Source: When somebody hits you with that new “IPCC is 95% certain” talking point on global warming, show them this,
by Anthony Watts, with h/t to Burt Rutan and Warren Meyer.
WUWT, August 20, 2013.

 

    Two graphs of global temperatures for half-century periods, but can you tell which is 1895-1946 and which is 1957-2008?
(click graphs to enlarge)
The y-axis grid lines are at 0.2°C intervals, in both graphs.
The x-axes are both fifty years in width (well, 51, actually). One of them is 1895–1946, the other is 1957–2008. The grid lines are at 5-year intervals.
The vertical offset between the two graphs is about 0.35°C. (The temporal offset is, of course, 1957–1895 = 62 years.)
But can you guess which graph is 1895–1946, and which is 1957–2008?

In the half-century covered by the 1895–1946 graph CO2 rose by only 15 ppmv (5.3%). In the half-century covered by the 1957–2008 graph CO2 rose by 70 ppmv (22.5%), i.e., a 4.2× greater CO2 forcing.

I do not doubt that rising CO2 level contributed to warming, but the similarity of the two graphs, despite the huge dissimilarity of the two CO2-forcings, obviously doesn't support the case for CO2 being the “principal control knob” for climate.

The “control knob” wasn't methane, either. In the half-century covered by the 1895–1946 graph methane (CH4) rose by 0.25 ppmv (29%), and in the half-century covered by the 1957–2008 graph CH4 rose by 0.57 ppmv (47%).

Here's a follow-up article:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/20/where-exactly-is-the-problem/

You can easily reproduce these two graphs (very closely) at any web site which can produce graphs of HADCRUT3 temperatures, e.g., WoodForTrees.org.