It’s insane telling that non-paleo climate guys can’t seem to understand the scam.

Can you imagine the lawsuits they would face as soon as their statistical methods were outed? By anybody?

Yet, these jokers just keep rolling along, doing the same things over and over again.

It’s disgusting.

[...]How to Make a Hockey Stick – Paleoclimatology (What they don’t want you to know) « the Air Vent[...]…

Two points about the hockey stick graph, or more accurately, the long handle portion.

Surely there has to be more temperature variation than is shown on the handle

Doesn’t the downward slope of the handle come close to the downtrend of the last 2/3 or so of the Holocene?

And a suggestion:
Why not study climate data with a channel or Bollinger Band that includes the full temperature range? Isn’t the temperature range part of the climate as well as the average?

A general observation in this and public confrontational discourse is that the apples and oranges comparisons scream out at each other and neither side makes sense. Like watching the NFL and the other side is yelling for a Home Run!!!.

The side yelling that “you do not believe in Global Warming . . . ” is showing statistics that show warming. They look only at recent 150 years of temperatures only it seems and have come up with the now famous “Hockey Stick.

On the other side are folks who say it (Global Warming)is not anthropogenic.

The problems I want my students to see include the great misuse of resources (to include revenue) to try to stop the inevitable – against using it to determine what to do for humanity when rice is grown in Nebraska and South Dakota and when the bread baskets of the world are Canada and Russian Siberia (after the north running rivers (OB and Lena)have free flow to the Arctic.

Anyway – my students will be allover this site so please keep the dialogue professional and thought provoking.

The comma is correct.

The noise is sorted in the blade portion of the hockey stick to only accept upslope noise. In the historic portion both up and down are accepted – cancelling. The result is a strong blade made of upslope noise and due to scaling, a reduced signal in the past.

…then sort it (throw data out) so that only data which correlate to a temperature rise at the end 5% of the dataset remains. Then you average the remaining data you would get a relatively flat line with an upward spike at the end.

What is the source data being correlated against here? Actual recorded temperature? Is that where the 5% rise comes from?

So now suppose that you had a noisy temperature signal in the data, you have filtered it all for a recent upward trend which is clear, now what would happen to the noisy but real temperature signal in the past. It would of course be muted by the average of the noise, dampening its actual magnitude!!

(Comma added to the last sentence – is that the meaning you wanted?)

Where does the “noisy but real temperature signal in the past” come from? This paragraph says to me that the dampening/smoothing which made recent tree data match observed temperature figures, is extended backwards to equivalent tree data from before records began.