Preliminary and additional note: a self-criticism of this blog post was made by the author on his own blog.
See it at http://blog.mr-int.ch/?p=4165&lang=en
Heretic? You're welcome!
Hysteric? Please cool down!
We hear that global warming is highly dependent on the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, this gas that is required to sustain life on Earth and that is also emitted when burning flammable stuff, such as wood, coal, mineral and organic oils, or methane.
If you are told "this depends on that", you are invited to examine available data observed over time to draw a representation of this on the y-axis vs. that on the x-axis.
So, in all logic, you should be interested in a representation of the temperature evolution in dependence of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Yes, you should, but, looking hard into the latest IPCC Report (the fifth of Working Group I, to be precise), no diagram of that sort can be found among its 1535 pages.
So, asks the judge: what is the evidence that the victim was attacked by the suspect? And the expert is not able, or willing, to provide any evidence. Is he actually an expert, or an incompetent prosecutor?
Among the available observed climate data are the so-called temperature anomalies (Ta), summarized as global monthly means, and the atmospheric CO2 concentrations ([CO2]) over the same time span. But time line diagrams show us only that, since the beginning of the industrial era, the global mean temperature went up by 0.8 to 1 °C, and [CO2] increased from 280 ppm to 405 ppm.
So, what? The suspect was there while the victim developed fever, is it enough evidence of culpability? As for any circumstantial fact, the answer must obviously be no. Presence is required, but is not sufficient to prove anything.
The next question is then: how fast was warming going on when [CO2] was low, and when it is now high? If a correlation can be shown, then a stronger case against the alleged culprit could be opened.
Using a simple spreadsheet to calculate these changes, and smoothing them over a 7-year filter so that a cloud of data points can be seen as a trend line, the following diagram is obtained:
At high [CO2] some cooling was observed, at lower [CO2] high warming rates were observed.
Honestly, no statistically valid correlation tying warming rate to [CO2] can be derived from it.
Sorry, no statistical significance, no hint of a proof!
Why do the IPCC experts avoid looking at such simple relationship? I can only guess, and my guess is that they are either blinded by their greenhouse assumption, thus faithfully ignoring any other indices, or they deliberately hide what would prevent them to obtain a capital punishment sentence. In any case they behave away from any scientific honesty.
Mainstream yes, but a highly polluted stream.
This is all the available observational data; any other relationships are conjectures, however plausible they might be, no evidence. Therefore, all possible heretical interpretations must be made, for example that one: from all possible known and unknown causes of the observed global warming, the anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions may have, or not, a contributing role. No scepticism, no advocacy, no unsustainable allegation, plain factual view.
I have only one questions to ask to all mainstream climate-experts, and their gullible followers in the public, the media, and in the political world:
What observational evidence can you provide to sustain the allegation that temperature is "very likely", and mostly, driven by anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions?
This blog post was originally publisher here: http://blog.mr-int.ch/?p=4150&lang=en
Contrary to almost all mainstream climate scientists whose sustained professional life depends on an on-going climate alarmism, including peer reviewers, I have no conflict of interest in relation with this subject.
My sources are all publicly available data series.
I can provide my spreadsheets to anyone who asks politely via the contact page of the author's blog.
 Why seven years?
Because it's uneven, large enough but not too long, and it is already documented in a famous book.