In 1998, when we saw the largest El Niño on record, all the associated warming (including that in the build up to it) was blamed on carbon dioxide. But when we now see perhaps the largest La Niña it becomes an "excuse" used to gloss over the fact that carbon dioxide is not having an effect.

The plot of sea levels has broken the trend significantly and returned already to levels of two years ago. Once again, if carbon dioxide (and only carbon dioxide) were having the claimed effect, we would not expect such a turn around in the trend, even in the short two year time span.

Michael knows very well from my other posts and website that I refer to Trenberth's trend which was based on about 18 years of data and produced this curved plot shown at the top of my home page http://climate-change-theory.com The level of noise in sea surface temperatures is quite low enough to confirm that the trend has in fact passed a maximum in about 2006 and is now declining. The downward decline continues with even steeper gradient when data up to this month is added.

The NASA site only does plots from 2003 to the present for sea-surface data. I suggest that the period from 2003 to 2011 is quite long enough to make the valid point that no net heat has accumulated in that period despite ever increasing carbon dioxide levels. If it were doing anything, carbon dioxide would have an effect on El Niño and La Niña extremes anyway. Knox and Douglass also point out the "flattening" of the temperature trend after 2002. http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf

There is very clear historic evidence that temperatures have risen and fallen due to natural causes quite independently of carbon dioxide levels. There have even been warmer periods in the past: http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/06/norway-warmer.html

Michael also knows that there are errors in the models which render them useless in narrowing down the result to indicate whether warming or cooling should have eventuated. He has never found an answer to a question I put to him about this and he continues to avoid the issue which is of fundamental importance in the debate about the supposed AGW.

The various papers assumed to support AGW do not in fact do so. Instead they assume carbon dioxide leads to warming and they merely show either the effects of warming or the fact that carbon dioxide levels increased. They do not prove any causal relationship, because there isn't one to prove.

To see that there is not even a correlation (let alone a causal relationship) you have only to look more closely at the numerous times even just in the last 150 years when temperatures over periods of 15 to 25 years have completely failed to follow the trend of increasing carbon dioxide levels.

On several occasions I have challenged readers of this forum to point me to any papers which they consider prove that carbon dioxide caused all the observed warming late last century. No one has been able to do so, including Michael.

A further note regarding NASA argument:

Not only have virtually all of the excess flood waters (in Australia, for example) well and truly evaporated or drained to the oceans by now, but for the period of 18 months during which sea levels have been falling, so too have sea surface temperatures as in this plot from NASA site: http://climate-change-theory.com/2010-2011.jpg

Now, regarding Trenberth's trend which I trust you have at least looked at here http://climate-change-theory.com/seasurface.jpg or in his article on Skeptical Science a couple of months ago, it is based on about 18 years of data and I have added subsequent data with my own calculations merely to check if the decline which he showed started around 2006 was in fact continuing. I was not just using "one year of the graph."

I suggest you also read what Knox and Douglass had to say at http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf and check whatever NASA data you wish since 2003 at http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/

And, by the way, I don't know what you know about physics (in which I have at least done a degree and a lot of subsequent more advanced study) so maybe this is out of you depth - but at least read the conclusions at http://www.biocab.org/Induced_Emission.html

Here's an excerpt ...

“There are many scientists who have found errors in the calculations of the proponents of the idea that carbon dioxide is causing planetary warming. The most serious of these errors resides in believing in a downwelling photon stream which, as AGW proponents say, overwhelms the surface emission of radiation and warms the surface during nighttime. However, when we analyze the issue of downwelling radiation emitted by the atmosphere, we find that such warming of the surface by greenhouse gases does not exist.

“The problem with the AGW idea is that its proponents think that the Earth is isolated and that the heat engine only works on the surface of the ground. They fail to take into account that incoming heat from the Sun is transferred by conduction from surface to subsurface materials, which store heat until the incidence of direct solar radiation declines, explicitly during nighttime.

“At nighttime, the heat stored by the subsurface materials is transferred by conduction towards the surface, which is colder than the unexposed materials below the surface. The heat transferred from the subsurface layers to the surface is then transported by the air by means of convection and warms up. The upwelling photon stream affects the directionality of the radiation emitted by the atmosphere driving it upwards, i.e. towards the upper atmospheric layers and, from there, towards deep space. This process is well described by the next formula:

FSH = -ρ (Cp) (CH) (v (z)) [T (z) – T (0)] .... "

[Basically he proves that the vast majority of the radiation from greenhouse gas molecules is induced rather than spontaneous. Such induced radiation is in the direction of the incoming radiation (from the surface) that induced it. Hence AGW assumptions that about 50% of radiation goes back towards Earth are totally incorrect.]

Yes, oil levels dropping due to a leak may well follow a (roughly) linear trend, but your implicit assumption that climate must do so is fallacious. Consider these plots for example: http://earth-climate.com/planetcycles.jpg and http://climate-change-theory.com/latest.jpg

I am not denying that the long-term (roughly sinusoidal) 900 to 1000 year trend may not yet have reached a maximum, but I suggest that a superimposed shorter-term cycle of about 60 year periodicity has passed a maximum, following the pattern of maxima in about 1880, 1940 and 1999. Hence I predict slight cooling until about 2028 or 2029 and then warming to about 2058 or 2059. But, more importantly, long term cooling for about 450 years after that.

The end result is that the IPCC projections to the year 2100 are totally incorrect because they assume a near linear, ever increasing trend.

And again, you gloss over the "we" in "we're heating up the planet." Neither you nor anyone else on this forum has ever been able to point me to valid scientific argument that proves that none of the warming last century would have happened in the absence of anthropogenic carbon dioxide.

If you say the models prove it, then I say they are not accurate enough to do so, and that there are major problems in the models used by the IPCC. For a start, they assume all radiation from GH molecules is spontaneous and thus in random directions. This is simply not the case according to the laws of physics. The fact is that far more radiation is upwards because it is induced by the upward radiation from the surface, rather than being spontaneous. Secondly, they talk of "Ocean Heat Content" which is a complete misnomer equating heat to thermal energy. The importance of this misconception is that thermal energy continually interchanges with potential energy as, for example, when warmer water rises by convection. Heat, on the other hand, is energy in transit.

(continued)

I have referred to temperature data and included a link to a plot showing a curved trend in such. In general, temperature data is a leading indicator ahead of sea levels by perhaps a few years. This is because sea levels are a function of the thermal energy content (causing expansion) and also a function of melting ice. Obviously the run off from melting land ice will take some time to reach the oceans.

Hence, whilst you might argue that the downward "breakout" (or NASA's pothole) in the sea level plot may not be significant in itself, I would argue that, when you consider the supporting temperature data which started to level out around 2001-2002 and to decline around 2006 as shown in Trenberth's trend http://climate-change-theory.com/seasurface.jpg then it makes sense to conclude that there is now an indication that sea levels are starting to decline, though lagging the temperature levels by perhaps four years or so.

Acceptance of the basics of nuclear physics would provide greater impetus.

A move to advanced nuclear makes sense regardless of the climate implications.