Dan Pangburn writes: The 'experts' estimate of the current trend would put the average global temperature trend about 0.2C higher than it is. The temperature trend calculated using my equation is spot on.
I have checked the equation as a predictor (but using actual sunspot data) since 1965. It has never been off in predicting the average global temperature anomaly trend by more than 0.06°C. The equation is calibrated using measurements prior to a date and then used to predict average global temperature trends after that date. The predictions are then compared to the actual measurements to see how well the equation predicted.
That I got it right is demonstrated by accurate calculation and prediction including the flat temperature trend since 2001. Results are shown in the graphs that you saw. The equation predicts an average global temperature downtrend for at least two decades.
"... as explained at least twice, you’re using a correlation metric, not an accuracy metric, so the most you can say is that your equation calculates “something which is sort of correlated with temperatures since 1895″ with a “correlation” of 88%."
We need to take the time to appreciate the complexity of the data and considerations that go into these estimates, only then are you in a better position to judge dodgy claims.
So I'm going to take advantage of their generous sharing policy to repost one of their threads.
Add Frame and Stone to the List of Papers Validating IPCC Warming Projections
Posted on 11 December 2012 by dana1981
Frame and Stone Methodology
Results Similar to Prior Skeptical Science Analysis
Observed Warming Not Natural Variability
IPCC Has Excelled at Global Warming Projections
"...it seems highly likely that even in 1990 we understood the climate system well enough to make credible statements about how its aggregate properties would change on timescales out to a couple of decades, even in the presence of considerable uncertainty surrounding the exact forcing trajectory."