Statistical proof of 'the pause' – Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years

Jean Parisot says:
September 5, 2013 at 8:27 am
Yes, work on the matrix is very important. However, to do that you must have reasonably good historical data and you must believe that nature exists outside your computer. Alarmists have trouble with both ideas.

Commentary from Nature Climate Change, by John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, & Francis W. Zwiers said,
“For this period, the observed trend of 0.05 ± 0.08 °C per decade is more than four times smaller than the average simulated trend of 0.21 ± 0.03 °C per decade (Fig. 1b). It is worth noting that the observed trend over this period — not significantly different from zero — suggests a temporary ‘hiatus’ in global warming. The divergence between observed and CMIP5-simulated global warming begins in the early 1990s, as can be seen when comparing observed and simulated running trends from 1970–2012 (Fig. 2a and 2b for 20-year and 15-year running trends, respectively). The evidence, therefore, indicates that the current generation of climate models (when run as a group, with the CMIP5 prescribed forcings) do not reproduce the observed global warming over the past 20 years, or the slowdown in global warming over the past fifteen years.”

– – – – – – – –
Why use the term ‘global warming’ in that passage when the dispassionate and / or indifferent term would be something like ‘temperature changes’. If one constructs that passage with ‘temperature changes’ as a context instead of ‘global warming’ as a context then the passage would be clearer science communication with minimum implied presumption of things like ‘global warming’.
For me, the repeated use of ‘global warming’ (4 times in just that passage alone) is the essence of hidden flawed premises. Where there are hidden flawed premises one expects circumstantial conclusions at best and at worst convenient conclusions.
A good strategy is to now stop playing the already gamed GW game. To do so one needs to disallow the biased terminology that predetermines a general context and spin of the outcomes.
Better to use a different set of terms which are scientifically dispassionate and non-spun.
John

Gail Combs says:
September 5, 2013 at 7:14 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“It varies. The Horse Latitudes (between 30 and 35 degrees, north and south) were called that because of all the dead horses tossed overboard when the sailing ships got stuck in a no wind situation.”
This is one of at least 3 explanations for the term “Horse Latitudes” and not my favorite.
First – Spanish ships perhaps carried many horses over the years but these sailors were not inclined to sail into the subtropical high pressure zones as they knew they were there, and a Spaniard would be disinclined to throw horses overboard. Some of the crew might go over first. Also, why is the zone named in English and not Spanish? [Paintings exist of unloading horses where there were no docks by forcing the off the deck and into the ocean and then leading them on to land. The difference was important to the horse.]
Next – the English ships carried “napped” crew members.
http://www.worldwidewords.org/topicalwords/tw-nap1.htm
Some of these taken from pubs to which was owed a bar bill – paid by the ship’s crew gathering agents. The new “sailor” did not earn wages until this “dead horse” payment was recovered by the ship’s purse. About 2 -3 weeks out from England the “dead horse” was paid off and the sailor would begin to be paid. Paying off the dead horse was cause for celebration so an effigy of a horse (straw horse) would be hoisted over the water and cut loose to drift in the sea. Songs were sung – shanties. This one is well known – The Dead Horse Shanty:
http://shanty.rendance.org/lyrics/showlyric.php/horse
—–
Another explanation for the term “horse latitudes” comes from the phrase “to horse” in the sense of “to push” or “to pull” something that doesn’t want to go. Sails without wind would present such an occasion and might induce a crew to try to pull (by rowing) a ship out of a calm area. This explanation requires that one believe the English sailors were unaware of the STHP zones and frequently found themselves therein. Thus, would begin an argument about whether Spanish or English were the better sailors. Don’t do there. But it would explain the use of English words for the phrase.
There is also the confusion between the “doldrums” and the horse latitudes.
“Day after day, day after day,
We stuck, nor breath nor motion;
As idle as a painted ship
Upon a painted ocean.”
See the Rime of the Ancient Mariner by the English poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge – in the lines above speaking of the equatorial area doldrums and not the STHP “horse latitudes.”

david eisenstadt says:
September 5, 2013 at 9:10 am
Steven Mosher says:
September 5, 2013 at 7:53 am
…..if you just interested in opposing the IPPC storyline then you
just ignore the fact that some do better and you argue that the whole lot are bad.
“so…which models do you feel do the better job?”
Interesting question because it might elicit an interesting answer. But, as you know, all the models are based on the same circular reasoning. What is the probability that a worthless model will produce a curve that seems to match reality?

David S says: @ur momisugly September 5, 2013 at 8:38 am
…. Ok they haven’t started the electric shocks yet but the skeptics are labeled “deniers” and some folks suggest they be sent to re-education camps.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
NAH, they will just send in a Swat Team to scare you.

@Steven Mosher 8:09 am

On the evidence one could argue that while the US has a very dense network of stations the homogeniety of that network and the adjustments required put it more toward the BOTTOM of the station piles than the Top of the line.
Of course that can also be answered objectively by looking at the number of break points that US systems generate as opposed to the rest of the world.

A counter hypothesis is that the Berkley Earth scalpel runs amok with high density data, because the homogeniality of the network is an invalid assumption.
what to me appears to be minimally discussed wholesale decimation and counterfeiting of low frequency information happening within the BEST process. Dec. 13, 2012 (Circular Logic….)
—-
The [AGU Dec 2012] poster does NOT assuage my concerns. It reinforces I have not misunderstood the BEST process. “Results” amounts to comparing two untrustworthy methods with similar assumptions against each other. ….
The Rohde 2013 paper uses synthetic error free data. The scalpel is not mentioned. My concern is the use of the scalpel on real, error riddled data. Jan 21, 2013 5:58pm (Berkley Earth finally….)
A class of events called Recalibration…. A property of this “recalibration class” is that there is slow buildup of instrument drift, then quick, discontinuous offset to restore calibration [Scalpels cuts at what appear to be discontinuities] Not only will Instrument drift and climate signal be inseparable, we have multiplied the drift in the overall record by discarding the correcting recalibration at the discontinuities.. The Scalpel is discarding the recalibrations, keeping the drift. Jan 23, 2013 11:30 am (ibid)
The denser the network, the more likely the scalpel will make the cut at recalibration events because most of the neighbors are not recalibrated at the same time.

If they had plotted the SST data,(which is the best metric for climate change) from 2003 when the warming peaked they would see the current cooling trend – but that would be a step too far for Nature. For an estimate of the coming cooling see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2013/07/skillful-so-far-thirty-year-climate.html

At least dr. Norman Page got it right
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/05/statistical-proof-of-the-pause-overestimated-global-warming-over-the-past-20-years/#comment-1408688
henry says
but there are are only a few of us
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
who really know what is coming:
HOW CAN WE STOP THIS GLOBAL COOLING?
It looks like all the media and the whole world still believe that somehow global warming will soon be back on track again. Clearly, as shown, this is just wishful thinking. All current results show that global cooling will continue. As pointed out earlier, those that think that we can put more carbon dioxide in the air to stop the cooling are just not being realistic. There really is no hard evidence supporting the notion that (more) CO2 is causing any (more) warming of the planet, whatsoever. On same issue, there are those that argue that it is better to be safe than sorry; but, really, as things are looking now, they are now also beginning to stand in the way of progress. Those still pointing to melting ice and glaciers, as “proof” that it is (still) warming, and not cooling, should remember that there is a lag from energy-in and energy-out. Counting back 88 years i.e. 2013-88= we are in 1925.
Now look at some eye witness reports of the ice back then?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/16/you-ask-i-provide-november-2nd-1922-arctic-ocean-getting-warm-seals-vanish-and-icebergs-melt/
Sounds familiar? Back then, in 1922, they had seen that the arctic ice melt was due to the warmer Gulf Stream waters. However, by 1950 all that same ‘lost” ice had frozen back. I therefore predict that all lost arctic ice will also come back, from 2020-2035 as also happened from 1935-1950. Antarctic ice is already increasing.
To those actively involved in trying to suppress the temperature results as they are available on-line from official sources, I say: Let fools stay fools if they want to be. Fiddling with the data they can, to save their jobs, but people still having to shove snow in late spring, will soon begin to doubt the data…Check the worry in my eyes when they censor me. Under normal circumstances I would have let things rest there and just be happy to know the truth for myself. Indeed, I let things lie a bit. However, chances are that humanity will fall in the pit of global cooling and later me blaming myself for not having done enough to try to safeguard food production for 7 billion people and counting.
It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
I find that as we are moving back, up, from the deep end of the 88 year sine wave, there will be standstill in the speed of cooling, on the bottom of the wave, and therefore naturally, there will also be a lull in pressure difference at that > [40 latitude], where the Dust Bowl drought took place, meaning: no wind and no weather (read: rain). However, one would apparently note this from an earlier change in direction of wind, as was the case in Joseph’s time. According to my calculations, this will start around 2020 or 2021…..i.e. 1927=2016 (projected, by myself and the planets…)> add 5 years and we are in 2021.
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left……
WHAT MUST WE DO?
1) We urgently need to develop and encourage more agriculture at lower latitudes, like in Africa and/or South America. This is where we can expect to find warmth and more rain during a global cooling period.
2) We need to tell the farmers living at the higher latitudes (>40) who already suffered poor crops due to the cold and/ or due to the droughts that things are not going to get better there for the next few decades. It will only get worse as time goes by.
3) We also have to provide more protection against more precipitation at certain places of lower latitudes (FLOODS!),