SRBA: " who do think created the graph I posted MM...*rolls eyes* " Apart from the  selected time period and added nonsense century period  extrapolation:
Source: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean...

SRBA: "Now, prove that the temperature change, is not  just a natural variation....." As I have stated many times  before SRBA  you have no concept whatsoever of the  Scientific Method: Scientific measurements can only disprove theories or be consistent with them. Any theory that is consistent with measurements could be disproved by a future measurement.

SN,  I am not really comfortable with forecasts shown within your graph, even though the extrapolation is scientifically "acceptable", unlike SRBA's where a carefully selected time period of 202 months with a hot start is extrapolated to 1200 months.

I prefer the graph below,  and then by applying atmospheric physics and science a probability (factor) of a causality between anthropogenic GHG and global atmospheric temperatures  will result.

 nɥºɾ

        The old CO2 is up chart.....

         giggle.....

".. We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the

hard reality of observations.

A few of us are not that surprised, as we always distrusted the level of faith that climate modelers had in their understanding of

the causes of climate change.

I continue to suspect that, in the coming years, scientists will increasingly realize that more CO2 in the atmosphere is, on the

whole, good for life on Earth. Given that CO2 is necessary for life, and that nature continues to gobble up 50% of the CO2 we

produce as fast as we can produce it, I won’t be that surprised when that paradigm shift occurs, either..." Dr Roy Spencer...

Then I will quote Dr Roy Spencer again......

you sure you don't mean frank spencer ?

---

@monman12 wrote:

SN,  I am not really comfortable with forecasts shown within your graph, even though the extrapolation is scientifically "acceptable", unlike SRBA's where a carefully selected time period of 202 months with a hot start is extrapolated to 1200 months.

 nɥºɾ

 

 

 

 

---

Yes, your graph is much better 🙂  Mine was just the 1st I found when looking for something to reply to our resident banshee 🙂

Lately I have had a chuckle or two, even a guffaw, but I do miss our resident "giggle" posterer.

So,  as I find science/engineering far more interesting than  partisan political waffle,  I do wonder what the giggler(s) are now using  for a starting date apropos their much overused:   "the globe  has not warmed for 17 years and 4 days".

"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."

As for Australia and our excellent BOM:

2014 was Australia's third-warmest year since national temperature observations commenced in 1910. Following Australia's warmest year on record in 2013, both maximum and minimum temperatures remained well above average

Seven of Australia's ten warmest years on record have occurred in the 13 years from 2002, with one cooler-than-average year in the past decade: 2011. The 10-year mean temperature for 2005–2014 was 0.55 °C above average, the highest on record.

Of course a graph:

Looks like the favourite El Niño year of 1998 is no longer in vogue,   chuckle.

---

@monman12 wrote:

Lately I have had a chuckle or two, even a guffaw, but I do miss our resident "giggle" posterer.

 

So,  as I find science/engineering far more interesting than  partisan political waffle,  I do wonder what the giggler(s) are now using  for a starting date apropos their much overused:   "the globe  has not warmed for 17 years and 4 days".

 

"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century". The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle."

 

As for Australia and our excellent BOM:

 

 

 

---

Surely you haven't missed the accusations that BOM is not to be trusted and that BOM has "homogenised" a hundred year's worth of data to support their claims that climate change is real.  

There has been threads about the BOM scam and it has been raised in other threads.   Sounds like selective vision.

It's a sad state of affairs when one realizes that other posters are still using datasets from 'Lord Monckton' for their statistics - Monckton's been so thoroughly demonstrated an idiot, with little concept of harsh reality, I'd be personally embarrased to be quoting figures from him.

But then, global warming means not a jot anyway, as the rapture is imminent, or so the good and pious christians are apt to claim!

But just in case they're wrong, we have...

• The imminent danger of Nibiru, (rapidly approaching, and destroying all life on Earth),
• Mind-altering chemtrails, sprayed by a conspiracy of commercial pilots all over the world,
• The NWO and the Illuminati, all set to enslave mankind,
• The Annunaki, (or is it the Reptilians in government?), who are preparing to also enslave mankind,

And so on and so on...