Ten years of 'accelerated global warming' ?

Data doesn’t support Obama’s claim

Guest essay by Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

During the July 2013 U.S. Senate hearing at which Roger Pielke Jr. and Roy Spencer gave stellar testimony to the visible discomfiture of the climate-extremist witnesses, none of the “Democrat” Senators and none of the people they had chosen to testify before them was at all anxious to defend Mr. Obama’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate.

At a fund-raiser for the “Democratic” Congressional Campaign Committee in Chicago May 29, he had said, “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” He had added, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”

Well, I deny that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago. But I deny it not because I take an aprioristic position opposite to Mr Obama’s aprioristic position, but because science is done by measurement, not by parroting the Party Line. And the measurements do not support the Party Line.

Let me demonstrate. First, what warming does the IPCC anticipate in its upcoming and much-leaked Fifth Assessment Report?

clip_image002[4]

The graph above, adapted from Figs. 11.33ab in the draft report, for which I am an expert reviewer, shows that from 2005-2050 (most of the past ten years fall within that period) the models expect an approximately linear warming of about 0.4 to 1.0 Cº per 30 years (this range is also explicitly stated in paragraph 11.3.6.3). That is equivalent to 1.33 to 3.33 Cº/century, with a mid-range estimate of 2.33 Cº/century.

The IPCC’s models’ mid-range projection implies that around 0.12 Cº of warming should happen over five years, and o.23 Cº over ten years. An eighth to a quarter of a Celsius degree: those are the benchmarks. Previous IPCC reports made broadly similar near-term projections.

What, then, is the consensus among the monthly global mean surface or lower-troposphere datasets about whether the climate is warming “faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago”? Or whether it is warming at all?

There are three terrestrial datasets: HadCRUt4, GISS, and NCDC. There are two satellite datasets: RSS and UAH. To forestall the usual futile allegations of cherry-picking, we shall look at all five of them.

For each dataset, two graphs will be displayed: the most recent 60 months of global temperature anomalies, and the most recent 120 months.

The graph will display the spline-curve of the monthly anomalies in dark blue, with a thicker light-blue trend-line, which is simply the least-squares linear-regression trend on the data. Over short periods, no more complex trend need be determined.

Nor is there any need to allow for seasonality, not only because the graphs analyze data over multiples of 12 months but also because globally the seasons cancel each other out, so that natural variability tends to make any seasonal pattern near-impossible to detect.

Linear regression determines the underlying trend in a dataset over a given period as the slope of the unique straight line through the data that minimizes the sum of the squares of the absolute differences or “residuals” between the data-points corresponding to each time interval in the data and on the trend-line.

The graphs, therefore, give a fair indication of whether global mean temperatures at or near the surface have been rising or falling over the past five or ten years.

Note, however, that – particularly with highly volatile datasets such as the global temperature anomalies – a statistical trend is not a tool for prediction. It indicates only what has happened, not what may or will happen.

And what has happened is, as we shall see, grievously at odds with the Party Line.

We begin with the terrestrial datasets.

GISS, five years:

clip_image004[4]

GISS, ten years:

clip_image006[4]

HadCRUT4, five years:

clip_image008[4]

HadCRUt4, ten years:

clip_image010[4]

NCDC, five years:

clip_image012[4]

NCDC, ten years:

clip_image014[4]

The mean of the anomalies on all three terrestrial datasets, five years:

clip_image016[4]

The mean of the anomalies on all three terrestrial datasets, ten years:

clip_image018[4]

Now for the two satellite datasets. RSS, five years:

clip_image020[4]

RSS, ten years:

clip_image022[4]

UAH, five years:

clip_image024[4]

UAH, ten years:

clip_image026[4]

The mean of the anomalies on the two satellite datasets, five years:

clip_image028[4]

The mean of the anomalies on the two satellite datasets, ten years:

clip_image030[4]

The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets, five years:

clip_image032[4]

The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets, ten years:

clip_image034[4]

The only dataset that shows any warming at all is UAH over ten years. The warming is a not particularly dizzying one twenty-fifth of a Celsius degree over ten years, equivalent to two-fifths of a degree per century.

The RSS satellite dataset, on the other hand, now shows no global warming at all for an impressive 199 months, or 16 years 7 months:

clip_image036[4]

Not much “acceleration” there. Will it reach 200 months? I’ll report next month.

Finally, here is the monthly Global Warming Prediction Index, which compares the projections backcast by the modelers to 2005 and published in the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report with the real-world outturn as measured by the two satellite datasets.

clip_image038[4]

The lower bound of the orange zone is the IPCC’s low-end projection. Warming should be occurring at a minimum of 1.33 Cº/century. The thick bright red line is the IPCC’s mid-range projection: warming should be occurring at 2.33 Cº/century.

The real-world trend, represented by the thick bright blue trend line, shows global temperatures declining since January 2005 at a rate equivalent to almost a quarter of a Celsius degree (half a Fahrenheit degree) per century.

You may think that going to the trouble of producing so many graphs is overkill. Yet when I first spoke up at the U.N. climate conference in Doha and pointed out that there had been no global warming for 16 years the delegates were furious. So were the news media. One reason for their unreason: they simply did not know the facts.

One would have thought that among all the hours of hand-wringing on the air and pages of moaning in print about “global warming”, most of the news media would be faithfully reporting the monthly temperature anomalies. But no. The facts do not fit the Party Line, so they are not reported. They are consigned to the Memory Hole.

As for Mr. Obama’s statement about “acceleration”, he was plain wrong. Instead of the warming equivalent to 2.33 Cº/century global warming that had been “anticipated”, there has really been no change in global temperature at all over the past five or ten years.

Will somebody tell the “President”?

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
more soylent green

You’re trying to inject facts into a discussion with a “know-nothing” ideologue who is also a Chicago machine politician. The Chicago Way is to use the power of your office (legal or extra-legal) to reward your supporters and punish your opponents

Leron

Thank goodness for propane..

Latitude

this is ridiculous….we all know the heat is there….it’s hiding at the bottom of the ocean
…and telecommuting with our weather with an IPad
the IRS has it bugged

John West

“none of the “Democrat” Senators and none of the people they had chosen to testify before them was at all anxious to defend Mr. Obama’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate”
Spectacularly awkward moment:

Thank you Lord Monckton.

R. Shearer

There is no trend in temperature over these short periods. There is no correlation of temperature with CO2. If this lack of trend continues or if temperature declines statistically in the next few years, then this will truly falsify AGW.

Ben Wilson

Lord Monckton, I would like to personally think you for the work you have done and are doing, and pray that your efforts will bear abundant fruit!!

The other Phil

Very nice.

Tucci78

[snip – over the top – Anthony]

Sunup

Brillant presentation. The mean of the anomalies on all five datasets for ten years along with the IPPC overheated,wished for predictions should be nailed to the walls of every classroon & universty pub (better veiwing than in any classroom) on the side of every overpass, bus, train and truck throughout the world and tatooed on Obamas oversized forehead!!!

Has anyone measured Obama’s hot air contribution to the warming? Its probably similar to Gore’s?

Jimbo

Maybe Obama meant that global warming has been decelerating! Someone hail the Whitehouse. Their climate change policies are working and the emergency is over. Phew.

Sports announcers will occasionally say that a person is accelerating if he/she is moving fast. Yet acceleration has nothing to do with going fast. A person can be moving very fast and still not be accelerating. Acceleration has to do with changing how fast an object is moving. If an object is not changing its velocity, then the object is not accelerating. The data at the right are representative of a northward-moving accelerating object. The velocity is changing over the course of time. In fact, the velocity is changing by a constant amount – 10 m/s – in each second of time. Anytime an object’s velocity is changing, the object is said to be accelerating; it has an acceleration.
http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/1DKin/U1L1e.cfm

focoloco

Well, I consider my self very well (school) educated, and know a bit of physics. I will agree with Obama as far as the fact that it has ‘accelerated’.
However, I do not think Obama knows that acceleration can be either positive or negative.
The trend has (as always through earth’s history) accelerated. Just that it is currently exhibiting a negative acceleration

Fantastic video. In essence. all Ms. Cullen had to say was
“Please don’t look at the data. Please. Please please, don’t look at the data”.

Thanks, Christopher, Lord Monckton.
This disconnection to reality, this flight to fantasy land, coming from on high.
I say follow the money, but I’m surely too cynical?
The present stasis period in global air temperatures could lead to a renewed warming trend (what I would like) or to a cooling trend (what I fear). No one can know.
In any case, increasing the world’s energy poverty is surely not the proper remedy. Atmospheric CO2 increase has proven quite impotent, the Global Circulation Models have proven quite incapable of predicting anything well after the last big El Niño in 1998.

harrywr2

Will somebody tell the “President”?
probably not.
CO2 emissions rose faster then anticipated. A reasonable person might assume tempuratures must have rose faster then anticipated as well. The fact that temperature hasn’t is one of those big elephants in the room that many wish to avoid discussing at all.

Jimbo

That video is excellent. The best part of the video is the second part. Heidi Cullen talked about US extremes weather, then when contradicted with graphs when she said it was important to look at global. Haaaaaa haaaaa. This is the position Warmists are now in. Local / global dilemma. She will not want to go through that embarrassment again.

kim

I don’t have much patience with these troublesome priests. Sic semper tyrannis.
=================

Well, I deny that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago. But I deny it not because I take an aprioristic position opposite to Mr Obama’s aprioristic position, but because science is done by measurement, not by parroting the Party Line. And the measurements do not support the Party Line.
A very finely crafted paragraph, Lord Monckton.
To support the Party Line, it is common to distort and rewrite History. But whether the rewriting of History is done in the Oval Office or in the backroom of a government funded lab, the measurements of science will ultimately prevail.
Obama: “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.”
What hogwash. Most certainly there is at least one person out of 5 billion who anticipated greater warming than what has been measured. But we need not go that far. There are members of Congress who believed so. There are government funded scientists (Mann, Hansen) who expected runaway warming. Anyone who is involved in the 350 org anticipated it, at least at face value.
Obama: “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”
I don’t have much patience for people who rewrite history and ignore scientific procedure and measurement.

pat

He never seems to have the remotest idea what he is talking about.

Mike D

Lord Monckton, I also wish to compliment you for the work you have done exposing the “President” 😉

Dear Lord Monckton of Brenchley,
Thank you.
Should you ever be at loose ends in the Heart of Texas, you would be welcome at our table. We could shoot guns and eat BBQ and drink beer and go to a rousing Bible thumping Baptist Church service (all of the things that the coasters believe of us here.)
Regards,
Steamboat Jack (Jon Jewett’s evil twin)

@focoloco
A very good point. The rate of climate change might be accelerating, but the sign of acceleration is negative on many time scales. It certainly is over the past 14,000 years. Over the past 500,000 years, the acceleration have been cyclically positive and negative.
Catastrophic Climate Change is a very real danger. The Climate has tipped into Ice Age many times in the past. Negative acceleration is all it takes. It is all it took. An Ice Age would be catastrophic by anyone definition.

My favourite part was actually the final summing up, in which the Democrats were so embarrassed by Republican witness demolition of the “global warming” argument, they tried to reframe their hearing as an “ocean effects” hearing.
We saw in the hearing a microcosm of the progression which Morano highlighted in his hilarious eco scare piece. http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/01/19/time-for-next-ecoscare-already-as-global-warming-movement-collapses-activists-already-testmarketing-the-next-ecofear-laughing-gas-crisis-oxygen-crisis-plastics/

LamontT

Ah so “accelerated global warming” = a very slight cooling trend.
It is so hard to keep up with modern new speak don’t you know.

David

One notes that the warmists have no mechanism by which CO2 causes localised weather anomalies. Their claim is that CO2 warms, and as the global temperature has not warmed in 17 years, one wonders how they could then link local temperature extremes to to CO2.

izen

Checking just one of the graphs above with the data shows a conflict with UAH.
For the last five years it has been warming twice as fast as before.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:2008
Can anyone explain the difference between the posted graph and the data available in the public domain?

george e. smith

Well way back in the “Old Days” (of WUWT, of course), Anthony did publish a fairly nice essay, on exactly what you just did, Lord Monckton.
Well exactly, in the sense that he did publish the four data sets (sans NCDC). Don’t recall that the “essay” part of it was extensive; just a label I used.
It was discussed for some time, and it served as a good base position, to familiarize us with the then current status. I’m thinking the data sets were longer, than your 5 and 10 year “extended weather reports.”
So it is indeed timely, and appropriate, that you honor us with your “leak” Lord Monckton; specially since it covers a good part of the recent history where “unprecedented high Temperatures”, have been found lurking in the neighbourhood of a local maximum, and where you have recently; and apparently gleefully, thrown sand in everybody’s face. Perish the thought that a cluster of unprecedented highs should rear their ugly head, somewhere else besides a local maximum.
So now we have a brand new anchor point, to go forward with Lord Christopher; and this time, we will remember that the essay part, is of substantially (even unprecedented) more eloquence, than those echoes from the good old days.
The shorter time frame is a bit of a disappointment, but I do understand you were adapting to The President’s stereo teleprompter utterance.
But please don’t play with vacant microphones; and parachuting onto the White house front lawn, is never a good idea; but do enjoy yourself. We enjoy reading about it.

Wyguy

Ben Wilson says:
July 21, 2013 at 8:31 am
Lord Monckton, I would like to personally think you for the work you have done and are doing, and pray that your efforts will bear abundant fruit!!
Very well said, ditto for me.

george e. smith

Anthony,
I would recommend some stickum for Lord Monckton’s essay, so we can dwell on it for some time. It’s a good recent refresher.

tgasloli

I’m generally a Monckton fan, but, this article is just silly. A climate cycle, glacial + interglacial period, is what, 100-150K years long. This article is looking at less than 10 years. The AGW people are looking a what, 50 year–100 years of poor quality data and unvalidated surrogates. If you are trying to do CLIMATE science and you are using anything less than 100 year average you are just looking at noise and picking out the pattern you want to see. Climate science isn’t even possible now. And given the abysmal accuracy of 24 hour weather prediction, even simple meteorology is barely feasible.

CC Squid

Lord Monckton, thank you for all you are doing for science. I believe the president’s meme on global warming is being used to implement a carbon tax. It is the only way to pay for Obamacare.

Bert Walker

Jimbo says:
Heidi Cullen talked about US extremes weather, then when contradicted with graphs she said it was important to look at global.
Actually she said the opposite:
“(4:19)It’s really important for us to not look at the nation as this average. But what we’re seeing now is how the warming is impacting us in specific regions. (4:28) So in the southwest…”
In effect she said (I paraphrase) “(She) has to find anecdotal subsets of the data in order to fit (her) preconceived beliefs.”
And left unsaid (again I paraphrase), “the data (nation as an average) as just shown contradicts (her) current statements and belief in global warming.”

well, I knew all that
you should study the graph
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2012/10/02/best-sine-wave-fit-for-the-drop-in-global-maximum-temperatures/the data reported here.
made from
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
According to my data set we already dropped almost 0.2 degrees C since 2000….
Global cooling is here and this will actually cause some climate change.
I predict droughts starting in about 6-7 years ago, lasting about 7 years.

Chris4692

Nor is there any need to allow for seasonality, not only because the graphs analyze data over multiples of 12 months but also because globally the seasons cancel each other out, so that natural variability tends to make any seasonal pattern near-impossible to detect.

However there is an imbalance in the ration of land area to sea area between the north and southern hemispheres. If the temperature changes in the land area and sea area are not identical, seasonality will appear in the global average temperature. I have no idea whether it actually appears in the data and what its magnitude is, it just does not seem to be a valid assumption without some examination of the data.
Since the analyses are all over 12 month multiples, this point amounts to a quibble for this exercise.

taxed

“accelerated global warming”
They wish!
Am more worried about sudden cooling when the NH moves towards winter.
The Polar jet has become a little more zonal and has tended to split into two this year. With flowing to the south while the other has been flowing around the Arctic circle. Now during the summer this jet stream pattern is not really a issue.But as we move towards the second half of November and this jet stream pattern is still in place. Then winter could come in hard and sudden. As its this type of Polar jet pattern that l suspect what was going on during the ice age.
Now of cause we are not in a ice age, but if this type of pattern turns up during the winter.
Then the sort of weather you get during a ice age could come a visiting for the season.

rogerknights

Obama: “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.”

I suspect the data he started with, before he garbled it in his head, was that the loss of Arctic ice has been accelerating in that manner, and the %age of CO2 in the atmosphere, or the number of “extreme weather” events (as calculated by warmists, have done so. Anyway, that’s the line his advisors will or should advise him to use if he ever has to explain himself about his blunder.

Gunga Din

“We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” He had added, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.” – Obama

====================================================================
“We … know that the climate (rhetoric) is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.”
OK. I fixed that. Just one little word made a lie into a true statement. Maybe he should fire his speech writers?
I can’t help him with the second quote.

phaedo

I think you’re being a little unkind. The president’s assertion that over the past decade global warming has been accelerating at an unforeseen rate is perfectly correct. It’s negative.

DirkH

izen says:
July 21, 2013 at 9:34 am
“Checking just one of the graphs above with the data shows a conflict with UAH.
For the last five years it has been warming twice as fast as before.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2008/trend/plot/uah/from:2008
Can anyone explain the difference between the posted graph and the data available in the public domain?”
Yes. you didn’t use 5 years. You used 5 years plus 6 months.
Now; you might ask, how is it that you can get such a big difference in trend because of a measly 6 months more. The answer, Izen, is of course that when Obama held his “5 to 10 years global warming acceleration” speech, he had not the faintest idea that 5 years is a totally irrelevant interval when talking about decades long climate trends; and he doesn’t have the faintest idea about that because he wouldn’t know a physical unit if it crawled up his nose and died there.A trend over 5 years is not much better than noise, and detecting an ACCELERATION with such a noisy trend is entirely impossible.
I mean it’s blatantly obvious but your question indicated that you don’t understand it therefore the lengthy explanation.

Chuck Nolan

There’s only two answers for Obama’s move to kill the economy:
1. He’s woefully ignorant.
2. He’s a liar.
Since he’s a politician the correct answer may be both.
cn

Peter Miller

Obama was only stating something he thought was politically trendy. Facts and details are always irrelevant in this type of instance.
The problem is the gullible masses tend to support trendy policies until there is a widespread realisation that they are as expensive, as they are pointless.
Goofy politician then puts the blame on being badly advised and never on his own gullibility.
It is now, as it ever was, and it will always be.
Five bucks says Obama’s sycophant advisors will never allow him to see the reality of global temperature trends, as shown by Moncton here.

Scarface

@John West – wrt to the Youtube link of the hearing:
OMG, that Cullen statement is soooo bizarre. “The warming of the atmosphere has slowed (she meant stopped, but just couldn’t get that out of her mouth), greenhouse gasses have gone up and the warming has continued but the warming has gone in other aspects of the climate system, like the deep oceans.”
Que??????
So, the atmosphere is not warming, yet the greenhouse gasses now mysteriously have found a way to warm the bottom of the ocean. I would really like to hear a scientific explanation for that.
Until then my conclusion is that this woman has NO idea what she is talking about, and the bad thing is, looking at her facial expression and other signs, she knows it herself too.

DirkH

tgasloli says:
July 21, 2013 at 10:15 am
“I’m generally a Monckton fan, but, this article is just silly. A climate cycle, glacial + interglacial period, is what, 100-150K years long. This article is looking at less than 10 years.”
You did notice that it was the Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama who posited that the warming accelerated over the last 5 years; and that this post is a refutation of his Excellency Barack Obama’s claim, nothing more?
Thanks for paying attention.

Philip Mulholland

Senator Boxer @ 5:36

Put in anything you want. Alice in Wonderland, put in anything you want.

That about sums it up for me.

From the post:
‘At a fund-raiser for the “Democratic” Congressional Campaign Committee in Chicago May 29, he had said, “We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.” He had added, “I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change.”’
Well Mr. President, let me tell you something. I am an American voter and taxpayer. As such, I don’t have ANY patience for lame-brained politicians like you who don’t even understand what the issue here is in the first place. As Dr. Richard Lindzen from MIT said at a Congressional hearing some years ago, this isn’t about the fact that the climate has changed and warmed in the 20th century (up to the mid 1990s when it stopped), or that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The issue here Mr. President is how sensitive the climate is to the GHG effects of CO2, got that? I am not a scientist, but it is my understanding that the Earth cooled from the mid 1940s to the mid 1970s, and temps have now been flat since the mid-1990s. So we have only about 20 years of warming in some 68 years. Don’t see any significant sensitivity there, do you Mr. President? Dr. Lindzen further stated that a doubling of CO2 should produce at most–at most–a 1 degree C rise in temps by the end of this century. Still don’t see anything to panic about there Mr. President, do you?
Secondly Mr. President, as an American voter and taxpayer, I don’t have a hell of a lot of patience for lame-brained politicians who are squandering billions of our tax dollars on idiotic “green energy” projects like wind and solar which are incapable of meeting this country’s electrical energy needs. Read my lips, Mr. President: There is only one energy technology capable of displacing our fossil fuel power plants, and that is nuclear. How much advanced nuclear energy research could we have funded with all those billions? This nation’s energy policy needs to be one which promotes nuclear technology (like LFTR, GE’s PRISM, and the pebble bed reactor) rather than one that wages war on existing energy sources and technologies.
Lastly Mr. President, as an American voter and taxpayer, I don’t have any patience for lame-brained politicians who don’t understand that there is no meaningful relationship that I know of between economic growth and prosperity on one hand and high or higher energy prices on the other. Stating as you did in your 2008 presidential campaign that energy prices would necessarily skyrocket, you obviously don’t have a clue.
With you in charge of it, I fear for the direction this country is going to take between now and January, 2017 when you are finally gone. Among other things, your energy, climate and environmental policies are out of whack and leave a lot to be desired, as does my patience with you.
There, I feel better now.

Chuck

We … know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.
Like most everything Obama says, I have no idea if he actually believes this or not.
His actions tell me that he believes in an all powerful socialist government and he’s doing everything he can to to turn the U.S. into a socialist nation.
Everything is political with Obama. He doesn’t do or say anything that doesn’t advance the agenda. I suspect we’ll never know what he actually believes on individual issues because his public position is whatever advances the agenda. His personal beliefs on the issues are irrelevant.

We are dealing with an ideology here pure and simple. Just the very kind Kenneth Minogue in the UK and Jean Francois Revel wrote about so clearly. It’s what you do when you are pushing a notorious political philosophy and don’t want to admit it.
There is no interest in the facts because nothing is to falsify the memes. Because the memes give power and money and drive action once the memes get used to create influential false emotional beliefs in education. Which the media then bolster.
Years ago when Nobel Prize winner in Medicine Sir Peter Medawar took on the cultish nonsense surrounding another UN pus, Teilhard de Chardin, he came up with one of my all=time favorite lines. Fits with Heidi’s testimony this week too.
“the spread of secondary and tertiary education has created a large population of people, often with well-developed literary and scholarly tastes, who have been educated far beyond their capacity to undertake analytical thought.”
Amen to that observation. And they all want a job with the government or an NGO.

Chuck Nolan

R. Shearer says:
July 21, 2013 at 8:30 am
There is no trend in temperature over these short periods. There is no correlation of temperature with CO2. If this lack of trend continues or if temperature declines statistically in the next few years, then this will truly falsify AGW.
———————–
Sure, I agree, but it won’t matter to those in power.
cn

izen

@- DirkH Re:- discrepency of trends,
“Yes. you didn’t use 5 years. You used 5 years plus 6 months.”
Wow, so a difference of a few weeks makes a small negative trend into a positive trend an order of magnitude greater!
@-“Now; you might ask, how is it that you can get such a big difference in trend because of a measly 6 months more. The answer, Izen, is of course ….A trend over 5 years is not much better than noise, and detecting an ACCELERATION with such a noisy trend is entirely impossible.”
So pointing out a negative trend is just as much confirmation bias as a positive trend because it is impossible to detect a significant trend, the time period is too short.
@-“I mean it’s blatantly obvious but your question indicated that you don’t understand it therefore the lengthy explanation.”
Well I understand it much better now thanks to your lucid explanation. I expect others now understand the futility of deriving rates of change of a trend from such short time periods as well.
Some of the longer trends in the graphs above also depend on a specific start date. Would it be correct to infer that also indicates that any trend is not much better than noise and it is impossible to reach a conclusion about whether any trend is changing ?
Is a longer time period a better indication than a shorter one, what would be the minimum time period to avoid the ‘noise’ obscuring any trend?

Resourceguy

The Chicago Way is all about making down the new up……for money of course.