Morning Belly,
Not a ham but yes, there are similarities. In context, the ‘signal’ is the human induced component of global warming. The ‘noise’ is the natural components (sun, volcanoes, cosmic rays, etc.). Loudmouth appreciates the differences but seems confused over “which is which”. There are many many scientists who study these components of global warming, and there are many many reports published on their findings.
Some people might like to think an ever rising increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 should give an immediate and ever rising increase in (global average) temperatures. However, this is extremely simplistic and demonstrates a failure to understand or appreciate the complexities of the science. Poirot’s graph explains the overall temperature trend quite well though.
Belly, this is an opinion site only. There are much better sites to visit if one really wants to understand the processes of ‘attribution’. For example:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html
There is no point in “taking over” in an increasingly divided world when dialogue is challenged in every nook and cranny with such ideological claims and counter-claims. Paranoia is a powerful force.

Confused not so much over which is which, qanda, but the effects of signal vs the effects of noise - which is which ?

My point was that - IF it is true that world temperatures have not really risen in fifteen years - I stress the IF - then have rising CO2 levels over the past fifteen years or more made any difference ?

An idiot can ask question that geniuses can't easily answer ;)

Joe

You obviously did not read (or understand) http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9.html

Loudmouth,

"An idiot can ask question that geniuses can easily answer..."

There you go again, Joe - faux self-deprecation and sarcasm (roll on the "free" Sarcmark, I reckon :)

The problem as I see it is that you repeatedly ask the same questions - as if you've found some major stumbling block that all the scientists have somehow failed to take into account. You are repeatedly given answers on this forum or directed to peer reviewed papers by scientists to answer your questions - and for some reason you won't or can't digest the content.

...and then some little way down the track you come back with your "brilliant" foils (I was being sarcastic with "brilliant" - roll on the free Sarcmark)

Belly,

The Telegraph just happened to be the first link I saw on Sarcmark.

Hiya qanda : )

Hi Poiro,

Well, maybe I'm not as smart as you think. But as you intimate, I can't get past this assertion that world temperatures have not risen at all in fifteen years - is that true or not ? If it's complete rubbish, I'll retire to my dog-box.

But if it's fairly accurate, then I'll keep asking the same dumb questions. I hope that's all right with you. No bugger it, even if it's NOT all right with you.

Down with gate-keepers, up with free speech. Even for idiots.

Cheers,

Joe

Just joking P not getting in to the leg pulling thing, gets too serious.
But not moving from my conviction we are causing carbon rises/climate change.