http://www.times-age.co.nz/local/news/masterton-hosts-eco-warriors/3961947/

He (Salinger) said the effects of climate change can be seen by the changing weather worldwide, such as a European heat wave.
“Extremes like this are expected to become more frequent,” said Dr Salinger.

He is not a scientist. Scientists don’t lie.

An alternative theory of global temperature dynamics

Accumulation Theory of Solar Influence

http://landshape.org/enm/accumulation-theory-of-solar-influence/

Any curve fit to data in the absence of a physical basis is nothing more than a mathematical description. It has no predictive capability outside the data range and certainly is not indicative of a process. I think we agree on this.

Who said we were using it in a predictive manner?

Also, please then explain the physical basis for a linear trend. NIWA used it in their original graph, remember. Methinks you protest too much, perhaps to deflect attention away from our findings that NIWA didn’t use R&S correctly.

But to a degree I agree with you, fitting a linear or polynomial trend is unscientific (they’re external), but it is an indicator and and to not look at other trends (moving average, Fourier etc) is negligent.

I could have waited to get access to the NZCSC data (haven’t got that far yet) and done an analysis myself by looking at a range of trends which would include an EMD trend (internal, inherant) which I’m sure you will agree is perhaps a little more scientific than a linear or polynomial trend. The cycle revealed however, will not be a great deal different than the quick and easy 3rd order polynomial provided.

The linear trend over such a short time scale is bunk though, I’ll agree, isn’t it Mike? Or is it the gold standard in warmer-world.

A big difference between NIWA and the Coalition, is that the latter tested each adjustment for uncertainty in the manner laid out in Rhoades & Salinger. Where the adjustment failed to attain statistical significance levels (at 95% confidence) it was not adopted. NIWA fully agreed with the principle of testing confidence levels for each adjustment, but said in the text of the Review that this work was not complete. Well, 8 months have since gone by, but nothing further has been published.

The Review was published in December 2010, but the Minister admitted in March 2011 that the “methods” paper hadn’t been written, and he wasn’t sure when it would be. This week, in answer to a further Parliamentary Question, the Minister said he didn’t expect the paper to be finished until the end of the 2011-12 fiscal year, and it might not be published until well into 2013.

In light of the Coalition’s findings, one has to wonder whether this long-awaited paper has any chance of ever getting past an independent peer-review. Until it does, the authority of Rhoades & Salinger reigns unquestioned – as it has for the past 18 years.

So the 3rd-order polynomial is a better fit to the data than a straight line. If you didn’t calculate uncertainties, then how did you determine this?

Oh for heaven’s sake! Nobody said it was a better fit. I know Richard C has been interested in cyclic effects, so I plotted the lowest order polynomial fit that would show this. Nothing more, nothing less. Get over it – I did it for him, not for you.