Anthony wrote: “Watt’s OHC yellow line graph; reply to Agronomist above which he can’t see, must be blind or vision selective; OHC since ARGO statistically flat”

The data that went into the plot are available here http://oceans.pmel.noaa.gov/Data/OHCA_700.txt so anyone with a modicum of statistical knowledge can do their own assessment of Anthony’s claim that the data are “statistically flat”. Using the most simple, least squares fit, the slope the trend line between 2003 and 2012 comes out at 2.46 zeta joules per year with 95% confidence intervals of 0.61 to 4.31 zeta joules per year. The slope is significantly non-zero p=0.016.

Anthony, your claim that the trend is statistically flat is 100% wrong. I expect this type of statistical fail is one of the reasons why your paper was rejected? I suggest you could try to get published in Energy & Environment, after all they have published a paper claiming the sun is made of iron and your paper is about the same quality. Don’t tell me Energy & Environment have rejected your paper as well.

You are such a chump Anthony.

Correct.

Any player who claims the regression is flat is run out at the bowler's end without facing a ball.

(just posting to untick the notifications box)

Why oh why won't any of you supposedly wise & educated people explain to this supposedly simple old fogy, just why your gods had to hide the decline, to try to make a scientific point, & if you approve?

Why did you have to "get rid of the medieval warm period" if the science is so good.

Oh & why did the UEA spend millions fighting freedom of information requests.

I know you won' answer. Answering hard questions is a no no for you lot. Much better hubris & abuse, a thoroughly scientific method, when your science won't stand up to scrutiny.

Just one last question, why is a bit of heat in Oz evidence of global warming, & the deep freeze of most of the northern hemisphere is just weather? I'll give your names to a mate of mine in Young. He is often short of pickers for his cherry orchard.

Csteele, you are disingenuous; you don’t want an explanation from me, you want a mea culpa; you want me to say I was wrong and the headline for the article was wrong.

The headline was not wrong; there was no regional or state record. I then offered Ken Stewart’s valid explanation of how a National record could be produced under such circumstances in the context of agreeing that a combined record could be produced from parts which had no record; I repeated that in the comments.

But the important context was that the BOM had not explained how they achieved their result. Ken Stewart was entitled to offer his explanation which worked.

Another explanation from David Stockwell was offered to do with spatial weighting with all its defects, and it worked too.

Then, finally an explanation from Jo Nova involving exclusion of cool sites and how that was wrong was given, and it worked also.

3 explanations of the headline were offered, all viable, along with 2 acknowledgements that an agglomerate record could occur.

But we don’t know, do we csteel, how BOM produced their result because BOM hasn’t offered an explanation?

But that isn’t important to you, all you want to do is score points and persist with your inane demand; well, it’s your bee and your bonnet and I’m not interested; but you are right about something csteele when you say:

“The only reason I can see was to cast doubt over the Met's announcement about it being a nation wide record summer.”

Finally, you understand csteele; except I wasn’t casting doubt; I was explaining why there should be doubt.

Anyway you’ve been a pedantic nuisance and contributed nothing to this thread.

Speaking of nuisances; I had posted above on the ‘flat’ yellow line for Agro’s benefit: he hasn’t mentioned it so is either blind or trolling; I’ll repeat it in the next post.

Agro’s little yellow line; what I said before:

“Agronomist; little yellow line is an approximation; I have linked to a Willis analysis of it above, look at it; data is there; for the 1993-2003 data the increase is approx. +0.1C (11 years); the Error is about 0.02C, R2 0.8309. For 2003-2012 the increase is about +0.02C. (10 years). The error is about 0.01C, R2 0.5597. That is not quite flat but close enough at statistical significance. That blows AGW out of the water.“

I did use poetic licence to say ‘flat’ at the 2nd post and agro picked it up and ignored the first; good trolling.

But let’s dig down further to Agro’s comeback where he says:

“Using the most simple, least squares fit, the slope the trend line between 2003 and 2012 comes out at 2.46 zeta joules per year with 95% confidence intervals of 0.61 to 4.31 zeta joules per year. The slope is significantly non-zero p=0.016.”

In energy terms that is not flat; but it is still FIVE times LESS than the pre-2003 increase which Agro doesn’t mention; more importantly when you convert the energy increase from joules to temperature, guess what, it is FLAT:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/ocean-temperature-and-heat-content/

I’m not a chump Agro but you’re still trolling; do better, or better still do nothing; this thread should end since the criticism has hit rock bottom.

Okay let’s look at the arguments so far.

Warmists
1. “It must be so because it must be so.”
2. “The way we know whether it’s true is to look around and see whether other people are saying it.”
3. “It must be so because I read it in the Sydney Morning Herald.”
4. “It must be so because I read it in the Guardian.”
5. “It must be so because human beings exist.”
6. “It must be so because capitalism is evil and modern industrial activity is unsustainable.”
7. “Anyone who dares to question it is mad, a rapist, a paedophile”.
8. “The way we know it’s true is to look at the social status of the people who are saying it’s true. This seals the deal, the moreso if they are State-funded."
9. “It’s not bad enough to be catastrophic but it’s bad enough to make life unsustainable, the planet uninhabitable for our grandchildren, and to warrant government taxing everything and regulating all human activity.”
10. “I trust experts more than I trust a critical analysis that proves them and me wrong, and which I cannot answer.”
11. “It must be so because the government told me so.”

Skeptics
1. “The observed data are not supported by the theory”.
2. “The models have failed to predict actual temperatures.”
3. “The conclusions assume warming in their methodology.”
4. “A theory is not scientific just because it’s supported by the authorities; it must be supported by the data”.
5. “The main warmist scientists secretly talk among themselves that their theory’s failure to account for the data is “a travesty” while publicly abusing anyone who dares to question it”
6. “There has been demonstrable systematic bias in the manipulation, suppression, and falsification of data”
7. “The temperature measurements themselves do not comply with their own standards and are systematically biased towards warming.”
8. “You can’t claim conclusions are scientific if you refuse to publish the data sets on which they’re based because they can’t be replicated.”

(cont.)