Enjoying the Carbon Scam?

[avgas]

The term is usually not "erroneous data", but "noise". And calling it "noise" isn't the same as claiming it doesn't matter. It just depends what you're looking for. It's precisely because of people like Mandelbrot and Lorenz that we understand that the climate system generates largely unpredictable short-term fluctuations. You can see them in time series of global temperature and you can see them in time series of the same quantity simulated by 3D global climate models. Further if you run a global climate model several times with identical forcing but slightly different initial conditions, then each run generates similar-looking fluctuations, but at different times.

People like Steve Goddard don't really understand the concepts here very well (and to be fair they are potentially confusing) so they make claims like

GISS shows no warming over the last decade

but we know that, even if you have a strong underlying trend, you won't be able to measure it accurately from a short period of data, because of the unpredictable fluctuations. And here a guy who calls himself Tamino explains what's wrong with Goddard's claim

Trend and noise

Being a statistician, he calls the fluctuations noise, but what he really means is basically unpredictable fluctuations with an interesting internal structure.

Heh I loved his part about linear regression analysis.

Is a good reading. But the same punches he pulls against Mr Goddard could be used against him.
His data only goes to 1970's......

I will say it again. They are too scared to say they don't know.........
Also whats with the 5 year "seasonal" change?
If it raises say 0.2 in about 15 years. But in that time it has moved up and down every 5 years. Does this mean there is a 3rd harmonic?

But then again I wouldn't speculate on such things with only 50 years of data. Effectively that is would only be 10 samples. To prove my theory.

Haven't we been recording temperatures for over 100 years now.
Why only use date from the last 50? Why not use ALL the data?

I am not saying global warming is or isn't happening. I am saying that I "I DON'T KNOW". I say it to many things, it doesn't make me any less of a person.
Either way, why are climate scientists so confident?.......Especially when they aren't using all the data available to them?

[Badjelly]

Haven't we been recording temperatures for over 100 years now. Why only use date from the last 50? Why not use ALL the data?

You'll find plots of the last 100 years of global average temperature in many places, with discussions of the factors that may have driven the changes. Tamino, in particular, had a good post a while back in which he analysed this data and found 3 periods, basically warming from 1900-1940, a flatter period from 1940-1975, and a reasonably steady warming since 1975. Pretty standard stuff, but he used statistical techniques to identify the break points. I've had a quick look for the post, but it was a while back and the posts on the site are not well indexed.

As the IPCC reports explain, climate models can reproduce this pattern rather well, with a combination of forcings. To oversimplify, the early warning was generated in large part by an increase in solar output, the flat period by increasing sulphur aerosols and the recent warming by increasing greenhouse gases.

Hang on, here we are:

Anthropogenic Global Cooling

Edit: No, that's not the post with the statistical analysis of the breakpoints.

Re-edit: Here it is

Changes

[Winston001]

There is a sea level gauge in Hobart which has been there for 300 years. The sea level is rising.


But anyway, Quantum Indeterminacy. http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm