Anyone can cherry pick data and have their particular selection say anything they want. Co2 is a greenhouse gas, that works as a fertilizer, that promotes growth and consequent more verdant growth, more moisture aspiration. Endlessly repeatable (the very cornerstone of good science) laboratory tests show that measured samples of air can have the Co2 extracted and record a temperature drop of just 0.03 degrees C. Whereas, removing the moisture sees a drop of around 30C.

And a anyone able to compare the difference between a clear and cloudless winter night or an overcast one, knows that moisture is a most effective heat trapping thermal blanket, and therefore the real greenhouse gas is likely to be moisture.

And given some recorded increased ocean temperatures and consequent evaporation, as more of it! And not down to increased solar thermal activity, given our sun (solar thermal furnace) has been in a waning(cooling) phase since the mid seventies.(NASA)

None of it or other recent recorded melting phenomena, increased ocean temps etc, down to it!

Take all the readings you like from wherever you want. Just don't try to claim it's all down to increased solar thermal activity! Or other, I believe, par for the course, inherently dishonest science based obfuscation. Do they give PHD's for that?
Rhrosty.

Oh, the pause has ended? Who'd a thunk it?

The fundamental "foundation stone" of the greenhouse conjecture is the assumption that the troposphere would have been isothermal in the absence of IR-active (GH) gases. This is based on the Clausius corollary of the Second Law which strictly only always applies in a horizontal plane because there is no term for gravitational potential energy in the simplified expression for entropy that is also only applicable in a horizontal plane. In a vertical plane we must also include gravitational potential energy. By definition we have thermodynamic equilibrium only when we have maximum entropy and that state requires that there be no unbalanced energy potentials. This means that the sum of mean molecular (kinetic energy + gravitational potential energy) must be homogeneous at all altitudes in an "ideal" column of a planet's troposphere. And so there is a temperature gradient. Every vortex tube exhibits such a radial temperature gradient formed by centrifugal force, just as gravity does so in every planetary troposphere. The IPCC assumed isothermal conditions would have more PE at the top and thus unbalanced energy potentials. They thought they needed back radiation from a cold atmosphere supposedly heating the warmer surface. But gravity had already produced the temperature gradient that explains the surface temperatures of Earth, Venus and other planets.

For more detail see http://climate-change-theory.com and the cited papers.

In my previous comment I pointed out that the IPCC authors assumed the troposphere would have equal temperatures in the absence of greenhouse gases. That is how they deduce that the surface temperature would be the same 255K (-18°C) that is found at the radiating altitude nearly half way up the troposphere. It goes back to when James Hansen realised that the mean solar radiation reaching the surface was nowhere near strong enough to explain the mean surface temperature. Hansen forgot (or never learned) what the brilliant 19th century physicist Josef Loschmidt (first to estimate the size of air molecules) had explained about how gravity forms the temperature gradient by acting on molecules in flight between collisions. So, because he could think of nothing else, Hansen assumed that the atmospheric radiation (from colder regions) was somehow heating the surface that was already warmer than the solar radiation could make it. Hansen's fictitious fiddles physics is outright false, in total violation of the laws of physics. But those in the infant science of climatology had less education in physics than did Hansen, so they thought he must be right, and ever afterwards they all pal-reviewed their own papers on this. In fact very few papers even discuss the basic physics. The "gold standard" textbook by Pierrehumbert includes the same basic mistakes. In fact, in determining that 255K figure Pierrehumbert overlooked the fact that an Earth without water would have no clouds shading much of it as they increase the albedo and reflect about 20% of the solar radiation back to Space. The whole conjecture is an absolute travesty of physics. See my blog https://itsnotco2.wordpress.com and my website mentioned in the first comment.

So the pause is officially over now?

Really this is all just so much ignorance over how to determine trends in noisy data. There have been two strong El Ninos in the past 2 decades ending in 1998 and 2016. The 'pause' supporters were insisting on using the El Nino of 1998 as their starting point, so of course the years around looked cooler - it is a bit like standing on top of Mt Everest and claiming the Earth has no mountains, but only valleys as there is no point higher.

Jennifer Marohasy claims that the start of the new pause in global temperatures has nothing to do with CO2, because it is of course an El Nino. Perhaps she should consider what forces are making the 2016 El Nino hotter than the 1998 one.

However, all is not lost. Jennifer Marohasy conveniently points out that the hottest year in Darwin was in 1907. This presumably means the global temperatures were warmer back then than they are now, or something. I leave it an exercise for the reader to work out the fail in logic there.

lol The substance of the title of this article is not addressed in the body of it.

Yes, CO2 did not cause the pause in [gradually rising mean] global temperatures.

Yes, CO2 per se is not the cause of gradually rising global temperatures.

There is more than one green-house gas: water vapour is a significant green-house gas, but is not as uniformly dispersed as CO2 (so harder to measure as a measure of greenhouse gases in toto) - we can see that by it's visual representations ie. clouds.

Besides CO2 and water vapour (H2O) there is methane CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) (and Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)).