Anthony, you really are a chump.

“Look at a histogram”

Anthony, that histogram has non-overlapping bins. It is not made up of a moving average. The “trend-line” in that example is just a normal plot of the data. It is not a moving average.

Why not admit that you don’t understand this statistical stuff rather than continuing to parade your ignorance?

"The fixed averaging window of 20 years is sufficiently wide to dampen the dynamic influences to reveal a transformed time series from which signals of comparatively low-amplitude sea level rise (or fall) can be more readily isolated."

This is a bit of goalpost moving. The problem is not that Watson used a moving average as a smoothing exercise; it is that he then ran a statistical model over it as if each bin was independent. They are not. He also used the wrong model.

“I repeat H&D DID NOT select 1930; they replicated Church and White's paper which chose 1930; H&D actually looked at the full range of data which is why they were able to isolate the problems with C&W.” Perhaps we should see what Houston and Dean actually wrote about this?

“Since the worldwide data of Church and White (2006) from 1870–2001 (Figure 1) appear to have a linear rise since around 1930, we analyzed the period 1930 to 2010 for 25 of the 57 gauge records that had records during that period.”

It seems Houston and Dean did select 1930 and did so on the basis that Church and White “appear to have a linear rise since around 1930”

http://www.jcronline.org/doi/full/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1

Regardless, the fact remains that if Houston and Dean had chosen any other starting between 1870 and 1960, they would have found an acceleration in sea level rise. Only 1930 as a starting point gives a deceleration

Agronomist,

I don’t pretend I understand any of what you are discussing with cohenite but it does seem to me that there are many in this world that do understand, or at least once did understand.

They understood so profoundly that they built a global infrastructure to implement global action in support of the case you make for this global problem.

Unfortunately for you, that global infrastructure has collapsed. Kyoto passed away quietly on the evening of December 31st 2012. The global renewables industry has collapsed by 90% and the global emissions trading markets have either closed or collapsed by 90%. Political sponsorship and funding is evaporating, legislation is stalled or being reversed and public interest is decaying at the same rate as the alarmist forecasts and predictions fail to eventuate.

In addition to all this bad news, many of the scientific and political opinions on which we based this global response have now either scaled back their alarmism or recanted.

Since these trend lines are all downward, I was wondering why you still persist with the science that has already failed in its purpose? Also, why are you still persisting in trying to “sell” this science to blogs when you should be selling it to those who have abandoned you and were once totally dependent upon this science?

Since you do understand the science, perhaps you might help people like me to understand why it has all gone belly up?

spindoc,

You keep saying that somehow the science has been negated because nations decide to be guided by short-term economic imperatives instead of acting on scientific advice.

It doesn't negate the veracity of the science.

You ignore the concerted efforts of oil companies and big business to fund the denial industry through the dissemination of shonky science, media and political partisanship of those with vested interests, and a veritable army of no-science drones invading the net, all in order to muddy the pervading and overwhelming scientific consensus.

Agree Poirot. As the PM put it who do you believe? CSIRO or Alan Jones?

Poirot,

You said, << You keep saying that somehow the science has been negated because nations decide to be guided by short-term economic imperatives instead of acting on scientific advice.>>

I said nothing of the sort. I made no assertion that the collapse had anything to do with “short term economic imperatives”, you did.

I suggested that the science is no longer strong enough to sustain its own CAGW infrastructure.

We have been told so many times, by so many warmers, that this science will create jobs, improve economics, create wealth, save future costs, subsidize the economic interests of third world and developing nations, create a pool of funds for de-carbonization and provide cheap, cleaner energy. If you really believe that these objectives have even come close to being achieved, then why is there any need for the “short term economic imperatives” in the first place?

You can’t have it both ways. Are you now saying that because the global response to CO2 reduction failed to deliver the promised economic benefits, that this has now become your primary excuse for the collapse?

You’re chasing your tail Poirot.

spindoc,

"I suggested that the science is no longer strong enough...."

It's got nothing to do with the "strength" or veracity of the science.

That's another way of saying the science is negated.

The science is stronger than ever...

As is the "concerted effort" by those who defend the status quo to deny it.