mhaze
There are lies dammed lies and statistics. The biggest problem with statistics is that are plenty of examples of scientists from numerous disciplines getting the interpretation wrong. My nephew makes a living out of checking professional scientists statistical work. I do not claim to have any skill in this area, but I am reasonable sure that the data from all sources can be compounded. For example if the data shows that the horse "winner takes all" only wins once in 33 races and other data shows she only wins 1 in 40 races when drawn in barrier 10 or above, she also only wins 1 in 50 times in the wet. The question is what based on previous stats are her chances of winning from barrier 10 in the rain. According to your interpretation above the answer is 1 in 50. I confident her chances winning are significantly worst than that. All of the data for the last 17 years show surface temperatures and lower atmosphere in the mid point are positive, and while a few few fail to show significant warming greater than the 97% probability level, when all the data is combined together it is a sure bet that warming has continued. I would also point out this only works when you very selective with the numbers you input into the calculator.

In any event we do not need to rely on temperature data, other evidence such as accelerating loss of global ice, rising sea levels, and a lot of other observations all point to the fact the warming is unequivocal.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

SteeleRedux,

I showed you one example. I can't do all the work for you. Change the dates and you'll find that all the databases show that there has been a warming 'pause' for some extended period. Try making the start 2000 etc. Some show the pause being for 18 or so years, others show it for 15 or so years. But an extended and unexplained pause nonetheless.

"You might need to tell me why I should take a set of satellite data, which the skeptics pair Christy and Spence have been forced to adjust repeatedly, and take it as definite when it is obviously not?"

Does their data show a pause because they are sceptics or are they sceptics because their data shows a pause?
"adjusted repeatedly". Bulldust. UAH hasn't been adjusted for over a decade and even then the adjustments are minor.

But obviously, since you are so fair minded, I'm sure you are also very worried by the many many adjustments made to the terrestrial databases eg GISTEMP which for some strange reason always end up making the past cooler and the present warmer.

mhaze, as I have continually pointed out, the arguments you try to push about a hiatus having happened is academic. Many of my posts point out the practical happenings in relation to climate change:

.permafrost thawing
.Inuit communities needing to be moved
.glaciers regressing
.ice sheets regressing quickly...Austfonna
.huge flooding events through the atmosphere carrying greater quantities of water vapour...eg Atacama desert in Chile, just one example of many.
.partial hot bulb conditions being experienced in several countries.
.marine organisms moving North and South of the equator and being found in waters that previously had been considered too cool.

It is not cooling, nor a neutral global temperature that is having an impact on what has developed over decades. For permafrost to thaw there needs to be a trend in temperature increase.

Dear mhaze,

You wrote;

“Change the dates and you'll find that all the databases show that there has been a warming 'pause' for some extended period. Try making the start 2000 etc. Some show the pause being for 18 or so years, others show it for 15 or so years. But an extended and unexplained pause nonetheless.”

You are a funny guy.

Either that or you don't have much of an idea about statistics.

You do realise as you drop the time frame you will inevitably increase the error margin thus trends become no longer 'statistically significant' purely because a narrower time parameter was selected.

Try it for yourself on your climate sceptic mates UAH data set. From 1980 until now the trend is 0.142 with an error band of plus or minus 0.067 degrees centigrade per decade therefore statistically significant.

Now split it up taking 1980 to 1999 (Trend: 0.119 ±0.196 °C/decade) then 1998 to 2015 (Trend: 0.070 ±0.199 °C/decade). Would you look at that, the statistical significance has disappeared.

This is very basic stuff mate. Pretty hard to take you seriously if you can't grasp it.

You are a persistent fraud supporter, ant, and disregard the fact that the satellite temperature record of the troposphere is the most reliable and clearly shows the absence of global warming for almost 19 years. You have no science to support your position, and are aware that there is no science which demonstrates any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
You cannot be the dunce you pretend to be. You must be aware that your assertions are blatant falsehoods.
It would be interesting to ascertain how the Exxon Mobil scientists were corrupted into supporting the climate fraud, but at least the company did not fall for it. The Company disregarded their flawed "science".
How about learning some science, ant? You make as big a fool of yourself as Rusty Reflux, with the nonsense you talk.

Leo, if you reread all comments that I have made about ExxonMobil scientists I have constantly said that they advised management about man created climate change. The references make it very clear as to what was going on. You constantly call people who do not agree with you frauds; all you have to offer is ad hominem attacks, you offer no science to support your view.

The scientists from ExxonMobil were saying that man has an impact on climate, you obviously have not read the references provided.

Between 2013 and 2014 there were 24,000 peer reviewed papers published in Journals in relation to climate change, per James Powell. Mostly papers have a number of authors; you're suggesting through your comments that these scientists (except for a few) commit fraud through studying the impact of human created climate change.

Once people resort to abuse; Leo, it is a red flag to show they have nothing to offer.

Thank you for all the home goals.