http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal_files/image010.jpg

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_NotGlobal_files/image011.jpg

As far as I’m aware, the SH extratropics would include NZ and AU.

Does seem to be some “bad” CO2 in the NH extratropics though.

But if you want to “….reflect underlying processes” then you are talking signal extraction, noise, intermediate mode frequencies and overall residual. OK, here’s the overall EMD residual compared to the long-term SH linear trend since the LIA:-

https://www.dropbox.com/u/52688456/7SS%20emd%20trend.xls

All the “warming” in the NZ series occurred between 1935 and 1985 and that ‘s using NIWA’s 7SS data that includes the spurious 0.56 C/century skew. Salinger and Renwick attribute that warming to a natural climate shift.

Since 1985 there’s been nothing out of the ordinary (beyond natural) trend-wise in NZ temperature.

http://i54.tinypic.com/27xjm0k.png

So much for the “warming trend” – in either.

“The key is that they both show [linear] warming trends”

I see you studiously avoided my question re this century’s flat trend Simon.

And my note that a more appropriate trend method than linear (a curve) shows NIWA’s 7SS trending down this century, and was that the same for BEST?

Are you denying something Simon?

As for the ‘global warming stopped in 1998′ mantra, please stop going down the up escalator.

Please quote me correctly. I said the temperature has not been going up, not that “global warming” (whatever that is) stopped. The “escalator” graphic confirms the stasis and slight drop that I’m talking about. I also stated the period of 15 years, which means it started in 1997, not 1998. In other words, I ignore the peak of the giant El Nino. The conversation might well be over, quite likely because you don’t seem to listen very well.

The Skeptical Science site uses clever linguistic and statistical tricks but is almost entirely unbelievable. Try reading their explanation of how atmospheric gases heat the ocean. Then describe the process briefly in your own words without laughing.

Hansen seems to have turned quite peculiar since he started getting himself arrested. His credibility is very low for an astrophysicist. But not as low as Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri, who make huge amounts of money from the AGW hoax.

The court case was based around a very specific discussion of methodologies in the 7SS. I don’t see how BEST is relevant unless it addresses the issues raised in the court case.