Ah, the echo chamber. If there was a article that typified it, this is it. Rafe Champion is your average noob, just like the rest of us. And here he is telling us he has been inspired by the thoughts of Matt Ridley, who has no particular expertise in the subject. I wonder how long it will be before we see someone relying on Rafe Champion's expert opinion in the area.

This time out concept is frustrating.

Bonmot and poirot are upset I called them idiots and stupid and, especially in bonmot's case, then act idiotic and stupidly to prove me wrong; for instance, instead of discussing the paper by Stockwell I linked to, as he requested, bonmot tries to dig up dirt about authorship and yells stupidly; and ironically. Nice one bonmot; have you hit puberty yet?

The Stockwell and Cox 'break' paper raises an important issue of temperature change being concentrated at well documented and major climatic events, such as happened in 1976-1977. The "climate shift" in 1976-77 is well documented by dozens of papers but the Stockwell paper was the first to correlate it with temperature. Another recent paper has confirmed this:

http://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/2011-09.pdf

McKitrick et al confirm that the temperature increase post 1976-7 was almost entirely due to the climatic shift in that 2 year period. Normal linear regression analysis of temperature data 'spreads' that concentrated temperature shift over the full 20 year or so period, giving a false impression that temperature is increasing in step with CO2 increase. This is wrong.

The lack of involvement of CO2 in modern temperature movement is confirmed by the step-down in temperature with another climate shift post 1998, shown in the Stockwell paper and also confirmed by other papers, such as Swanson and Tsonis who isolate the shift to 2002, reflecting their use of a longer data stream.

Cohenite

A search of the ‘International Journal of Forecasters’ from 2009 to end 2011 did not reveal any published paper by Stockwell, let alone you.

http://www.forecasters.org/ijf/journal-issue/455

Volumes 25 through 27

As contributing “author” to Stockwell's paper, you would have known this – why the spin, Cox?

I do note the paper by Stockwell has been “published” on various blogs, Cox. And it may well have been submitted to IJF, but it certainly hasn’t been published. For all I know, they haven’t even ‘accepted’ it, and the only review it has had is by your fellow bloggers.

Cohenite, I have better things to do leading up to Christmas and the New Year than to “discuss” a paper that hasn’t even been published in a journal. Perhaps you’re really asking for a “review”. My god man, even the author says of you, “He has an interest in oceanographic regime-shifts and climate change”. Well whoopee-doo-doo – cohenite has an “interest in climate change’.

Doesn’t exactly sound like the “climatologist” that you think you are, eh?

Anthony, what that Stockwell link demonstrates is that you do not have the necessary and sufficient expertise in time series statistical analysis, as initially suspected. In fact, your latest ‘bait and switch’ is just that. This might surprise you petal, it's not about you, no matter how much you might want it to be.

Btw, I also note Stockwell says there is an underlying anthropogenic global warming trend – disputing what you assert here on OLO.

Btw Btw, you really must try and get a handle on post limits – OLO does that for a reason, it just seems to have blown through your inflated head-space.

I find it incredible that someone could say; “The lack of involvement of CO2 in modern temperature movement is confirmed by the step-down in temperature with another climate shift post 1998”.

Sounds like 'It's not an elephant, it's a lamp! See I can switch it on and off.'

And the rest of us retort, 'Just look at the thing will you, it's a goddam elephant'.

The reply, 'Nope, just a lamp'.

How on earth does 700,000 plus million tonnes of extra CO2 in the atmosphere not have an involvement in temperature movement? What physical property of this gas do they want us to dismiss?

We would love a clear and precise explanation. A straight forward mechanism. For them to hit the proverbial nail on the head. Not to sling data sets around, just to talk to us about the physics.

Show us the money!

They never cough up.

What the Stockwell paper shows is that any AGW impact is either minor or through change of climatic patterns such as the Walker Circulation which Stockwell addresses in another paper not submitted for publication:

http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/01/walkerarticle.pdf

That being the case it is likely that AGW is minor at best and has a low Climate Sensitivity; something confirmed by many recent papers, notably by Spencer and Braswell and Lindzen and Choi, and starting to be grudgingly conceded by that bastion of truth and justice, the UN's sockpuppet, the IPCC.

As for being about me; nope; you're the one, bonmot, who has made it about me; I've only ever wanted to talk about the science; your gratutitous insults make it plain you have no science; idiot.

cohenite,

Generally on this forum it is frowned upon to refer to fellow contributors as idiots and such like. No one seems to have bothered to click on the red cross, probably because watching you continually resort to such puerile insult has been entertaining in itself.

My advice is that if you wish to be taken seriously and "talk about the science" then you should examine your posting style.