What scientific information on AGW can you get from this graph?

Reading the other answers there is an interesting variety of views. A couple of people have taken the graph literally and have argued that we don't know what happened previously (using the graph data only) and that as the title mentions "change" it should be a chart of yearly changes so you would need to integrate it to find the current temperature.

Both standpoints have a certain validity in the context of this question.

However, this is like avoiding a conviction on a technicality. That is, you were guilty of the crime but the clever lawyers found an obscure rule that means you don't go to jail.

The data is a subset of the data shown below. There clearly was an increasing trend prior to the levelling off. We were told that the earlier trend constituted man-made global warming. It was unequivocal. The science was settled. More CO2: more temperature, and the graph showed that.

Now we are in the second phase of the graph where you can look back from here all the way to 1996 and see no warming the graph is now not so clear, apparently. When you could look back and temperatures were rising that was clear evidence, when you do that now it is "cherry-picking".

One of the biggest failures of climate scientists has been the refusal to acknowledge this flattening of the temperature signal. It had been happening for ten years before it featured on anyone's radar. The IPCC was still in denial for AR5. I guess they are hoping that it will have gone away by AR6.

We are told that the laws of radiative physics say more CO2 means more warming. We have had more CO2 since 1996 and nothing has happened to the temperatures. How can that be? Saying "Natural variation" is not good enough in my view. It is a cheap cop out employed when you don't know why it is happening.

If a pendulum swings and you claim to understand all about pendulums and your ideas work when it moves one way but then play the "natural variation" card when it swings back I would say that you don't understand it as well as you claim.

kano ---

>>The Graph clearly shows (at a glance) that global warming has stopped happening,<<

That is not even logically possible, let alone scientifically reasonable.

You cannot say that something has changed (i.e. paused) unless there is something for it to have changed from. Since you do not know what came before the data you have, there is nothing to compare the graph against. Even if global warming had stopped – you can’t know that from the graph.

How long does it take you to figure out that the following equation is wrong:

1 + 1 = 500

That’s about as long as it should take to take to know that the graph does not show anything about global warming (up, down, or unchanged) – because it is just as “clearly shown” and easy as it is to tell that 1 + 1 = 500 is wrong. It is impossible to determine anything from the graph.

My only “spin” is science. You can “spin” your scientific illiteracy any way you please, but it is not science – and you are demonstrably – and scientifically – wrong.

Spin this:

2 - a lot

There is a lot of information about global warming already in the graph, but the statement of "no global warming" is directly contradicted by the data shown.

Notice that this is a graph of temperature *change* and not temperature. Any temperature change above zero is a temperature increase from the previous year. Any temperature change below 0 is a temperature decrease from the previous year.

To determine if temperature increased, you're interested in how far the fitted (flat blue) line is from zero, not the slope of the line. The line shows that the average temperature change from year to year is more than 0.2 degrees. In other words, temperature has increase an average of 0.2 degrees per year over the last 18 years.

Well I would start by comparing that graph to what climate models predicted the global surface temperatures would be. Below is from the IPCC AR4 report with various emissions scenarios. I would say that global surface temperatures over the past 18 years, 5 month are well below model projections. There is a discrepancy.

I don't know what the exact scientific test would be but regardless, my answer is thus "1 = some".

The graph puts the lie to the man-made Global Warming SCAM. It's the empirical data that shows clearly and at a glance that not only is there no man-made Global Warming but there is no warming of any kind.

Only an Alarmist could think the empirical global temperature record has nothing to say about the Climate SCAM.

Not much. It is cherry picked:

1. only the troposhere not the total air/ocean.

2. Only one of many interpretations, most of which instead show warming.

3. Not the total record of satellite data.

But that is quite common at WUWT.

Because this is a denier doctored graph most probably produced by denier Lord Monckton.

Also, notice it starts approximately in 1998. The not so stupid deniers know why it CAN ONLY start from 1998 :)

The Graph clearly shows (at a glance) that global warming has stopped happening, you can put whatever spin on it that you want, but showing a graph like that only convinces the normal people who see it that the warming has stopped.

It certainly isn't useful for the Cause but it is useful in showing an interpretation of climate proxies in the last 20 years. The graph accurately depicts the "pause" which certainly wasn't predicted by alarmists but as I stated that isn't very useful to the Cause. For that they need to select a more convenient interval. .

0

2014 was the warmest year on record globally, and the 2014 year on this graph is labeled as well below 1998. This year is already shaping up to be a record one too.

The source you cited makes me very... skeptical.