3 ms·

1) I think you misunderstood me. I think deviations should be compared to the average of the whole data-set (22016 years) not only a tiny (29 years) subset of i

1) I think you misunderstood me. I think deviations should be compared to the average of the whole data-set (22016 years) not only a tiny (29 years) subset of it. 2) Exactly, but the point is that the recent data also contains normal fluctuations. It's simply wrong to change the representation of data mid-chart. How would you feel looking at a stock price chart where historical data is displayed as an annual average and it then suddenly continues as an hourly graph? Sure you would think some crazy stuff is going on with the stock price.

bqgray 10y ago
Re: 2) This is a semi-valid point. We don't have accurate yearly global temp data from 2,000BC or 20,000BC, so as the data gets older, it is necessarily a smoother and smoother average. Ancient yearly temperature variability is simple not something that we have a detailed view to. Still, we do have decent variability data for the past 500 years, and the rate of change that we are seeing for the past 50 is truly extraordinary compared to the past 500 years. Based on the data that we do have, the likelihood that the hockey-stick temperature trend is "normal" variability can now be calculated pretty precisely... confidence levels are now in the 99%-99.9% range. (http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-warming-hypothesis-percent.html http://phys.org/news/2014-04-statistical-analysis-natural-wa...) In short, we can say with better than 99% certainty that... Yes, this is happening. The globe is now growing hotter at a truly extraordinary rate