The chances of getting Climate extremists' predicted warming

 
I would just like to share with you a thought. Having calculated that there should have been around 0.6C warming during the pause, I was just musing what the chances of getting this warming be coincidence would be. And I suddenly thought “it warms or cools by about 0.1C per decade by chance … so what is the chance of having 6 decades in a row to get 0.6C? It’s 1/2^6 = 1/128.
But this is the humorous bit – I then realised that in those six decades the target would have risen to 1.8C. So, then I thought “what if I use the higher end of warming we’ve seen of 0.2C …. then I thought what is the maximum multi-decadal warming we’ve seen. It is of course from 1690-1730 in CET when we saw about 0.5C/decade. So, now the chance is that we’ve seen (at least 4) decades of 0.5C warming over 35 decades. So, the chance increases to 4/35 = 11% (however we might expect regional variation to be greater).
So, I think we can safely say the upper chance of the actual temperature (not the fraudulent surface data) showing warming of >0.5C per decade is 10%. As warming is as likely as cooling (give or take a few ice-ages and CO2) the 50% probability is at 0C/decade. And as most years (from 1850 – in what I now know is fraudulent surface data) show around 0.1-0.2C warming or cooling, the 1 standard deviation must be around 0.1-0.2C/decade.
The minimal warming the extremists need is 0.3C (to account for two decades of pause) – but if that occurs in a decade, they will need around 0.45C (as it should have warmed even more). So they actually need >0.45C warming over the next decade.
At a rough guess, based on my figures, I would suggest around a 20% probability of 0.3C warming and nearer 10% of >0.45C of that  minimum warming occurring by pure fluke (with no CO2 involvement).
So, my best estimate is that, by 2025 – there’s only a 10-20% chance that mother nature will give the climate criminals what they need to defend their claptrap.
As for CO2 warming
My best estimate is 0.5C warming for a doubling of CO2 – which will take many decades/centuries to come through. CET shows (suggests?) a 1/10 chance of 2C warming by pure chance. So, even if the REAL climate showed 2C warming in a very specific period of 4 decades, then the best we can say is that we are 90% confident that this short-term rise of 2C is not natural.  But if we extend the period long enough it will always happen by chance – so the confidence falls dramatically over longer periods.
But even the massively adjusted data (so that all warming since 1940 is due to adjustments) only shows 0.8C warming, and not over a short period of a few decades but over the whole century (till the pause). That is the century of a massive change in measurements from manual to automated measurements. Even if we look for the most “obvious” trend in the period 1970-2000 (also the period of most heavy adjustments) it only shows 0.48C warming (which happens to be same as 1910-1940!). As I stated above, based on CET we would expect around 10% of decades to show this warming. So in 150 years we expect around 1-2 decades of 0.5C warming!!!
Even if we now saw two decades of 0.5C warming or cooling – it would just be “normal”!! (although I’d have to recheck the scale of variability between CET and global – all the more difficult when the surface data is fraudulent!)
So, to summarise – I cannot think of any test – when we’ve already seen change, which could demonstrate the minuscule level of CO2 warming “expected” would be man-made. There would need to be more than 1C warming in a few decades (about 2C total warming) to say even with a modest certainty that the signal is human caused and not natural. In contrast, rather than warming we’ve seen “the Pause”. They needed fireworks – they got a cold shower!
Because there is a slight reduction in long term variability, we probably need around 100-1000 years of future data so that the scale of natural variability reduces sufficiently to “prove” any change of 2C was “human causation”.
In other words – unless I am completely wrong and the climate is subject to massive positive feedbacks for warming (so >1C warming in which case I’m probably dreaming this whole world as the world would have burned up yonks ago) … so in any real world (and not fraudulent data), there’s no chance of me ever knowing whether CO2 has had an effect within my lifetime.