Loehle has corrected his results. Shouldn't Spencer?

Only if Spencer is an honest scientist (same goes for jim). Which often seems not to be the case.

Another key point in this study is that the temperature reconstruction only extends to 1935.

"Because the number of available series drops abruptly from 11 to 8 in 1935, i.e. to less than half the maximum number of series, the reconstruction was terminated in 1935."

1935 was about 0.55 degrees Celsius colder than today. If you add 0.55 deg C to the 1935 temperature in Loehle's graphs, you find that indeed today's temperatures are higher than they were during the MWP, by about 0.4 degrees Celsius.

As a side note, now jim is accusing you of being me? Is there anyone who these paranoid deniers don't think is me? It's obviously a transparent attempt to divert attention that jim and Spencer have been caught once again with their pants down.

*edit* page 12 of the link to the paper provided by Keith shows the weighted and unweighted graphs together.

Also the fact that Spencer has admitted some of his mistakes does not necessarily make him honest. He mentions the revised Loehle study, and yet still doesn't show the correct weighted graphs. No doubt because they show present temperatures as hotter than the MWP. That's not honest - just show the correct data.

And for the record, the revised Loehle study still only utilizes 1.5% as many proxy datasets as Mann's updated reconstruction.

Also, nobody predicted the planet would warm 0.2 deg C this decade. That's the prediction for an average decade, and this decade has not been average due to the preponderance of La Niña cycles and solar cycle minimum.

The paper is in Energy and Environment, which should ring alarm bells anyway. That said, it pretty much seems to lay to rest any arguments based on proxies that the MWP was warmer than today, leaving scattered arguments about grapes in England and crops in Greenland.

Eric c: temperature rises taking decadal averages 1990-1999 and 2000-2009 (assuming 2009 ends up at its current average)

HadCRUT3: +0.17C

GISTEMP: +0.23C

RSS TLT: +0.15C[1]

All 3 records fall within 0.05C of projections which is pretty good IMO. Especially when you consider aerosols, ENSO and PDO have all had cooling effects 2000-2009 relative to 1990-1999. (JISAO, NOAA and [2])

Spencer is an honest scientists as witnessed in this blog entry where he fully admitted his mistake.

"So, what’s the moral of this story? Always question your results…even after finding the obvious errors. And maybe I should eliminate the term ’smoking gun evidence’ from any results I describe in the future.

Oh…and don’t believe everything you read on the internet."

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/08/spurious-sst-w...

How is the graph provided by Spencer (which he also provides a link to the new study) any different that the updated one in Loehle's new study? It still does not look like anything like Mann's hockey stick

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/jhm/AGW/Loehle/Supp... (page 12)

But if you want to talk about dishonest scientists, they are the ones that predicted that temperatures would rise 0.2 degrees during the past decade, while they only rose by about 1/3, but still maintain that their theory is iron clad, and as fool proof as the law of gravity. While others still maintain that the models are accurate. That is dishonest.

Edit: Can you tell me which page is the raw and which one is the weighted average?

MTR: Such data may be able to convince amateurs but not the professionals. Which is why even NOAA admits to a slow down in the cooling rate.

Observations indicate that global temperature rise has slowed in the last decade (Fig. 2.8a [ed.- above, caption below]). The least squares trend for January 1999 to December 2008 calculated from the HadCRUT3 dataset (Brohan et al. 2006) is +0.07±0.07°C decade–1—much less than the 0.18°C decade–1 recorded between 1979 and 2005 and the 0.2°C decade–1 expected in the next decade (IPCC; Solomon et al. 2007). This is despite a steady increase in radiative forcing as a result of human activities and has led some to question climate predictions of substantial twenty-first century warming (Lawson 2008; Carter 2008).

NOAA does stand by its conclusions that warming will resume. It is not dishonest to say that in my opinion warming will resume as to what the models say. But given the poor track record it is dishonest to say with 100% confidence that it will resume and that the models are right.

A more relevant question would be, when is Mann going to EVER correct his study?

########################

Actually, he did just that last year -- in a paper that was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: see http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/Mann... for details.

Cracker snitch white boy

Loehle's data remains about the same. Spencer should link to the new report, but the results are not much different. The new report still clearly shows the MWP, and the little ice age.

A more relevant question would be, when is Mann going to EVER correct his study?

Dana, did you actually read his correction. If you accept it, then you might as well use Mann's reconstruction as toilet paper which would probably just be a redundant waste since it already full of crap.