Seems the uptick in concern shown in the above graph's linked to the recent flurry of stories about a large spike in global temperature. It's true there has been a short spike of about 2 to 4 months in length so far, depending on where you start to measure it.
It's a very similar spike to that which occurred during the last El Nino about 18 years ago.
|RSS TLT - blue dots are my prediction|
The spike in temperature is only a few months long at this point, and is likely to subside with the following La Nina as it did in 1999.
Both during the 1998 temperature spike and the recent one, the Pacific ocean gets warm and a bunch of water vapour is released and a couple months later there's a warming.
But this warming is not global in coverage but centred on the Arctic:
Most of this "global warming" is in the northern hemisphere:
Most of the "global warming" is on land rather than ocean, how can this be see-oh-too? (Note: following graph is just February anomaly)
If the warming from carbon dioxide wouldn't it be more even in global coverage, and more gradual and decades-long, just like the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide?
After 18 years of relatively flat temperatures, during the time of greatest CO2 increase, how ignorant is it to interpret a short, months-long spike as being due to carbon dioxide and "ending the warming pause"?
But that's exactly how unscrupulous warmist scientists have portrayed it, and it's been amplified by the left-leaning journalists of the main stream media, who appear completely incapable of interpreting graphs for themselves and can only go by the say-so of their lying-leftist brethren in the scientific establishment.
This sheer ignorance – not even being able to interpret a graph, or understand the difference between a spike and a trend – is a microcosm for the ignorance of the whole AGW scare.