http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003674/index.html

Cor!!! Some 'hoax' eh?

"The past year, 2009..." - this isn't anything new then?

and "The global record warm year, in the period of near-global instrumental measurements (since the late 1800s), was 2005." 2005? 2005. No qualification. Is there still not a consensus that 1998 was the warmest year?

And is not 130 years of AGW still not sufficiently long for us to know the scale of the feedbacks involved? No-one has yet explained why feedbacks can't be sensibly addressed after such a length of time - that, after all, is the main uncertainty about predicted warming.

Feedbacks will always be difficult to access. To my mind it involves imagining everything about the climate system (which we do not know) and dynamically altering this midst the plethora of natural cycles (of varying strength/impacts)mixed in with a slowly strengthening human impact.

I find the folk who understand least always think things 'easy'. Once they enter into the complexities they find very little 'black and white' but lots of Grey.......

I'd run the animation again (a few times) to see both the 'natural' cycles and the increasing AGW signal.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003600/a003674/index.html

Cor!!! Some 'hoax' eh?

"The past year, 2009..." - this isn't anything new then?

and "The global record warm year, in the period of near-global instrumental measurements (since the late 1800s), was 2005." 2005? 2005. No qualification. Is there still not a consensus that 1998 was the warmest year?

And is not 130 years of AGW still not sufficiently long for us to know the scale of the feedbacks involved? No-one has yet explained why feedbacks can't be sensibly addressed after such a length of time - that, after all, is the main uncertainty about predicted warming.

Well, clearly not.  The whole area of feedbacks is complicated - just look at the recent study linking the warming in the Arctic to early winter cold in parts of the northern hemisphere.  Aside from that we don't know what feedbacks might kick in at what point and there is no certainty that feedbacks will behave the same way in different conditions.

As for 1998 or 2005 being the warmest calendar year, for any 12 month period the warmest ever was, I think, for the year to March or April 2010.

Is there still not a consensus that 1998 was the warmest year?

Wasn't that a claim by militant coal miners?

Just what are all the warmists going to do, once the next few decades of global cooling cut in?

Just what are all the warmists going to do, once the next few decades of global cooling cut in?

That's what was asked 10 years ago and 20 years ago

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

Its called science Marcus, 2005 has been the warmest on record in the NASA and NOAA series since 2005. It isn't too hard if you study a little.

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

Its called science Marcus, 2005 has been the warmest on record in the NASA and NOAA series since 2005. It isn't too hard if you study a little.

So the IPCC isn't science?! Who's right - any opinion?

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

Its called science Marcus, 2005 has been the warmest on record in the NASA and NOAA series since 2005. It isn't too hard if you study a little.

So the IPCC isn't science?! Who's right - any opinion?

Sorry, Marcus, but I just can't see how Tom is saying that. Can you explain why you think he is please.

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

Its called science Marcus, 2005 has been the warmest on record in the NASA and NOAA series since 2005. It isn't too hard if you study a little.

So the IPCC isn't science?! Who's right - any opinion?

All of them, the differences between 1998, 2005 and 2010 are not significant statistically so which one comes out ahead depends on exactly how you do the measurement. A concept very widely understood in science.

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

Its called science Marcus, 2005 has been the warmest on record in the NASA and NOAA series since 2005. It isn't too hard if you study a little.

So the IPCC isn't science?! Who's right - any opinion?

All of them, the differences between 1998, 2005 and 2010 are not significant statistically so which one comes out ahead depends on exactly how you do the measurement. A concept very widely understood in science.

They are right because they are measuring their 'own thing', for sure.

And they all measure their version of 'global mean temperature' to within one hundredth of a degree?! Pah!

None of them ever quote an error margin in their public assertions of their figures: isn't the concept of stating error another concept widely understood by scientists, but strangely forgotten by those always striving to find the hottest/coldest/lowest/highest/whatever? It certainly underpinned my scientific training. Of course the differences aren't statistically significant!  Yet always such brouhaha over such insignificance?

On the subject of 1998 vs 2005 vs 2010 for the warmest on record. They were statisitically hard to separate, the satellite series which are more senstive to ENSO tend to give 1998 and 2010 as nearly equal (1998 had the strongest El-Nino). The US surface series have 2005 and 2010 as equal warmest.

I guess 1998 sounds rather a long time ago now - 2005 and 2010 as joint equal warmest fits the storybetter, doesn't it. I expect IPCC will change their minds next time around!

Its called science Marcus, 2005 has been the warmest on record in the NASA and NOAA series since 2005. It isn't too hard if you study a little.

So the IPCC isn't science?! Who's right - any opinion?

All of them, the differences between 1998, 2005 and 2010 are not significant statistically so which one comes out ahead depends on exactly how you do the measurement. A concept very widely understood in science.

They are right because they are measuring their 'own thing', for sure.

And they all measure their version of 'global mean temperature' to within one hundredth of a degree?! Pah!

None of them ever quote an error margin in their public assertions of their figures: isn't the concept of stating error another concept widely understood by scientists, but strangely forgotten by those always striving to find the hottest/coldest/lowest/highest/whatever? It certainly underpinned my scientific training. Of course the differences aren't statistically significant!  Yet always such brouhaha over such insignificance?

And they all measure their version of 'global mean temperature' to within one hundredth of a degree?! Pah!

How do you measure the monthly or annual mean in your garden?  I tend to round mine up to within one hundredth of a degree ..... but I could go down to one millionth if you think that'd be better?

None of them ever quote an error margin in their public assertions of their figures: isn't the concept of stating error another concept widely understood by scientists, but strangely forgotten by those always striving to find the hottest/coldest/lowest/highest/whatever? It certainly underpinned my scientific training. Of course the differences aren't statistically significant!  Yet always such brouhaha over such insignificance?

Ever heard of the Met Office ? Here is a start for you

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-change/guide/science/explained/temp-records

http://omsriram.com/GlobalWarming.htm

Another CO2 follows warmth article but it seems logical to me.

Indeed it does make sense. If the world warms up permafrost melts, bacteria get busy and raise CO2. In turn, that CO2 warms the planet further. Its called a reinforcing feedback.

If you simply raise CO2 by burning fossil fuels then the world gets warmer, the bacteria get busy and raise CO2. In turn, that CO2 warms the planet further. Its called a reinforcing feedback.

So in the past we'd expect CO2 to lag the rise in temperature and now we'd expect it to lead. All perfectly logical.

"the differences between 1998, 2005 and 2010 are not significant statistically."

Would that count as a cessation of the earlier warming trend then ?

I think the operative words are "not significant statistically".....

As you might be aware that doesn't mean the warming trend has ceased.

I would have thought you needed to see some statistically significant cooling before you can start calling any end to the warming trend?

Of course, your capacity for warping the facts to fit your pet theories probably means we have indeed been cooling for 12 years.....