Steele, you either know nothing about statistics, or you do in which case, you're lying.

As I said to warmair, we are talking about the present and the trend to that point.

Brozek and later Stokes, looked at all the temperature indices and used SKS's calculator. Their methodology was:

"We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month."

Why do this?

Because a negative slope from a particular month satisfies the 95% certainty criteria from NOAA. Fitting a trend line to any data involves standard deviations, or how much variation from the average of the data exists. A 95% confidence level means all of the data fits within 2 SDs of the trend line; and this gives a good confidence that the trend is representative of the data.

Starting with a negative slope, which is what you are testing for, allows the 95% confidence level to be tested from a cooling period.

Is that clear?

2 things; there is considerable variation in result between the indices; that is when they turned negative leading to the present. That should be a worry if you're looking for reliable statistical evidence.

Secondly, even within each indice's flat temperature trend there will be short periods with increases; as long as they don't exceed the 2 sigma 95% confidence level you know the trend is a good fit; see RSS with 17 annual mean samples:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:17

Anyway the first post by Brozek is here. You should read this if you don't know what you're talking about porno man; or if you do know what you're talking about, keep lying:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/#more-79260

Dear Cohenite,

Magnificently true to form. Get painted into to a corner then in a flurry of tentacles and ink you create a cloud of virtually incomprehensible crap in order to make your escape. Pft, pft, pft, squeezing those little sacs for all they are worth.

You know I'm now at the stage where I think it is cute. It is always difficult on OLO because often we can't put a face to a name, but in the future whenever I see 'Cohenite' this will be my go-to image;

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110110023450/disney/images/thumb/e/eb/Pearl.jpg/258px-Pearl.jpg

“Pearl is a pink flapjack octopus in Finding Nemo. She says she has one shorter tentacle than the rest, though this is barely noticeable. She is pink like her father. She also claims to be able to walk on land. Whenever she gets nervous, or scared, she squirts her squid ink, or "inks" as she calls it.”

Anyway let's try and wade through the cloud.

So you have directed me to a site where they went through the various data sets from Wood for the Trees and marched the the series backwards to see how far they could go and still retain a flat trend line. Of course if they went back too far all the global trend lines would have been positive so they had to pick and choose quite carefully.

For HADCRUT4 they could supposedly push it back 12 years and 2 months but for UAH it was only 8 years and 3 months?

What the hell?

Can't you see how absurd this exercise is? This is the antithesis of good science. It is manufacturing a result to fit your idiocy.

What you need to take a hypothesis like Bob Carter's;

“since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards”

And then test it using valid tools like WfT's which returns the following;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend

Note, not one single trend line has “turned downwards”.

Hypothesis thus rendered false.

One day mate you are going to shake yourself and think 'How did I ever get involved with this crowd?'

Steele, you have obviously not watched Carter’s presentation, or worse, have watched it and failed to grasp what he says about trends.

You have the opportunity to break away from your sick obsession, and all we hear from you is your pitiful bleating about the Heartland Institute, and its resolute support for objective science. This is always your cry because you have no relevant response. Heartland is not making life hard for you, as you believe, it is giving you the opportunity to escape the delusion in which you have entangled yourself in a way that you cannot, or will not, explain.
I wish you good luck. You really need it.

It is very hard conversing with someone who is determined to be obtuse.

Steele is doing that.

The purpose of the Brozek article is to establish the furthest negative monthly trend from the current point. That was done to see whether that negative trend was maintained up to the present through all the data points from that furthest negative trend point.

Brozek used the methodology used at Skeptical Science to test the trend from the furthest negative trend to the present in each temperature indice.

How else could you test the thesis that temperature has been flat or even negative from some past point to the present?

Steel has been shown that the data points from the furthest negative point can fluctuate up and down from that furthest point to the present. The point is the trend.

A confidence level of 2 sigma points has been applied to establish a 95% confidence level that the various trends ranging from over 17 years for RSS and lessor periods for the other indices are a true trend in the data.

Yet we have this steel character running about wearing out WFT and like a delinquent with a machine he doesn't understand presenting his mud flung equivalents as evidence.

This is the calibre of people who believe in AGW.

What? That's it? Nothing from either of you? Oh come on, you must have some comeback that involves a modicum of science.

Okay perhaps we will exclude Leo Lane because he has made it pretty clear he is not interested in the science but will be arguing from opinion from here on in.

But Pearl? Not one link to refute my evidence? And you call ME obtuse? How much more direct could I be?

Tell you what, let's go Myth Busters on this.

Here is the myth.

“Since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards”

Here is the experimentation;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend

Now I declare this 'Totally Busted!', any dissenters?

Anyway, all laughing aside I think you two are done and dusted.

Hey utternutter,

Your turn mate. Whatcha got for me?

Here is the myth.

“Since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards”

No porno guy, the myth is temperatures are still going up.

The evidence is plain or plain to reasonable people that temperatures are not going up. RSS shows temperatures have stopped rising for a climatically significant period.

The methods to establish this are all AGW approved methods and standards.

So, we have the really weird situation where by AGW's own criteria AGW is contradicted yet the devoted believers cannot accept that disproof even when it is sourced from within AGW.

The AGW supporter, not just delusional, but so deluded it does believe its own delusions.