I just told you -
weather. The fact that the long-term trend is upwards does not mean that every single year will be warmer than the last. If you look at the chart I posted, you can clearly see that there's lots of year-on-year variation, but the overall trend is indisputably upwards.
While it's true that 2008 wasn't any warmer than 2000, all those years in between
were, as your own chart clearly shows. And the reason 2008 was colder is that
it was a La Niña year.
OK, another couple of graphs the first is CO2 ppm, the second is raw temperature data for Dec 78 until last month.
Grey is monthly average, blue is a 12-month moving average of that, and gold is a 10-year
moving average.
The only thing connecting the two is the correlation of trends, and that would probably be
true if you took house prices, the average person's height etc.
The fact is, that CO2 lags temperature, and that in the past, temperatures have also fallen,
and CO2 followed. I know that you'll say that other factors cause the start and end of
these warmer periods, but if that is true, then where is the evidence that CO2 did anything
at all in the intervening period? It is also possible that other factors kept temperatures
increasing.
In the temperature graph, all we really have is a steady state between 1978 and 1997, then
El Niño, and a steady state 0.3 of a degree higher in 2002-2007.
The trend would be negated by a few cold years. If you cut and paste 1984-1993's data in
to represent the next ten years, the effect is gone. If the solar cycle lads are correct, then
that is exactly what will happen. We only have ten years to wait. If you are right, I'll buy
you a pint of carbon-negative beer.
Surely even you will have to admit that it's a possibility even if you are convinced that in
reality, the end of the world is nigh.