The alarmist WMO has put out a graphic on X/Twitter (Talkshop copy here) showing hardly any global warming increase (in blue) between 1940 and the 1970s, followed by a clear transition (to red) since then. This doesn’t correlate with the monotonic CO2 rise during that period. Weather expert Joe Bastardi is delighted: ‘Merry Christmas from the World Meteorological Organization’.
Another one from the WMO – “off the charts” – showing September-November temperature anomalies right back to 1850, agrees:
Where does that leave greenhouse gas theories? Joe Bastardi has a few ideas.
– – –
Update: Net Zero Watch wades in to the debate —
2023: Global temperature, statistics and hot air
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
I would dearly love to see the same data for the previous quarter over the same year range.
The annual anomaly graphic (since 1880) looks much the same. A bit more blue pre-1930 perhaps.
June only since 1880…
They all show a cooling anomaly between 1880 and 1910 or so, but the rise of modern industry, coal burning etc. dates back to 1850 at least. Also no trend up from 1945-1975 when post-war industry and fuel-burning travel were booming.
I have performed correlation analyses between recorded temperatures and atmospheric CO2 since the late 19th century. I have also computed correlation coefficients between changing atmospheric CO2 and changing temperatures over 25 million year increments of the 550-million year geologic record.
There is NO correlation between changing atmospheric CO2 and changing temperature; there is NO correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
The lack of correlation is strong. In the 550-million year geologic record, correlation coefficients are 0.29 between CO2 and temperature and 0.10 between changing CO2 and changing temperature.
In the 130 years record (1885-2014) the correlation between annual CO2 change and annual temperature change is just 0.123; in the 75 year record (1951 to 2010) the correlation between annual CO2 change and annual temperature change is just 0.196. Both figures testify to there being no correlation between changing atmospheric CO2 and changing temperature (“climate”).
Consequently, the warmists’ claim that growing (changing) atmospheric CO2 is causing rising (changing) global temperature (“climate”) is rejected by the observed evidence in nature.
The same conclusion arises when correlation between CO2 and Temperature histories are calculated. Over every meaningful timeframe, and most definitely in the 25-million year geologic record, the warmist theory that rising atmospheric CO2 is causing global warming temperatures (climate) is found to be completely invalid for failure to agree with the clear evidence in nature (observation).
Bottom line, it doesn’t really matter what is causing changes in atmospheric CO2… those changes have no discernible impact on global climate over at least the past half-billion years. Consequently, programs like “net zero” and banning fossil fuels are useless, will have no impact on climate, and are utterly insane to pursue.
Now we know why the Scientific Method is no longer taught in the schools.
Some figures:
A bar chart showing direction of CO2 change and direction of global temperature change in 25-million year increments of the 550-million-year geologic record:
The corresponding correlation coefficients:
http://www.webcommentary.com/data/sharing/Tab-3-2-geologic-hist-co2-climate-tab
These figures are from “Looking Out The Window / Are Humans Really Responsible for Climate Change? / The Trial of Carbon Dioxide in the Court of Public Opinion”
Sorry about that link:
What September-November shows is that the temperature in those months has absolutely nothing to do with CO2. Any data analyst would tell you that. Quite clearly its being caused by something that wasn’t present before then.
Joe B says:
‘Now let me show what I have shown a dozen times here: the increase in SST in response to increased geothermal forcing.’
Notice that the twitter image is based on Copernicus dataset, which includes temperature estimates from 1940 forward. Wisely, they recognize that earlier records going back to 1859 are sparse and in no way global in their sampling. A German paper concluded:
“Well, Copernicus, as an organization financed and probably also controlled by the EU, is one of those organizations that boast about data transparency. So we have obtained the data that Samantha Burgess refers to in her heat record letter, which you can get here, and counted out which measuring stations in which parts of the world are the basis for the global average temperature calculated for the years 1850 to 1900, which serves as the basis for the alleged increase of 1.46 degrees Celsius.”
“If it is possible to calculate the Earth’s temperature for the period from 1850 to 1900 without taking large parts of the Earth into account, then the question arises as to whether it is possible to do without any measurement data at all, especially as their distribution over the years is very uneven: a total of 32 measuring stations form the basis for the global Earth temperature calculation for the years 1850 to 1859, with a further 62 from 1860 to 1869. As the figure above shows, the claim that the entire period from 1850 to 1900 is a reference period is simply fraudulent, as 77% of the measuring stations were only put into operation after 1890.”
“This is all a huge humbug that ultimately represents scientific fraud, and anyone who compares today’s data with the data from the reference period 1850 to 1900 and claims to be able to extract any information about the development of the global earth temperature from this is either out of their depth or a climate fraudster.”
And of course, the issues with global temperature estimates persist to this day:
UAH anomaly 1978-2023 (click on image to enlarge).
The period from about 2001 to 2015 looks like the so-called ‘pause’, i.e. no correlation with rising CO2 ppm figures.
Archives: https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/archives.html
DEC 22, 2023.
Debunking The Utterly Unscientific 1.5°C Climate Cliff
https://climatechangedispatch.com/debunking-the-utterly-unscientific-1-5c-climate-cliff/
When the time comes, alarmists can try to explain why there was no cliff.