Steele, I said you had not watched Carter, but of course you had. He explained why short term trends could be made to support any proposition, so were valueless.

The long term trend, over 30,000 years shows that the Earth is cooling. This makes sense because on the cycle of climate ages we are due for an ice age..

What appealed to Steele is that short term trends can be produced to support any proposition, so he scuttled off to produce some short term trends to support the AGW fraud.

steele, you are pathetic. Your 'gotcha' trick is really juvenile.

I didn't say 17 years was climatically significant Santer and the AGW establishment did.

Of course the world has warmed during the 20thC; arguably because of the effect of PDO which has an approximate 60 year cycle with a +ve or warm and a -ve or cool phase. During the 20thC there were 2 +ve phases of the PDO, the first from 1910-1940 and the second between 1976-1998 to 2002.

The correlation between PDO and temperature is clear from this:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-PDOAMO-correlation.gif

This correlation between PDO and temperature is to be compared with the LACK of correlation between CO2 and temperature:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif

So I agree the 60 full cycle of the PDO is a useful guide to determining a climatically significant it is also plain the full cycle also provides a good explanation for the temperature increase during the 20thC.

Co

Don't call witless goebbels juvenile or childish it only sends him into a frenzy of deception ... self deception

Wow. Another inking. Oh well. As my grandfather was fond of saying 'Slippery as a Butcher's dick'.

Dear Cohenite,

Please show me where I stated you believed that 17 years was a climatically significant period. You can't because I never did. I in fact went to great pains, despite your obfuscation, to determine what you personally deemed the period to be. You finally furnished it as 60 years and I simply fed that into the Wood for Trees calculator that you yourself used. There is no gotcha moment being sought here I am just highlighting to any readers left the total inconsistency and cherry picking which is the prime feature of your presentations.

What it surely means is that any pronouncements from your good self about the globe no longer warming can now be met with the retort “this is not a 'climatically significant period' to be making that assertion”.

I'm certainly okay with that.

If this has made you feel uncomfortable then may I respectfully suggest you refrain from posting links to sites that supposedly make your case, some of us might take the trouble to actually read them. Perhaps a retreat to opinion that Leo Lane feels so comfortable with is appropriate.

Now perhaps you might like to tell me why when I plug in global temperatures and the PDO into your Wood for Trees there is little if any correlation betwwen the two. What did your crew do to get such a perfect correlation in the graph you posted?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/rss-land

Dear Leo Lane,

Just a quick peek again. Nope. Just opinion.

Well perhaps we can put it to good use. What is your opinion of the following claim by Cohenite?

“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.”

Quote Cohenite
"So I agree the 60 full cycle of the PDO is a useful guide to determining a climatically significant it is also plain the full cycle also provides a good explanation for the temperature increase during the 20thC."

Well that's an easy one it does not, as there is no long term warming trend associated with the PDO you will have to find some other reason. The graph below shows this most clearly.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/PDO_vs_Temp.gif

Warmair what is the R2 of the SKS graph? The graph I have linked to provided that degree of correlation at .85 which is very high.

Steele, you are a troll; your graph [sic] comparing RSS with the PDO index is nonsense since RSS starts in 1979 and the index in 1900.

Comparing apples with apples, HadCrut 4 with the index shows a good correlation when the correct adjustments are made; the correlation moves somewhat after 1990 which is interesting but since HadCrut 4 shows a flat temperature since 2000 I would think the increase shown in the long HadCrut graph is an artefact of the hot 1990s:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:168/scale:2/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:168/offset:2

Do you have anything sensible to add?