https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788/tables/1

These “natural thermometers” all pointing to global warming. All signs pointing to AGW when considered together with the spectrometry data.

Sorry Boobhead, no evidence of an ice age.

Original study: https://www.nature.com/articles/sdata201788
Not SKS, Loser Lees.

For coverage more in line with the mediocre denier intellects:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-natural-thermometers-global-warming-world-temperatures-rising-warmest-ever-hockey-a7837881.html


Quote:

In the most comprehensive assessment of how the climate has changed over the period to date, researchers looked at a host of sources of historic information, including tree rings, ice cores, lake and sea sediments, corals, mineral deposits and written records. What they found confirmed the famous “hockey stick” graph, showing an undulating, but broadly flat, line followed by a sharp uptick that begins at around 1900. The only plausible explanation for this sudden change is fossil fuel emissions, which have increased the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from about 280 parts per million in the 19th century to more than 400 today. The warming effect was predicted by the Nobel Prize-winning Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius in 1895. Writing in the journal Scientific Data, a team of nearly 100 researchers described how they had created a database of 692 records from 648 different locations in “all continental regions and major ocean basins”. Some of these natural thermometers covered the entire 2,000-year period, with an average length of 760 years. The original hockey stick graph, which spanned 1,000 years, was widely praised when it was published in the journal Nature 20 years ago, but also came under attack from climate change sceptics and deniers. Professor Michael Mann, one of the paper’s authors, was abused, made the subject of hostile investigations by US politicians, and even sent death threats.

Shoot the messenger, a well known and effective way of dealing with problems [/sarcasm]

https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2017/07/12/17/hockeystickgraph.jpg
No sign of an ice age. No sign of any credible natural variation either.


Quote:

In a blog post about the new study, one of researchers, Professor Julien Emile-Geay, wrote that it essentially confirmed the hockey stick graph was accurate. “As a scientist, you have to go where the evidence takes you,” he said. “You can only be smacked in the face by evidence so many times and not see some kind of pattern. (You will never guess: a HOCKEY STICK!). “The hockey stick is alive and well. There is now so much data supporting this observation that it will take nothing short of a revolution of how we understand all paleoclimate proxies to overturn this pattern. So let me make this prediction: the hockey stick is here to stay.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-natural-thermometers-global-warming-world-temperatures-rising-warmest-ever-hockey-a7837881.html

The blog post referenced above contains this graph:
https://strangeweather.files.wordpress.com/2017/07/compositeglobalbins_web.png?w=510

Enjoy.

Wow. A chart of Northern Hemisphere temperatures from Mann. Using his same methods, and they came to the same conclusion. How unusual. Not. Is this supposed to show GLOBAL warming?

Remember what Marcott said, when he came up with a similar hockeystick?

"Q: What do paleotemperature reconstructions show about the temperature of the last 100 years?

A: Our global paleotemperature reconstruction includes a so-called “uptick” in temperatures during the 20th-century. However, in the paper we make the point that this particular feature is of shorter duration than the inherent smoothing in our statistical averaging procedure, and that it is based on only a few available paleo-reconstructions of the type we used. 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/

Now when/if Mann decides to publicly release his data, and apparently he has failed to do so in his case against Tim Ball, then maybe we can assess Mann's work dispassionately.

Ask yourself JV, why did the IPCC hide the MWP and MIA.

http://i66.tinypic.com/fzaudt.jpg

The hockey stick is right.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 2:03pm:

The hockey stick is right.

Oh dear, there is no use trying to take the blinkers of then... :o

No, the hockey stick fits the data no matter how you dice and slice the data.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 5:18pm:

No, the hockey stick fits the data no matter how you dice and slice the data.

With emphasis on the "slice and dice".

What was the reason Mann spliced the temperature record onto the tree ring data of a recently cut down tree? Surely the tree ring data didn't suddenly stop, years before the tree was cut down? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

No, no matter how you slice and dice the data—hockey stick it is.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 6:16pm:

Quote      Posted on: Today at 4:16pm No, no matter how you slice and dice the data—hockey stick it is.

Yep. it is just crap "data".

No, the only crap around is your “Natural Variation” so–called “theory.”

Care to expound on it?

H1

H0


. .. . . .?? waiting Loser Lees.

Jovial Monk wrote on Jul 15^th, 2017 at 6:37pm:

No, the only crap around is your “Natural Variation” so–called “theory.”

Only because you don't understand the null hypothesis.

What is the H0 for your “avoid admitting AGW at all costs” thingy Loser Lees?

theory–mechanism–H1–H0–test?

come on loser buddy, you can do it!