Dear Cohenite,

You truly have me in stitches. Ah, very, very amusing.

It is like you are trying to compare an elephant and a mouse.

You - 'They both have ears'.

Me - 'Look at the size of them'

You - ' They both have noses'

Me - 'Look at the size of them'

You - ' They both have toenails even'

Me - 'Look at the size of them'

You - ' Well they both are mammals though'

Me – 'Yeah but look at the size of them'

Mate, I'm sorry but you are like the emperor with no clothes.

In keeping with your definition of climatically significant periods being over 60 years let's just simply look at the complete trend lines for the two. One is going up significantly and the other if anything is heading down.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2012/every:13/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:13/scale:4/offset:5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:13/scale:5/offset:5/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/trend

It is as basic as that. Why on earth does that not register with you? You really do have it bad.

Steele, you do realise the PDO index is the reverse sign of temperature?

No, I thought not.

Graham gives me time off for calling people idiots so I won't.

Lyn
You have distracted those who usually get all exited when John Pilger writes on OLO.
The climate change deniers seem to ignore the fact that about 70% of our planet is covered by oceans whose temperature and levels are rising.

"The climate change deniers seem to ignore the fact that about 70% of our planet is covered by oceans whose temperature and levels are rising."

No they're not:

Sea surface temperature since 2003, the time the ARGO floats were introduced and reliable measurements made:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/trend

OHC to 700 meters where 90-95% of the ocean heat lies, also from 2003 and compared to the model predictions:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-models-argo.gif

Deny that!

Dear Cohenite,

Yes they are.

Some bloke called funnily enough Cohenite has assured me that a climatically significant period is 60 plus years. If we plug that into your same calculator we get this;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1954/trend

a decidedly upward trending graph.

For fun though, knowing it has no probative value, at least test for a time period half that;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1984/trend

Still upward.

Let's try for 1/3rd of a 'climatically significant period' just cause we can.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1994/trend

Still resolutely upward.

It is silly I know but lets for the sake of the party try for ¼.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1999/trend

Hey look at that. Still reaching for the sky.

But you know and I know this is just silly talk. A climatically significant period would not be 15 years, nor 20, nor 30. It is 60.

I commend your faith in me steele and what I say; now also be assured you are a pest.

Thus endeth the lesson.