Mike Mann's new sea level hockey stick

Let me guess the conclusion: models show catastophic sea level rise in the near term…more research required.

I was under the impression we have been told repeatedly we need to trust Scientists. So what IS Michael Mann? A statistician? A physicist? If there all MM is doing is measuring things and running stats on it, I would assume there are people in the world who have better credentials to do the statistics, like, say, a statistician.
All this “Trust the scientists” is very confusing, if what the “scientists” are doing is playing at being statisticians. Hopefully there will be some link to Dr. Mann’s area of study in physics, Geophysics, Geology, or applied math (I suppose there is some statistics in applied math).

Help! We’re all going to drown. Or more likely die of massive head trauma brought on by smashing our heads into walls from listening to crap.

Ed Barbar,
Mann doesn’t take measurements. He takes other researchers’ data and mines it using “novel” and “new” methods. Or as an objective observer is likely to conclude, he tortures it until it confesses.
I think some of the commenters here, such as Anything Is Possible are missing the likely point of the new study. It will simply be a reinforcement that the current conditions are unprecendentatively worse than ever, and that the Vikings were only able to colonize Greenland because they possessed fusion power and environmental suits given to them by extraterrestrials who subsequently took back their technology, destroyed all records of it, and mindwiped the Vikings who survived.

Jeez: Thanks. Understood Mann either obtains or perhaps funds the data acquisition from his grants. I’m trying to understand if what he is doing is using statistical analysis on the data, why is he the best to do it? Does he have some great insight into statistics? Didn’t see it on his CV. Also, I have understood he made some goofs in his use of statistics in his last hockey stick graph, discovered by Steve McIntyre and friends, and further represented the data in ways some have called not “clear.” I’m thinking it might be better for someone who is an expert (or perhaps Mann is an expert), perform the statistical calculations.
“he tortures it until is confesses” . . .Love that. It’s ironic in many ways, at least to me.

It seems undeniable that there will be Mann-made sea level rise.

“Dr. Mann appears to have jumped the starting gun a bit.”
Hopefully “jumped the shark” will be the final description of it, given that his ridiculous hurricane hockey stick didn’t get much public ridicule despite withheld proxy data and being yet another example of stapling on a dubious instrumental-record blade likely biased by greater detection over the years onto a random walk trend-less proxy-based handle (see: http://climateaudit.org/2009/08/12/more-check-kiting-at-nature/).
A good sea level debunking blog is at: http://climatesanity.wordpress.com
I got screamed at on an AGW enthusiast site, told I should be ashamed of myself, that I was stupid, that I didn’t really have a Ph.D., that blah blah blah…for posting a chart of representative tide gauge records (http://oi53.tinypic.com/2i6os4y.jpg). However, the one valid point was a lack of publishing my collection in the literature. Well, I thought, let’s dig a few sea level studies up then. Imagine my surprise to not find just linear trends but universal signs of recent deceleration!
(1) Church and White, the classic purveyors of an exponentially shaped sea level curve, in their latest article update of 2011 (which eliminated the word “accelerating” from the title) plots, in hard-to-see yellow, a simple average of tide gauges, which, once I clean all the dark plots behind it away, shows stark linearity.
Graph: http://oi51.tinypic.com/28tkoix.jpg
Reference: http://www.springerlink.com/content/h2575k28311g5146/fulltext.pdf
(2) Sea levels show deceleration since 1930:
http://jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1?prevSearch=all%3A+deceleration&searchHistoryKey=
That’s the USA and Pacific Ocean, and says: “Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations.”
(3) http://jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00141.1?prevSearch=all%3A+deceleration&searchHistoryKey=
That’s Australia (deceleration since 1940) that says: “The analysis reveals a consistent trend of weak deceleration at each of these gauge sites throughout Australasia over the period from 1940 to 2000. Short period trends of acceleration in mean sea level after 1990 are evident at each site, although these are not abnormal or higher than other short-term rates measured throughout the historical record.”
(4) http://www.jcronline.org/doi/abs/10.2112/06-0748.1?journalCode=coas
That one says: “Unambiguous evidence for fingerprints of glacial melting was not found, most likely due to the presence of other signals present in sea-level records that cannot easily be distinguished.”
(4) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.3370100203/abstract
That one is Europe and says: “no evidence was found for MSL accelerations significantly different from zero over the period 1870 to the present.”
(5) http://www.joelschwartz.com/pdfs/Holgate.pdf
That one is a world wide sampling that says: “The rate of sea level change was found to be larger in the early part of last century.”
(6) http://research.fit.edu/sealevelriselibrary/documents/doc_mgr/403/Pacific_Introduction_to_SLR_-_Mitchell_et_al.pdf
That one was the Pacific based on the longest records available which says: “The estimated average rate of sea level rise from the longest records is computed to be +0.3 mm/yr, almost an order of magnitude less than the IPCC estimates.”
(7) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1771/abstract
That one was Europe and N. America which says: “Most sea-level data originate from Europe and North America, and both the sets display evidence for a positive acceleration, or ‘inflexion’, around 1920–1930 and a negative one around 1960. These inflexions are the main contributors to reported accelerations since the late 19th century, and to decelerations during the mid- to late 20th century.”
(8) A study by one of the RealClimate team (Rahmstorf 2007 as discussed on http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/). He got his acceleration via adjustment to *actual* sea levels to account for land based water reservoirs while ignoring ground water pumping to the surface. This swam right through peer review. Such adjustments are highly speculative at best and simply fantasy at worst for they do not reflect *actual* sea level changes!

Maybe he needs the money.

Anything is Possible.
Yes sell it right away at any price you can get it will be worthless the day after tomorrow ( that would be a great title for a movie).
I’ll offer you $15. That is more than it will be worth.