I'm sure he is, but he is not describing Tamino's analysis. He is describing his own. That is plain as day for anyone who has read Tamino's analysis. Please do so!

You are daft. He says exactly what it represents. It is not difficult. Read it.

You are linking to a different site showing a different thing you dolt! I'm not talking about the realClimate analysis! Lord! I only linked the exact site that I'm referring to about a dozen times! Once more - here it is: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

You can read right? Please do and stop wasting my time.

Ah. I see your confusion. You don't really understand what Tamino did. He did not compare 1970-2000 with 1970-2015. No wonder you are confused. He compared 1970-2000 with 2000-2015. Just as you have shown in your first link above. So no, that's not a gotcha. That's exactly what he is doing. Now he has also shown what you would predict for 2000-2015 if the 1970-2000 trend had continued. Guess what he found? Recent warming is exactly in line with what we would expect if the 1970-2000 trend had continued to present day. This is really not that tricky. Please take a moment to read the link before you make your next post. What a waste of time! You are arguing from ignorance and for no good reason!

If you wanted to compare pre-1950 with post-1950 you would do this: http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...

Chris Farley has you covered :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Plugging your ears and singing the alphabet song is not convincing.

But they are similar. There is no statistically significant difference between the two trends.

The method can be used to show whether the trend has stayed about the same regardless of whether the warming has increased or decreased over the most recent period. duh!

Questions end in question marks. Your statement was "I do find it hard to believe..." Whether or not you find something hard to believe is irrelevant. Also, you don't know what ad hominem means. Please look it up.

How can you still be asking this? The trend was anywhere from 0 to 0.216C/decade. So the trend is either no warming at all or warming past all expectations... but which is it really? Turns out it is exactly consistent with what we would have expected if the warming of 1970-2000 had continued past 2000 to present day.

I thought you'd wrapped your head around statistical significance, but we can take a step back if you need to. So the trend since 2000 is possibly as high as 0.216C/decade. The trend from 1970-2000 is possibly as low as 0.106C/decade. So just looking at the trend won't help us know whether the recent trend is what we would expect if the pre-2000 trend had continued unabated. To know that we would have to look at whether the recent trend is what we would expect if the pre-2000 trend had continued unabated.. And yes, this could be done on any data set. (duh).

Argument from incredulity. Means nothing.

Please reread my last post. That question is already answered.

You still don't get it, but I think you're making progress. He is not measuring since 1970. He is predicting what values we should have seen after 2000 if the trend from 1970-2000 had continued past 2000. Guess what? We saw exactly the temperatures that we would have expected AFTER 2000 if the rate of warming had continued unabated:: https://tamino.wordpress.com/2...

2014 is hottest. That's what they measured. Get over it.

Oh you are thick. What do you think the uncertainty represents?

2014 was the hottest year. That is what we measured. There are uncertainties with the measurement that mean some other year may in fact have been hotter, but that's not what we measured on GISS, NOAA, or JMS.