You say

This is what I’m talking about with you inability to update your ideas in the face of evidence. You’ve been shown that there is significant warming since 1950,

You seem to be claiming 0.42°C for the 60-year period from 1949. Have I got that right? What is your source for that?

Incredibly, you seem to want to disbar me from questioning what you say:

but instead of accepting this and moving on you introduce an unsourced claim, that temperature can’t be to be less than a degree.

The last phrase is incomprehensible; you might wish to restate it. But you do admonish me for not citing a source: my source is several practising climate scientists in private communications. I’m sorry I don’t have a reference but I will request one.

Then you vaguely cite Anthony Watts (I presume):

This will come as new to Watts, whose report on the US temp record reports accuracy down to about 0.06 C.

If you’re trying to imply that Anthony is generally satisfied with the accuracy of temperature records, you are poorly informed. He knows, possibly better than anyone on the planet, the inaccuracies of all kinds that can and do contaminate datasets around the world. Therefore, it is axiomatic that he does not believe any temperature record can be accurate to only 0.06°C. It is, frankly, ridiculous to suggest that he does.

Finally, your assertion that I am unsusceptible to evidence is itself quite bereft of any. I am, however, capable and permitted to question what may be presented in evidence. That, sir, is quite a different matter. But please don’t be afraid to change my mind with evidence, for nothing else seems to manage it.

Cheers.

Now one really has to put aside all the upmarket methods of calculating figures and constructing graphs and trend lines- they’re not the important aspect.
If the NIWA graph started in 1955. it would show no changes (certainly no changes beyond margin of error. By the way – I read a study about how accurately people read mercury thermometers – bloody hopeless we are. Up to 4 degree out)

The important matter is that we actually dont know if the world – during a non-iceage period – has a ‘standard’ temperature. Its pure conjecture to say that human activity is causing any change to climate.
Its just as reasonable to conclude that actually (if the NIWA graph is right) the NZ climate returned to normal about 1955 after an unexplained period of cooling.

I think that those who are pushing the AGW thing are well short of having any proof that human activity is a factor; and further it is totally unknown just what sort of climate is ideal for the world. Even if climate is warming thats no reason in itself to jump the conclusion that its bad. We know that in periods past – without any human input – climate drastically changed. The Sahara was a forest (thats wasnt temperature but rainfall) at one stage, whereas at other times sea ice approached temperate areas.

Personally I think that if there is a human input, then its deforestation thats the problem – not motor cars and power stations. I dont think it would take too much effort to show that reduced forests result in higher atmospheric water, and water vapour is THE great greenhouse gas.

Finally – the real problem currently is that scientists have gone ferral and have for some reason come to think that politics is the best way to show that they are right. Getting all religious about it and calling people ‘deniers’ aint smart. Its interesting really – words like ‘deniers’ are used when you are talking about something that just isnt possible to prove – like gods existence. Maybe its a Freudian slip – but its just possible that AGW is impossible to prove as well. !!

This is what I’m talking about with you inability to update your ideas in the face of evidence. You’ve been shown that there is significant warming since 1950, but instead of accepting this and moving on you introduce an unsourced claim, that temperature can’t be to be less than a degree. This will come as new to Watts, whose report on the US temp record reports accuracy down to about 0.06 C.

The margins for error in these temperature datasets are quite large, about 2 degrees. It’s not possible to measure accurately to less than a degree, especially for decades at a time. So trends of fractions of a degree are immeasurable, undetectable by our senses and give an entirely false impression of reality. We can’t even know their sign. It is meaningless to reach conclusions based on them.

So I guess that my fundamental point, that there’s been no (significant) warming since about 1950, stands. What do you think?

Richard.

You might be amazed to learn that Microsoft Word is not the sole aribiter of a word’s definition.

The rest of you post is a bit confused. The linear trend in the NIWA graph isn’t aimed at getting a best fit and it certainly isn’t about projecting future change (that’s what climate models are for). It’s just _testing_ if their is an underlying signal in the noisey data. As you fit more complex models to the data you are guaranteed to explain more of the variance in the data, but you also run the risk of confusing noise with signal (in fact, if you wanted the “best fit” you’d just join up all the dots rsq = 1!)