oil/coal denial machine that it's hard to keep with. It's like a game of whack a mole. The ice age thing was never a widely accepted theory and was hyped by the press. It had very little support among the climatologists. Regardless, that was then, before computers that can predict where a hurricane will hit within 20 miles as they did with Sandy..
It's probably not considered a reliable chart by the climatology community because of this... " Loehle included borehore temperature measurements, pollen remains, Mg/Ca ratios, oxygen isotope data from deep cores or from stalagmites, diatoms deposited on lake bottoms, reconstructed sea surface temperatures, and so on. Basically, he grabbed everything available, so long as it did not rely on trees." So basically he used the least reliable sources by not using ice cores or tree rings. So again, the worst science finds it's way to the denier websites. Much to the joy of the Koch bros and big oil but to the consternation of the other 97% of climate scientists who know better. This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows how 2004 relates to other recent years). For the purposes of this comparison, the author is agnostic as to which, if any, of the reconstructions of global mean temperature is an accurate reflection of temperature fluctuations during the last 2000 years. However, since this plot is a fair representation of the range of reconstructions appearing in the published scientific literature, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change and global warming.
"As meteorologist Anthony Watts explains, new data show ice mass is accumulating on the Antarctic continent as well as in the ocean surrounding Antarctica. The new data contradict an assertion by global warming alarmists that the expanding Antarctic sea ice is coming at the expense of a decline in Antarctic continental ice." ICESAT Data Shows Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/...ins-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/ Maybe it is time that you actually read the data and articles..... and figure out the reality that 'global warming' is a complete fraud.
1) Nice excuse 2) What a bunch of fucking bullshit. Oh you meant 10 min before landfall, why didn't you say so?
2000 independent years of data , surely you don't think we are that stupid do you? hmm seems to me that makes "YOU" the stupid one .
Watts?! Ha ha ha. He's the biggest hack of them all! I suggest you start reading reliable sources if you ever want to to get the real scoop. There is a vast consensus. Man's emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2 is raising the earth's temperatures. It's common sense and the opinion of virtually (97%) of all the world's climate scientists every major science organization, the ceo of Exxon, Rupert Murdoch and anyone else with more than half a brain.
In other news today, the entire Southern Hemisphere is too poor to afford thermometers, ice core readers, antarctic research stations, wood core sample testing, and anything else related to climate science.... that is why all the data must come from the Northern Hemisphere. The reality -- the Southern Hemisphere has just as much equipment as the Northern Hemisphere. The readings coming from Southern Hemisphere equipment are simply ignored by the global warming promoters since it does not help their agenda. The issue of 'data slection' where global warming promoters only select data readings that support their cause and filter out data readings that disprove their cause is the leading problem with 'climate science'. The Professor Mann email leaks readily demonstrated this in a thread about what data stations to remove from the data set. Another example of this sampling bias is the global warming promoters attempting to state that the ice on the landmass of Antarctica is shrinking by only taking readings from West Antarctica stations representing 2% of the land area while ignoring the other 98% of the continent including all of East Antarctica where the ice is greatly increasing.
Craig Loehle claims that Ljungqvist's work vindicates his own previous "global" reconstruction (Loehle and McCulloch 2008, previously discussed elsewhere on this site). Writing on the website Watts Up With That, Loehle claims: "In this post I demonstrate perhaps a little vindication [...] There is excellent agreement over the past 1100 years [...] My peak temperature occurs about 100 years earlier, but I agree with the new reconstruction [....] The MWP looks real." So who's right? Does Ljungqvist confirm the results of Mann (2008) and Moberg (2005)? Or do his results agree with Loehle and McCulloch (2008)? Figure 2 provides a comparison of them all, starting in AD 500 (the earliest date in Mann 2008's global reconstruction), with the northern hemisphere instrumental record shown for comparison. t's worth noting that all the reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, and 20th-century warming (though Loehle 2008 only runs through 1935). Loehle's Medieval Warm Period is both warmer and earlier than the rest (and, as noted above, Loehle recognizes that his early peak circa AD 850 is probably incorrect). Loehle also shows a much colder Little Ice Age. All of the reconstructions diverge more in the period before AD 800, with Moberg being the coolest, Loehle the warmest, and Mann and Ljungqvist being in the middle of the pack. When comparing Ljungqvist 2010 to Loehle 2008, it's important to remember that Ljungqvist's reconstruction is for the mid- and high-latitude Northern Hemisphere only, while Loehle's was supposed to be global. In this light, the presence of relatively extreme temperatures in Loehle's reconstruction during both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age ought to be viewed somewhat skeptically. Whether or not these episodes were truly "global", they were certainly strongest in the Northern Hemisphere, particularly in the North Atlantic region. Ljungqvist 2010 suggests that his own reconstruction may have underestimated the magnitude of Northern Hemisphere cooling during the Little Ice Age, but Loehle's still appears to be an outlier if it is considered as a global reconstruction http://www.skepticalscience.com/new-remperature-reconstruction-vindicates.html
Why do you even comment when you don't really know shit about it? Just to get a rise out of me? What I wrote is the truth....... douchebag. Sandy's exact location of landfall was perdicted a week ahead of time by one of the models.
It is my understanding that there is better historical direct measurements in the NH thus many of the best charts are of the NH. Around 90% of the world's population and most of the land is in the NH, so it has both more measuring stations and more importance. At any rate...this is the whole ocean http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html Oh but that's right, NOAA is a commie lefty fraudulent collection of Al Gore loving UN operatives. So we can't trust the data. My bad. BTW Mann was completely exonerated and never did anything wrong and was attacked by the denial machine.(read big oil/coal interests) There are millions and billions of dollars that are there to defame climatologists. and deny AGW, the fact that you would repeat this bullshit just shows......something. Pennsylvania State University (PSU) commissioned two reviews related to the emails and Mann's research, which reported in February and July 2010. They cleared Mann of misconduct, stating there was no substance to the allegations, but criticized him for sharing unpublished manuscripts with third parties.[26][27] The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the National Science Foundation carried out a detailed investigation, which it closed on 15 August 2011. It agreed with the conclusions of the university inquiries, and exonerated Mann of charges of scientific misconduct.[34][35][36] Whack a mole, whack.