Ohhhhh - the records... tell me all about the records...
They are much longer than ten years, so arbitrarilly choosing any point that doesn't include all of the data is cherry picking. You can choose smaller frames, but you need to have a good reason for doing so.
Choosing any ten year period for making definitive statements about climate is stupid. There is variability in the climate system on frames longer than one decade...
The reason that I choose to employ a 10 year horizon is specifically due to the notion that it is convenient to my ends, much like the faux-greenie-eco-fascist movement that does the same.
So you don't have a good reason then.
As the old expression goes: Turn-about is fair play.
Yes, but then that's not science. So you should probably stop making statements about it and what it deals with if you think this is a meaningful response...
PS - Degrees of freedom are the necessary crutch for incompetent 'scienticians' that need to have wiggle-room in order to allow for their incorrect theories to fit historical fact. (sounds like you depend heavily on generous degrees of freedom).
No, the degrees of freedom is a term that is used in nearly every statistical calculation. I already explained how your problem relates to the degrees of freedom. The variability is so large, so smaller DoF handicaps the validity of your analysis, which wasn't actually an analysis at all. You're just repeating buzz words that you think sound smart.
Arrhenius?.. That clown?.. I have a signed (authenticated) letter taht he submitted stating that all his research was fabricated and falsified... In fact, Arrhenius, in that statement, stated that the biggest factor that uneqivocally proved that fluctuations occurred naturally was evidenced by the existence of multiple ice-ages.
Bull$hit. High school science classes replicate his results, you can too. I'd like to see this letter of yours.
Get with the program man!... You're backing a loser and are just too myopic to realize it.
Ok, follow the bouncing ball you ignoramus:
Fact, greenhouse gases exist.
Fact, human activity increases atmospheric greenhouse levels.
Fact, increasing greenhouse gases puts the earth out of radiative equilibrium, so the earth warms.
Fact, when there is more heat being trapped in the lower levels of the atmosphere, less infrared is escaping to space.
Fact, when less inrared escapes to space, the upper atmosphere cools.
Fact, the troposphere has warmed for more than a century, while the stratosphere has cooled.
Fact, this signature is inexplicable by any of the Milankovitch cycles, by any change in solar insulation, or any other lame brain mechanism that you and fellow septics have come up with.
Fact, this is a completely expected result, from radiative physics and atmospheric chemistry which is not by any means new.
Yup, you're the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.