Link isn't complete Agnostic, but while you're looking for appropriate time scales worth reflecting that where in one of the cooler periods of the last 10,000 years. So the bit of temperature increase we will probably get from CO2 is not something to worry about.

http://www.wwfblogs.org/climate/content/peter-sinclairs-crock-week-video-heatwave-edition-and-denialist-smackdown

AGW is such a complex paradigm that all sorts of imaginary data can be superimposed. What can't be (but is) denied is that Humans are trashing the biosphere; somehow the thin atmosphere is exempt?
The minimifidianists, for mine, are a load of (rich) ignorant, fascist losers, who will probably win before they lose, ultimately, because the other side are pussies.
But AGIR, it's all part of God's divine plan, eh?
Pathetic.

"So are we still on track for 2010 being the hottest year ever? Will 2011 be even hotter?"

Some people still think that global warming means hotter years each and every year.

GrahamY raises an interesting point though, but doesn't expand on the "bit of temperature increase".

What does a global average of 3 degrees centigrade (say) by 2100 imply? And the time-line doesn't stop at 2100, by the way.

It is well known that regional temperature anomalies have tracked well above that already e.g. the higher latitudes of Antarctica and the Arctic (less so for the tropics).

It's good to see the "debate" focus more on impacts and mitigation measures though.

"So are we still on track for 2010 being the hottest year ever? Will 2011 be even hotter?"

Some people still think that global warming means hotter years each and every year."

Ah .. so this is like Climate Astrology then, so the UK Met forecast that snow would become a novelty and that it would eventually never be seen again, but when the UK had a huge winter, they said, well of course it also means more snow.

Just as AGW can mean higher and lower temperatures.

So when will we be able to have events not due to AGW?

Sounds like all the bases are covered now, anything that happens, AGW, doesn't happen, AGW .. so all you silly deniers, don't you realize it's over, the religion has won? That is the basis of a religion isn't it, that everything is explained by referring to the higher authority of priests (conforming scientists and media personalities) and the technical basis is protected by hiding evidence, making sure there is no dissent, and tweaking (or adjusting) data.

It's like your astrology forecast now isn't it, so vague as to fit anything that happens into it .. earth, forecast for the next six months, weather .. yep, that'll cover it. (let's see the deniers wriggle out of that one eh!)

bonmot, just keep sneering at people who you think are gullible, and to be honest you like the fool when you make statements as above. A big deal is constantly made in the MSM about 2010 being the hottest year ever, now a known "denier", Amicus asks it, and is scorned .. why is that? Does it worry you?

Personally, I know AGW believers have won the "debate" in Australia, it's a bit like the dingo and the baby .. it took a long time for good sense to prevail there, I expect the same here. There really has been no debate, any skepticism is suppressed constantly.

Ultimately it's overall emissions and the resultant concentrations of GHG's that matter. Still, I can understand why developing nations are not happy with big per capita emitters like Australia who, despite the relative financial and technological advantages aim for doing the least they can get away with rather than the most they are capable of. As the world's highest per capita emitters and the biggest exporter of coal, we are not winning the long term goodwill of the rest of the world with our preference for delay and continuing profit taking from selling the raw materials of climate change. Our unwillingness to act will have economic and security repercussions that will be in addition to the economic harm that will result directly from climate change.

James, I agree with what you've said but convincing members of the cult of climate science disbelief that frequent this forum is next to impossible.

<<<What does a global average of 3 degrees centigrade (say) by 2100 imply?>>>
Well, reading some of the recent media reports, one could get the impression that it will mean Greenland and the Antarctic are gonna feverishly f-f-f-f-f-f-fade away, and speedily flood all lands below 100 metres, and hordes of faminished Bangladeshi climate refugees are going to fan out across the subcontinent (desperately seeking the most despicable people smugglers to despatch them to OZ).

However, some like William Ruddiman* --whom even the most finicky of the faithful should hold kosker enough--has a different view(If I remember rightly):
--A 5 °C increase will likely cause Greenland to melt away –in about one thousand years! But temperatures below 5 °C (ironically) are likely to cause more inland snow over Greenland and cause it’s ice sheet to grow.
--He also believes that by 2100, oil whose derivates are one of the major inputs into GHGs is likely to have been all but consumed
(though coal-- which incidently is found in many countries other than OZ--most of whom have been exempted from the provisions of Kyoto--will continue for hundreds of years thereafter)
* Plows, Plagues and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate is a 2005 book published by Princeton University Press and written by William Ruddiman, a paleoclimatologist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Virginia.

<<<“ Still, I can understand why developing nations are not happy with big per capita emitters like Australia who, despite the relative financial and technological advantages aim for doing the least they can get away with rather than the most they are capable of. As the world's highest per capita emitters and the biggest exporter >>>

Per capita measures are only a dishonest way of framing the West for the upkeep of the rest of the world –and worse, it sends a message to the developing world : if you want to escape culpability –and get a whole bundle of freebies ---keep breeding beyond your means.