And you are as confused as to what this means as Larry is. Yet you post it anyhow, hoping that maybe it supports your argument - whatever that is.
I understand it. Somehow they get to a "95% confidence" even though it is heavily based on "10% confidence" and "medium confidence". Bold mine.
Average temperature over 11 year periods, covering 100 years is cherry picking? While your measurement highlighting 2 x3 years periods and one 2 year period within a 24 year period to support the phrase "It is asserted that these are caused by a solar forcing".. is not cherry picking?
Yeah so? Flowers bloom in the spring also. You're posting meaningless stuff and thinking it's important. AGW theory does not rely on Arctic ice loss to validate it. It's just one more piece of evidence. The Arctic ice loss right now is rapid and probably hasn't been seen in ten thousand years at least. And even WeToddDid2 is a stupid name.
The American Physical Society thought it was meaningful enough to ask the questions. If you had any integrity at all, you would admit that the questions posed by the American Physical Society is the academic equivalent of punching someone in the face. You think that you are smarter than NASA. Now do you think that you are smarter than the APS as well? Blahahahahahahaha
temperature has not gone up for 19 years and going down since 2001. so if you telling me the solar energy has been going down the last 35 years... and then I tell you that temps leveled off over 19 years and have have down since 2001... the only way you can argue temperature is going up is by fudging with moving averages.