That’s why you posted Spencer’s data graph every month even this month is not much different than last month and didn’t provide anything new to what you claimed. You treat Spencer’s data graph as a weather graph.
But when we look at the graph, we don’t just check individual monthly/yearly point, we look for specific structural landmarks and data metrics. Because we treat it as climate data. We look for the trend. In Spencer’s data graph the trend has been +0.16 C per decade. But let me get back to your monthly/yearly point first. This is where you made claim of “acceleration in heating trend”. But you are also wrong here.
That point you mentioned is 1998. But we had a super El Niño in 1998. Even it’s almost 30 years ago, I believe most of us here still remember that monster. Many records were broken then. Dr Spencer’s data is unsmoothed data (pretty raw). They include the ENSO signal (El Niño/La Niña). They do not remove or filter out ENSO noise. That’s why you see the spike (“acceleration” in your words). But that’s a WEATHER signal, a noise. You need to remove that El Niño noise to get a true climate signal.
Back to real important information from Spencer’s day graph. It is the trend of +0.16 C per decade. Please check every data graph if Dr Spencer’s you posted. The trend has been consistently 0.16 C per de. So, there is no acceleration in heating trend from Dr Spencer’s data graph.
Do you know what that means? That means 0.16x10 = 1.6 C. After 100 years, i.e., by the end of this century, the warming will be just 1.6 C increase if the current trend holds and we still keep emitting our CO2 at current pace. 1.6 C also means all predictions by those models are wrong. They are deadly wrong. They predict, if we continue to emit CO2 like we did in past 30 years, temperatures rising will be 4.4 C by the end of this century.
Do you realize actually every month when you posted Dr Spencer’s data, you rejected alarmists’ disaster predictions?
