You asked if I was implying a number of points. My answer is no I am not implying any of those things.

If you think my comments lead to those conclusions perhaps you could explain your reasoning and I’m happy to discuss it further.

For example it is not clear to me why the observed onset of accelerated melting in Greenland in the 90s should signal the beginning of the Anthropocene when it is generally considered to start at the beginning of the industrial revolution or earlier.

Also there’s new data now and the most recent short-term data is back up so the most recent trends are somewhat misleading.

The old data gets adjusted retroactively with each new revision release so that’s a trap too.

Satellite GMSL EMD to 2010.7 (old data)

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52688456/GMSL%20EMD%20supersed.xls

GMSL polynomial and linear trends in TOPEX/Jason (Envisat has failed so ignore that)

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52688456/GMSL.xls

The underlying polynomial trends of Global Average Temperature (HadCRUT3) vs the equivalent for CO2

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/52688456/CO2%20vs%20GAT%20R2.xls

That was back when the underlying trend of HadCRUT3 was actually a quadratic. Note how temperature LEADS CO2 by some 27 years at 1977.

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/06/fierce-fighting-on-slr-in-north-carolina/#comment-106380

http://www.climateconversation.wordshine.co.nz/2012/06/fierce-fighting-on-slr-in-north-carolina/#comment-106405

I did a while ago but because EMD is very sensitive to new data I redo the analysis when new data comes in. I was quite surprised by the latest result (in Dropbox) because the residual is the inverse of anything I had done previously. It also calls into question Scafetta’s quadratic basis for his empirical model.

Note that you can project a polynomial trend for prediction (sensibly) but you CANNOT project an EMD residual or IMF (Scafetta projects harmonic cycles). What happens in EMD analysis is that when new data is added there’s the possibility that a new IMF and residual will be extracted. This is exactly what happened in my last analysis of 162 yrs of data, where previously there were 6 IMFs and the residual, there were now 7 IMFs and a new residual. Basically, the old residual became IMF 7.

IMF 5 is the multidecadal oscillation of SST in my estimation because none of the other IMFs exhibit that signal. That radical downturn at the end will turn up again (equally radically) eventually as new data comes in. The first few IMFs are just noise and I haven’t included IMF 1 for that reason.

So the spreadsheet columns are (for the 162 yr analysis):-

A – time
B – HadSST2 anomaly
C – IMF 2
D – IMF 3
E – IMF 4
F – IMF 5 multidecadal oscillation
G – IMF 6
H – IMF 7
I – residual trajectory

Note that there are only 5 IMFs in the 30 yr analysis but the multidecadal oscillation occurs at this frequency (IMF 5) in both the 162 yr and 30 yr analyses.

“…you have got it mostly wrong though”

This the most limp and vacuous offering of hand waving you’ve come up with so far in your participation at this blog Nick. Are you trying to set the level of argument at the lowest possible level?

If not, substance please.

“Is it your opinion that your analysis using EMD would yield different results to Sallenger (using the same data set of course)?”

If you’ve seen the Dropbox plot (and you’ve indicated you have) then you can answer that yourself (BTW it’s nothing to do with my “opinion”).

“If EMD shows something different please post it for me to have a look. Having seen the spreadsheet you presented via drop box below could I also request that you show your working and maybe label some of the data please.”

EMD shows a negative inflexion in the most recent HadSST2 data (not a deceleration, this is signal we’re talking about now) in the century scale data. The results and data are in the spreadsheet, The columns are IMFs, the last being the residual. The result was generated using an EMD program, one of which is available here http://sidstation.loudet.org/emd-en.xhtml

There’s also papers documenting EMD use in climate science if you care to look them up.

Specifically he finds the that sea levels have shown statistically significant acceleration since the early 1990s.

If EMD shows something different please post it for me to have a look. Having seen the spreadsheet you presented via drop box below could I also request that you show your working and maybe label some of the data please.