And your point is? First, the graph is not very detailed – so in fact it is most likely the case that there have been other cases of “increasing, leveling off and then increasing again”. Second, even if there were not, doesn’t matter. It did happen once before, clearly. Third, you have to remember, the data from which paleoclimate “guesses” are constructed are not necessarily without significant sources of error. And finally, according to the warmists, there was no Holocene Optimum or Little Ice Age so what are you doing presenting them as part of your spiel?

Seriously, keep up the good work and spend less time making negative comments about other people and their sites. It tends to make you look smaller, not them.

As for the 3rd graph compared to the 2nd graph, First of all, the 2nd graph shows the temprature oscilations relative to the trend line which has been rising since the 1800s, as is correct if you look at the 1st graph from the 1800s. Second of all, the 3rd graph is only from 1980 and shows the oscilations relative to the same trend line of the 2nd graph, it’s just that the trend line is shown flat coz the 3rd graph is just showing relative changes and not the actual trend.

If you turn the second graph so the trend line is flat and just compare the portion from 1980, you see it has the same basic shape as the 3rd graph.

I’m surprised people don’t understand how to read graphs. Don’t they teach that in high-schools in the US??

The 1st graph shows that on a millenia level temprature oscilates too. The oscilations in the 2ND graph would simply be noise on the LAST up-trend shown on the 1ST graph coming out of the little ice age, just like the ups and downs of short term stock graphs are noise on long term graphs.

Both graphs are correct and not inconsistent at all.

> “Also, why does the 2nd chart imply that historical
> average temperature was crossed at about 1960 but
> the first chart implies that it happened a few hundred
> years ago?”

Have you ever looked at long term and short term stock graphs? They all show ups and downs and have their own overall trend lines.

The 2nd chart is a short term showing how on a decadal level, temprature oscilates and shows the period covering the rise out of the Little Ice Age, so it shows an overall up trend as is correct for the period of 200 years shown.

The 1st graph shows that on a millenia level temprature oscilates too. The oscilations in the 1st graph would simply be noise on the LAST up-trend shown on the 2nd graph coming out of the little ice age, just like the ups and downs of short term stock graphs are noise on long term graphs.

Both graphs are correct and not inconsistent at all.

Kind of like locking your car on the street. You know that a real pro will get it if they want to steal it but local rowdies will likely not borrow your car for a joy ride if the doors are locked and the key is not in the ignition.

I give them about as much credit as I give me–I trust myself to have sufficient grasp of logic to tell when alternative explanations have been considered, when the explanation of the data supports the conclusion asserted, when the limits of the data have been respected (IMO, the biggest failing of the AGW media), and I am comfortable with the settings on my BS indicator.

I do not, however, trust myself to collect, analyze or do initial interpretations on raw data. For that I need to rely on others. Who to trust is a huge and difficult question, but it is not the Powerline guys.