I agree with E its just coming off the 2016 El Nino maximum. But lets crank it through as a trend. You know, just in case we're transitioning from one forcing regime into a new cooling cycle. That sort of idea. And if it's a trend let's see what sort of legs you're willing to give it. Because it gets pretty grim pretty quick.
To put numbers on it each data point in the 2016 cycle is connected to the corresponding point in the following cycle. That defines 11 corresponding sets of points we can pair up using as many points as possible since the the beginning of the thread. The average of those 11 slopes is ~-0.25°C/yr. Given what we have to work with your trend can only be projected as a constant linear forcing variable. So we'll call that Fandango's coefficient.
View attachment 1952
Is there corresponding data from 100 years ago and then 200 and more..?
Because if there isn't the graph window is not relevant for a long term
projection. It's just a hypothesis based on a very very small slice of data.
Second point, if the calibration on the instruments from 100 years past and then
200 years and more in the past do not match ( which we know they don't ! ) then
it can only be a guess on the numbers and projections.
Third point, 100 years past and 200 years past do NOT give a spread of data that
can accurately show climate data predictions 100 and 200 years going forward....
( Instrument calibration is again the factor. A Big Factor. )
It's just a Hypothesis at best....
Human expansion on the planet is a factor, but not at all an item to support the false
premises that the Radical Climatologists have used to sell a Criminal Carbon Tax on
Large and small Nations.
Just an Observation/Opinion.....That's all.