We hear it over and over again. Now that the temps have quit warming. In spite of about 15 years of flat line temps in spite of ever increasing atmospheric CO2, we are scolded about more time is necessary to confirm the null hypothesis.
Quickly, and a down and dirty articulation of the hypothesis as I understand it. Atmospheric CO2 is a primary driver in our global temps, and as thus, a driver in our climate conditions. The null hypothesis would simply be to state, “No, it is not.”
Hmm….. 30 years of increasing atmospheric CO2 against a backdrop of declining or flat-lining temps. That’s a tall order seeing how we’re coming out of the LIA!
Another quick and dirty review: what happens with CO2. The earth radiates energy back out to space in the form of IR. CO2 absorbs the IR and re-emits the energy. Some of it back towards the earth. Thus, warming the earth to catastrophic consequences. The more atmospheric CO2 the more we’re warmed. This is the hypothesis. Again, the null would be to say, “No, it isn’t. There’s more to it and CO2 is not that significant.” We don’t need specifics as to why the hypothesis isn’t right, we simply need to show it isn’t correct and someone else can come up with another hypothesis about our climate. Again, we’re told we need at least 30 years to confirm the null hypothesis…….. Okay…….. what about this?…….
Here is 36 years of declining temps against a backdrop of increasing atmospheric CO2. Of course, I could have extended this well beyond 36 years. In fact, I will……. here is 50 years! I could go longer….. but I think 50 years of declining temps while atmospheric CO2 increases is enough to state the null hypothesis is confirmed.
As usual, I’m grateful to Paul for allowing the free use of his abilities. Don’t forget to click on his donate button! http://www.woodfortrees.org
I am also grateful for Steve’s new anti-groupy, Dikran Marsupial for giving me the impetus to look. I do some of my best work with 5 or 6 beers ins me! 
Addendum! Because I’ve been having such great fun with this, I’ve decided to go 70 years with ever increasing atmospheric CO2 and a declining temp trend…….. Please note the temps started to increase at the end of the graph. For those of us who bother to read or listen to the stories of our elders, 1935 marked the height of the Great Depression. As shown by recent events, recessions and depressions cause a decrease in CO2 emissions. Still at the height, temps started to rise and continued to rise afterward. Indeed, for the next 65 years they did so. Until they stopped. Yes, the last graph is cherry picked. But, then so are most of the graphs we see today showing an increase in temps. Still, it cannot pass notice that for 70 years, in spite of a general increase in atmospheric CO2 we actually had declining temps. Even though we were emerging from the LIA.
suyts space 
I’ll play devils advocate for you. That period does not count as the amount of aeorosols was increasing during that time due the the industrial revolution and coal and oil not being burnt cleanly which was masking the warming. So how can you nullify my arguement especially considering there were no measurements of aeorosols at that time? Do you think warmists will not use such arguements in reply to you?
I’m sure they will, but the argument they use only means the null hypothesis is correct. CO2 is not a primary driver. Kelly I do appreciate you playing the part though. But, what’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.
This would, naturally move the conversation more towards the present. Nullifying the past. In which case, the most accurate measurements of both aerosols and CO2 and temps are tracked only within about a 30 year period of time. 1/2 of which, the most recent 1/2, shows a negligible response to CO2. And again, it leaves us with the question, “Well, which is it?”
They can’t claim the history to show what it clearly doesn’t show. Or they can’t talk about what is nearer to the present. Either way, they can have at it, and so will the people who see this!
I think we passed the tipping point…
..and it’s over
😉
It’s far far from over, sorry. No complacency or overconfidence. Remember, that’s what we did with Obamacare. ~Feb 2010: Hannity: “Will it pass or not.” Dana Perino: “No it won’t.” At that point I thought, that is wrong to say that, instead of… “these people are devious, we need to keep our guard up.” This can quickly shift, as they have so many forces doing their bidding, as the MSM etc. Keep hitting. Run up the score. Beat that dead horse, because it won’t be dead.
Yup! 😉
Obama still talked about climate change in his State of the Union Address so it isn’t over. I actually don’t care what anyone wants to think about climate change so long as they don’t affect me. A good comparison would be some religious person as I am not, telling me I must go to some religious ceremony every week. They don’t so I don’t care. But in climate change religion they want to affect me.
He was pandering to his bewildered base. It is a funny thing to watch. The spin some put on his speech and the spin others do.
I entirely agree. I don’t give a rat’s behind if someone wishes to believe CO2 is ruining their world or not. I only care when their madness touches me and mine. They can do as they please as far as I’m concerned. What they can’t do is intrude into me and mine.
A freedom lost by one, is a freedom lost by all.
Those graphs are always fun to look at.
Well, they were whining about 30 years….. I’m only here to oblige. 🙂 A quick post on the Florida primary coming up!
Why does the null hypothesis have to specify flat or declining temps? A null hypothesis could compare any periods of time where it is claimed levels of CO2 were not significantly affecting temperatures. AGW proponents can’t have it both ways; unless they’re being really looney and claim that some vast period of time applies.
If we were to condense the 11,700 years of the current geological epoch (the Holocene) down to a single year, the global surface temperature record would consist of the last 4 days worth of data.
Only a complete bufoon (or a climate scientist) would attempts to describe the annual conditions at any location on the basis of the last 4 days worth of data…….
And that, James my friend, is all you really need to say.
It should be. But, buffoons don’t really understand simple logic and critical thinking.
thx Suyts, nice read.
Thanks man! I’m here to please. Feel free to use in any manner you wish.
Pingback: SkS, Sesame Street and Intellectual Dishonesty | suyts space
Pingback: A Real Work of Art! | suyts space