If it did flatline for 30 years then obviously warmers would change the goalposts to 50 years.
I took this data myself and plotted it. I then fit a line to it. The equation that describes my linear fit is:
y=0.71629 - 0.00503x
You can compare my result to that on the WUWT article's first plot, which gives a trendline of:
y=0.7113 - 0.005031x
in the bottom left. This demonstrates that our fits are both very similar. Now, my software also tells me the error in that fit (Origin). The *actual* equation for the line including the errors is:
y= 0.71629 (+/- 0.36713) - 0.00503 (+/- 0.00564)x
You can see that the error in the slope is larger than the 'best fit' value. This immediately implies that you cannot use this data to determine a trend in the slope. It also allows one to plot a 'maximum' and 'minimum' line that still fits the data and lies within the error margins. I've plotted that and attached it below. The red line is the fit that uses the negative values of error. The blue uses the positive. The slope of the red line is negative (implying a cooling), the slope of the blue line is positive (implying a warming) and the WUWT fit would lie between the two. Any line between these two is a possible fit for the data and would be equally valid as the one shown in WUWT based on the errors. So, for example, you could start a line at the beginning of the red line, and finish it at the end of the blue line (very much a positive slope, i.e. warming) and it'd be fine as a fit to the data. Or you could do the reverse and get a more pronounced negative slope (i.e. cooling).
The conclusion is the data could show warming, a pause, or cooling. There isn't enough data to make any determination about that trend in the set chosen by WUWT. So, the premise of your question is wrong. There is no pause, warming, or cooling indicated in the article you've linked to because the author hasn't done the analysis properly.
No I dont think so, this looks pretty open and above board for a change and anyway with UAH and RSS satellite readings avaiable it would look fairly obvious.
The pause is real, and it is looking very bad for the warmers, in fact none of the climate change predictions look as if they will be fulfilled, Joe Joyce thinks 17yrs 9mths is not a long enough time, hmm how long does it take a hundred years, a thousand years?
The 'climate community' has been tampering with the the data for a very long time.
New Paper: "Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environ...
-----------------------
Can you show that any data corrections - ever made to any climate data - were incorrect or that introduced unnecessary bias into the data?
I did not think so. As with everyone who depends on WUWT for information, you;re just another ignorant nitwit lying about your education and knowledge.
It doesn't drive us crazy, we just think that people that read and link to Watts are dupes.
ROFL... Oh right I forgot, the missing heat is in the deep ocean where unfortunately we can't measure it.
Pardon me, Ian, but which part of human-caused *global* warming don't you understand? Do you understand that the US is maybe 2% of the surface of the earth? How reliable are election return projections when 1% - 2% of the vote is in?
Now, the next part is kinda simple, too, and this part concerns a statistically significant time period for the phenomenon under question. Is less than 10 years considered a statistically significant length time in climate science, or is 30 or more years considered a statistically significant length of time. Can you tell how much cash I'm carrying by checking only 1 of my pockets?
Finally, the last part deals with your "thinking". Pray tell, just why are you "thinking" that there will actually be 5 consecutive years starting now with no warming in the US, and just why, oh why, would you think that if there were, NOAA would start making "corrections"? What sort of "corrections" did you have in mind, "Ian"?
I am curious to know why you are such a conspiracy theorist. Did this come on suddenly, did it grow gradually over time, or have you always been this paranoid? What is this "agenda" of which you speak? When and how did you first become aware of it? Is this another of those nefarious schemes to take over the world by cleaning up pollution? Are you afraid the jackbooted liberals will come and take away your bad air? ;)
Seriously, Ian, my points are all valid. You have heard about statistically significant time periods in climate science before. And you should have been exposed to globes in grade-school geography, so you should realize the entire planet is noticeably larger than the USA, even if you throw in all our coastal waters.
****************EDIT
'Scuse me, but pointing out the USA is not the world is a valid point in considering global warming. That is not in doubt, and for you to mention it is a bit suspect in itself.
Ian, I call you on a misstatement. You said this: " : @Joe Joyce... Yes I knew an alarmist would bring up "The USA in not global... but a double twister in Nebraska is" argument." Stop putting words in my mouth. I said *nothing* about any individual weather event in this answer. If you think I did, or would, in this kind of answer, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, I'd say it's blatantly obvious I didn't. So why do you feel the need to make up things to try to diss my points? It only makes you look worse.
Everyone who is a climate science denier is a conspiracy theorist, of necessity. Regardless of what else any or all of you deniers may or may not be, you all *must* be major conspiracy theorists to deny 2 centuries of science, done by tens of thousands of scientists, hundreds of thousands of meteorologists and weather people, across all 7 continents and seas, representing just about every country in the world, many fierce enemies of others during some or all of their time.
Al the info they use is freely available online, see Ref 1, below. It is available raw, adjusted, discussed, analyzed, available with free analysis tools, available with GCMs and computer code, and more and more and on and on. It has been looked at over and over. The datasets all show warming. Corrected data shows warming. Raw data shows warming. The "good site" US stations show warming. The "bad site" US monitoring stations show the same warming - the same as the corrected data, the raw data, the good sites, the rural sites alone, the city sites alone, statistically significant randomly-chosen subsets of the stations... There's no data hidden, there's no data missing, there's no data corrupted beyond recall. It's all here, freely available to all.
Kano, I know the difference between 10, 17, and 30. It's pointless to get subtle, but going much beyond 30 years starts to take you out of the range of humanly significant climate change. Cycles of tens or hundreds of thousands of years change temperatures very slowly. Let's say the temp range is 10 degrees and the cycle is 100,000 years. That means the average change is 1 degree every 10,000 years. Currently we're changing at a rate of about 1 degree in 100 years, 2 orders of magnitude faster. Anytime we've seen comparable speeds in the geological record, we've seen mass extinctions. Does any of this make you wonder? I mean, if what I'm saying is right, how would that affect your thinking?
why do deniers forget where most of the heat is going- the oceans?
If and when they have a scientific reason to do so.
Five years in a row without warming, whether in the U. S. or in the world, if it happens, is something no honest scientist will deny.
Note to other "warmers." If responds with a claim that scientists are not honest, please report him. If we all report such slander, it will be deleted.
I'll link to Watts because it drives the alarmists crazy...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/06/07/noaa-shows-the-pause-in-the-u-s-surface-temperature-record-over-nearly-a-decade/
I'm just curious to know when people think the NOAA might have to "make some corrections" to the data (ie adjust the data upwards to fit their agenda).
I'm thinking if there is 5 more years of no warming that we will start seeing some "necessary adjustments".
