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.

I trust using a kiwi based image in your post in no way associates us in a positive way with Mann 🙂

Let me guess, we are all going to drown very soon according to the models, even though there has been a levelling off and slight decline in sea levels. Very soon the seas will start to rise again but much much faster than previously thought according to the models. Unless we destroy our industrial Western economies and borrow more trillions and lavish more money on certain ‘scientists’ of course, in which the models predict all will be well and we will all be happy and gay and the world will join hands and be one, according to the models which are never wrong and must not be questioned. In the world of Mann made global warming, the future can be divined not by visiting the Delphic priests and giving them gifts of gold, but by accessing the new oracles of models by way of the new priesthood of climate scientists. Nothing much changes does it? New oracle different priests, same fiscal incentives with the same outcome, you gets what you pays for.
Repent sinners or doom will befall you, BTW please supply more money or doom will befall you soon.

I can’t help but remember Berkeley professor Richard A. Muller’s words, “Quite frankly, as a scientist, I now have a list of people who’s papers I won’t read any more.”

His words on the “Hide The Decline” deception are very strong.

isn’t breaking one’s own embargo akin to self-plagiarism? Where’s a DeepClimate when one is needed?

Looking at the latest global temperature charts, I think we need an inverted hockey stick graph.

Same strict review process as Lindzen’s paper I presume….

A real cynic might wonder whether the recent inept attempts by the Rocky Mountains Sea Level Centre to pull the wool over our collective eyes has any connection with the publication of this paper?
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/
Surely not. Pure coincidence.
They really must think that we are all a bunch of morons.

nevket240 says:
June 19, 2011 at 11:04 pm
Have also posted at ClimateAudit..
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2011/s3248165.htm
They really are full of their own BS, aren’t they?

Heh. It’s listed in Significant publications by Martin Vermeer (pdf), which is dated May 9, 2011 both on the first page and in the file’s “Properties.” So apparently that much of the “embargo” was broken over a month ago, although to be fair I have no way of knowing exactly when that version of the list was posted on the web so it could have been after Mann announced it. (The Wayback Machine has no instances of the document nor Vermeer’s home page.)
On the bright side, on his home page I did find this delightful cartoon which shows a refreshing viewpoint that “the opposition” should adopt. Would it really be that bad if they used it for a starting point in their research?

I guess tree ring data show an unprecedented sea level rise for the last 3 decades.

I just know, that the word “unprecedented” will feature prominently in that paper.
It already did in the Student Poster Session (see No. 9) here:
http://www.sas.upenn.edu/earth/climate_poster.html
The author A. Kemp dealt with an unprecedented sea rise at North Carolina only, but in the fresh-out-of-oven paper he does that worldwide, apparently.

Do scientists ever play a game amongst themselves where you choose a ridiculously wrong conclusion and then gather evidence to support the claim? For instance say you had a conclusion that Lions should be classified with Dogs than Tigers. You could then work out all the reasons for reinforcing this wrong conclusion; Lions hunt in packs which is unknown amongst other cats, and is a dog-like behaviour.
I thought it might be a fun thing to start a thread with a conclusion and ask all your contributers to show how easy it is to make the science fit the conclusion. I am sure it has been done many tiomes before, not least by M Mann.

Mark and two Cats says: June 19, 2011 at 5:25 pm
omnologos said:June 19, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Whether to be included in the DSM-V?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist
and
jeez says: June 19, 2011 at 5:31 pm
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.
Accurate observation there jeez. Your comment is evidenced in the released CG emails, the narrative of the data collectors. And their questioning.

R. Shearer says: June 19, 2011 at 6:29 pm
I am not sure to that question.
But studies by behavioural-economists have pondered on your very question for some years.
Monkey Business
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/05/magazine/05FREAK.html?pagewanted=all

Robert of Ottawa says: June 20, 2011 at 5:36 am
That must be a nice season up there in the north?
Absence of Brigette B and the all the other celebrities visiting for a few icy months must be a huge relief?

In my previous post I meant that I it will take several years, perhaps decades until internet and blogs like this one bring a widely accepted -and fully deserved- discredit to the corrupt mainstream academia and media.

Be on the lookout for tide gauge data that stops ~2002. Just sayin’.

Roger Knights says:
June 20, 2011 at 4:01 am
I heard that next year CSU are going to introduce a correction to sea level for the growing sea mounts in the Hawaiian chain and elsewhere that are reducing the volume of the oceans.

@rhs
Your link is to the wrong paper. It points at a review entitled “Climate Over the Past Two Millennia”, from 2006.
@Smokey
“Mann’s graphs show lots of hockey sticks, and erase most of the MWP and the LIA. He ignores contrary evidence, such as the fact that a warming planet would cause thermal expansion of the oceans and thus an accelerating sea level rise, when just the opposite is occurring”
Which paper are you referring to?

There’s a saying about astrophysicists that I think applies equally as well to climate scientists. Adapted, it goes: “Climate scientists are always wrong, but never in doubt.”
If it weren’t for the fact that they serve a useful purpose for those advancing a radical environmental agenda, we would pay no attention to them. At least the astrophysicists give us really cool pictures.

The little pseudo-statistion who cried Wolf too many times has no one who beleives him any more Mr.Mann…