@steve milesworthy
Talk me through the argument once again, please:
Problem:
We have two periods off apparent warming 1910-1940 and 1970-2000 They have about the same slope and are of about the same length. They are both pronounced enough to be considered a trend.
You then say that the first ‘could be attributed to short term periods of high frequency noise’, but are adamant that the second is due to some other cause (I guess CO2 emissions).
Maybe Occam’s Razor is no longer fashionable, but when you have two very similar phenomena occurring within the same system. isn’t it a wise idea to have as your starting point the idea that they are the same thing happening twice? (I fully accept that your investigation may in fact show them to be different, but such examples will be the exception rather than the rule).
Because it seems to me that to really demonstrate a proper understanding of climate you have to be able to explain both periods with exactly the same rigour and within a comprehensive theory.
You can’t really say …’We’ve done oodles of work on the recent stuff and have totally convinced ourselves that the only possible cause is CO2′ and then just dismiss the earlier period as ‘could be high frequency noise’. It will not take an Hercule Poirot to smell a rat and to conclude that your homework really hasn’t been done, nor your comprehensive (Its all down to CO2, stupid) theory submitted to any sort of real test.
So please explain once more how you come to two very different conclusions about the two periods in question. You may also recall that – as a one-time chemist – I just love to see experimental evidence rather than vague generalised hand-waving.
Thanks.