Dear mhaze,

Hiatus means pause or a break, it doesn't mean still increasing but at less of a rate. You show me a positive trend line but put to me it isn't sufficient to say it was statistically significant. From that you claim it can't be absolutely concluded global warming did occur because the margin of error is too large.

This CSIRO study came out about a month ago.

“This work reviews the literature on an alleged global warming 'pause' in global mean surface temperature (GMST) to determine how it has been defined, what time intervals are used to characterise it, what data are used to measure it, and what methods used to assess it. We test for 'pauses', both in the normally understood meaning of the term to mean no warming trend, as well as for a 'pause' defined as a substantially slower trend in GMST. The tests are carried out with the historical versions of GMST that existed for each pause-interval tested, and with current versions of each of the GMST datasets. The tests are conducted following the common (but questionable) practice of breaking the linear fit at the start of the trend interval ('broken' trends), and also with trends that are continuous with the data bordering the trend interval. We also compare results when appropriate allowance is made for the selection bias problem. The results show that there is little or no statistical evidence for a lack of trend or slower trend in GMST using either the historical data or the current data. The perception that there was a 'pause' in GMST was bolstered by earlier biases in the data in combination with incomplete statistical testing.”

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aaf342/meta

As a layman I can either take your version of the veracity of a pause or these guys. Why should I take yours?

SR,

Dear oh dear...this just gets more embarrassing.

Trend lines and temperature data are all about statistics. There are margins of error caused by a myriad of things including the imprecision of measurement. The list is way to great to discuss here. I did see a good summary a while back....I'll try to find it.

The upshot is that there is an inbuilt uncertainty in the data. This was beautifully exemplified back in 2015 when NASA reluctantly confirmed that, even though they'd declared 2014 to be the hottest year ever, they were only 38% sure of that due to inherent inaccuracy in the data.

The same occurs with these trend lines. If the trend line is +1 but the uncertainty is ±1.2 then all that can be said with any certainty is that the trend is between -0.2 and +2.2 and both of those are equally likely. Thus a pause. There's no real doubt here. Most of the climate community accepts it and 1000s of scientists are working on studying it, its cause and the ramifications of the pause on models.

Because it the models that are the issue here. Nowhere have I said that the pause disproves AGW. NOWHERE. But since none of the models predicted a pause of this duration, it means that they are shown to be faulty. That was the purpose of the Storch quote above. So researchers need to work out why the models missed this possibility and how to remedy them. That will almost certainly mean that the new, fixed, models will come out and show a lower predicted increase. Every time the models are 'fixed' the purported temperatures decrease. That's the importance of the pause.

I can't explain this any better than I did back in 2015 when I told you....

"the two thousand or so scientists who worked on the IPCC's AR5 thought there was pause and they wrote extensively about it..

The myriad climate modellers who are trying to work out why their models showed significant warming since 2000 when no such warming is in the record, are clearly dills.."

SR,

"This CSIRO study came out about a month ago."

This is not NOT NOT a CSIRO study. I don't know how you screwed that up but ...wow.

This is a paper written by a group of well know statistic manipulators who are trying to give some degree of cover to people such as yourself who are clueless in regards to statistical method but SO very much want the pause to disappear. Now I haven't analysed the whole paper but I couldn't find the money shot where they prove the statistics are wrong. They just use their normal tricks to try to give a veneer of scholarship to utter rubbish.

Oh, and did I mention its not a CSIRO study?

The give away is that the authors include Lewandowsky and Oreskes.

Oh, and did I mention its not a CSIRO study?

Lewandowsky is an Australian psychologist who converted a so-so career in psychology into stardom in climate by making up stories the alarmists wanted to hear. The best and most laughable was his shonky survey of 1100 or so people concerning their beliefs in AGW and the moon landing. of the 1100 people 10 doubted the moon landing of which 3 also doubted AGW. From this he declared it proven that disbelief in the moon landing was linked to disbleief in AGW and that skeptics of one are also skeptics of the other. The statistical methods were laughable but also scary since so many turned a blind-eye to it and just accepted the results as published.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/11/stephan-lewandowskys-moon-landing-paper-scathingly-criticized-by-team-of-psychologists-in-a-new-book/

I'll leave you to research Oreskes who is, if anything, even less reputable.

That you'd rely on such a study is rather revealing.

Oh, and did I mention its not a CSIRO study?

Dear mhaze,

Yup, stuffed that one up. I had three studies I was looking at, one of them a CSIRO paper and I sloppily wrongly attributed the providence of the one I posted.

My bad. My apologies to you and anyone left still reading the thread.

I do find the changes in language informative though. Hiatus, pause and slowdown all have different connotations. You seem to have shifted from hiatus to the more circumspect pause.

SR,

"Yup, stuffed that one up."

This post should have a blue-check next to it. Its rare on these papers to see someone admit to an error. Normally they just disappear for a week or two.

Kudos.

" Hiatus, pause and slowdown all have different connotations."

I use hiatus and pause interchangeably since that's what the climate community seems to do. Originally I used 'plateau' since pause/hiatus imply a stalling in the inevitably inexorable rise in temperatures which I didn't accept as necessarily true. Plateau offered the notion that the next move could be up or down.

But pause/hiatus become the norm and using plateau meant having to explain my thinking each time. So I went with the flow.

Ultra Conservative exist here in bigger numbers than the real world
Consider a truth, every poll worth looking at, in the last five years, shows more want action on climate change than not
Current drought, heat records, all time ones being broken
Vote will be lost, even dead set Liberals and Nationals,will vote against their party
Vote will be lost, because this government serves other than its citizens
Tell me that is not true