Hottest year ever update: El Niño effect in 2015 was 20 times larger than the global warming signal

Thank you for a well presented argument!
By the way, there was a typo in the table. It should be Hadcrut4 and not Hadcrut3.

Well done Sheldon Walker. You have made the case as plain as day. And of that 5% which is not of the El Nino impact, it is still an unknown as to how much of man-made atmospheric CO2 is even responsible for that 5%. I suppose that when global temperatures do take a large nose dive in the next few years, climate alarmists will start to blame La Nina for all of the drop.

I’m not sure what the point of this post is. Of course, the El Nino was responsible for most of the spike in temperature but this spike came on top of already elevated temperatures. We’ve had El Ninos before but not had the same level of warming (UAH and RSS are both reporting record January temps). The 1982-83 El Nino was almost as strong as this recent one but UAH anomalies throughout 1982/83 barely climbed above the mean 1981-2010 threshold.
If a La Nina follows the current El Nino then temperatures will inevitably fall but it’s doubtful if they will drop as far as temperatures during the 1982/83. El NIno period.. In other words, temperatures during La Nina nowadays will be higher than during El Nino of 30-odd years ago.
I don’t see global warming as a major problem but can we stop pretending it’s not happening. It is – slower, perhaps, than predicted by the climate models but it’s happening nonetheless. .

El Niño is a cooling event. All the heat released from the ocean that doesn’t find its way back into the ocean is headed out of the earth system. It is an impulse. A very natural impulse, and it has done its job. It will happen again. This isn’t climate or even weather – it is Earth dynamics that is an inevitable consequence of the Earth’s oceans, atmosphere, and land masses with a little help from a friendly local star and a chance favorable orbit around that star.

It is wrong for the alarmists to pick one year or even two year temperature anomalies due to El Ninos and ocean data manipulations as proof of significant influence on global warming by man This is simple exaggeration of the threat . There is however a background century long term temperature trend of about 0.8 C/ century rise since 1900 and man may have played some role in this rise . In the short term, ENSO cycle and the 60 year climate cycle may raise and lower this trend in 30 year sub cycles . During the next 30-40 years the signs are pointing to a temperature trough or pause and not unprecedented warming . However , the temperatures are bound to rise again after the cooler period has done its cycle .. In my opinion a continued long term temperature rise is real, man does influence it, but the danger has been exaggerated both in severity and timing . We do need to do it right and we have the time , not in a panic mode as suggested by the alarmists. Shutting down coal plants before their useful life has expired is wasteful of the public purse and does not help the climate in any meaningful way .The current renewables are not the answer , We need to come up with new clean energy solutions and this is where our funds should be focused , not on wind turbines

…about the spike in whatever it is that HADCRUT4 is actually measuring.

Neither HadCRUFT4 nor any of the other “land+sea” indices are measuring anything physically meaningful. You cannot “average” the temperature of a block of steel and box of feathers. It’s meaningless BS.
It only makes sense to average the temperature of different volumes of the same media. Land+sea is as meaningless as averaging deg F and deg C.

Sheldon, don’t use HadCRUT4 or any other ground-based “official” temperature curve. They have all been tampered with to show non-existent warming. The only temperature curves that are still honest are satellite temperatures. To show you how HadCRUT4 (and NOAA also) lie about temperature look for comparison at Figure 15 in my book “What Warming?” First, your graph 1 shows a non-existent warming from 1980 to the start of 1997. There is no warming there and a hiatus exists but they show it as a temperature rise of 0.35 degrees Celsius. It is not a statistical error but a deliberate falsification that has been on the record since 1997. I discovered in 2008 that a hiatus visible in the eighties and nineties in satellite records had mysteriously morphed itself into a “late twentieth century warming” in official temperature graphs. I mentioned it in comments and put a warning about it into the preface of my book in 2010. Nothing happened, I was completely ignored, and they still are purveying that criminal data set for its nineteenth year. This actually is not the only falsification in this graph. They also show warming in the twenty-first century where another hiatus exists. This is the one that NOAA tried to get rid of when they invented the water temperature data set ERRSTv.4. They christened it as “pause-buster.” Whether or not warming exists there depends upon the starting point of that hiatus. When it begins with the super El Nino of 1998 it does look like warming. But the 21st century hiatus does not begin with the super El Nino but with the year 2002. That is the year when the step warming of 1999 which raised the twenty-first century above the twentieth ended and the actual hiatus began. And if you make 2002 the starting point of the hiatus the next ten years are not warming but cooling. That step warming of 1999, by the way, is the only actual warming that took place during the entire satellite era that began with1979. Both your graph 1 and graph 2 are totally out of touch with reality. In view of what I said about temperature you ought to be able to see that graph 2 is totally wrong because it attempts to show a straight line relationship that does not exist. And to cover up their falsification they use such poor resolution that you have no idea that ENSO phases even exist in their data. There are actually five El Nino peaks in the eighties and nineties before the super El Nino shows up as you will note in my Figure 15. They are impossible to recognize in either of your graphs. And why go to the bother of getting rid of hiatuses? Very simple. During a hiatus carbon dioxide keeps increasing but temperature does not. This is a violation of the greenhouse theory of Arrhenius, still used by IPCC, according to which increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere should warm the air by the greenhouse effect. Since it does not do so during a hiatus, it follows that there is no greenhouse effect and the Arrhenius theory is invalid and belongs in the waste basket of history. And with it dies the theory of global warming.

I checked the 25 year trend in Waterloo and it is down. The minima are trending up but the mean and max trend is down. So is the 15 year trend. The record low around this time last year was -34.5 C. This year it is very warm for January-Feb. Long may it continue. The population is saving a fortune. Cities are saving a fortune.

“Yhe aim of this article is to split the temperature increase that occurred between the end of 2014, and the end of 2015, into 2 components. An El Nino component, and a Global Warming component. This will allow the size of the 2 components to be compared.”
You can’t be serious? You can’t do that.