Quote Mhaze
Select "RSS". Select the years 1990 to 2013. Select Calculate. Observe that the programme shows the warming trend and the error range at the 2 sigma level. Observe that the trend is less than the uncertainty and therefore is not significant. This is very important. It means that at the 95% confidence level there is no upward trend.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
From the same site:-
http://skepticalscience.com/temperature_trend_calculator.html
We have this quote under explanations:-

"If you see an uncertainty quoted as ‘two sigma’ (2sigma;), then this means that according to the statistics there is a roughly 95% chance of the true trend lying between B-E; and B+E"

The correct interpretation is that the level of confidence the trend is real is 95%. A trend is not considered conclusive until the level of confidence is greater than 95%. So to put it crudely the odds are 10 to one that temperatures have really increased.

It has been estimated that the total number of people who have ever lived is around 100 billion the current population is around 7 million this proves that the chance of dying is not statistically significant at only 93%, but that excludes all other information so I would suggest you broaden you view to consider why we are seeing such high rates of ice loss and rising sea levels.

Arctic sea ice volume 1979-2012.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GetB-xs9D_A

Three dimensional graph....and how it was conceived and created:

http://climatecrocks.com/2013/02/24/the-making-of-a-classic-climate-graph/

warmair,

You might not like the results but that doesn't invalidate them. What those figures show is that (taking the case of Hadcrut4 1995 -2013) that we can be 95% confident (sure) that the temp trend was between 0.205 c/decade and -0.015. And that means there was no statistically significant warming.

When scientists and statisticians (you know, the people you keep telling me I should pay homage to) say that there is a warming trend, they mean there is a statistically significant trend ie they can be 95% sure there is a warming trend. For that period they can't say that and thus there is no warming trend. This is the science...surely you accept the science. Or are you one of those who accepts the science so long as it comes up with the right answer?

But I wouldn't fret, warmair. I'm sure the good folk at data adjustment central are already on the job. At some point we'll find that they've done one of those miraculous 'data adjustments' which will retrospectively decrease the 1995 temps and thus, having tortured the data, it will confess to whatever they demand. they've done it so many times before it hardly even gets commented on any more.

Or they might go down the path of the EPA as regards 2nd hand smoking and reduce the confidence level to 90% and thus achieve their pre-ordained answer.

Either way, I think that within a year, all these statistically insignificant trends will be telling the story that the warmists want.

I'm really not at all sure what you were on about with your population analogy but it defintely wasn't statistics.

Yeah, I think you need to understand the idea of scientific consensus, mhaze.

The consensus of the datasets that you linked to, over the original period you mentioned (1990-2013) show statistically significant warming.

Dataset.........Trend(C/decade).....Statistically significant?
Land/ocean
GISTEMP.........0.141+/-0.080...... YES
NOAA................0.141+/-0.079...... YES
HADCRUT3.....0.131+/-0.089.......YES
HADCRUT4.....0.141+/-0.080.......YES

Land
BEST................0.279+/-0.144.......YES
NOAA................0.272+/-0.123.......YES

Satellite
RSS.................0.0126+/-0.135......NO
UAH.................0.170+/-0.133.......YES

So seven out of eight datasets show statistically significant warming over the period mentioned. The consensus of data from 1990, shows that there has been statistically significant warming. Yet you pick the RSS and say there has not been!
Oh, you’re not much of a cherry picker are you?
You then proceed to lambast other posters for ignoring data they don’t like? Ho ho ho.

Now here’s an exercise for you, for the series starting at each year you picked (1990, 1994, 1995, 1996), how many datasets show statistically significant warming? How many do not? How many series showed positive (i.e. warming) trends? How many showed zero trends?
A difference that is not statistically significant (i.e. p<0.05), is not equal to zero, it just fails to reject the null hypothesis.

THANK YOU, Bugsy : )

Bugsy,

Are you serious? Or just scrapping around for some way to square the circle. A consensus of the datasets? There is no such thing. There can be no such thing. Each of the data sets measure different things so they can't reach a consensus. Struth. If what you say is right we could just take an average of all the data and call that the consensus temp. But people don't do that because it would be invalid. Wow!

Let me try to explain it in simple terms. Last year the NRL determined that the best team was Melbourne. The AFL determined that the best team was Sydney. By your methodology we could assert that therefore the best overall team was the midway point and crown Canberra. But that'd be invalid because they weren't measuring the same thing.

If you read my original post on this you'd see that I was saying that each dataset had determined that the climate hiatus started at some different point. But they have all shown that an hiatus has occurred and continues.

Look, you chaps (and chapettes) might not want it to be true but even the warmoholic scientists are admitting it. Not just Pashauri but Hanson, Barnes, Trenberth,Solomon, Lean and a lot more. They're all accepting that there has been an hiatus of some length (dependiing on their preferred dataset) and they all have different reasons about the cause. But they, unlike you, aren't disputing its existence.

BTW - warmair. In checking what Solomon actually said on the hiatus (I don't actually like that term since it assumes there will be a return to warming but the warmists use it so for convenience...) it seems Solomon has determined that water vapour declined by 10% between 2000 and 2009. Weren't you convinced that water vapour would rise inexorably and therefore be the major positive feedback that would deliver us into the temp realms of Hades? It just isn't fair when the real world won't do as its told, is it?