If only it were that simple.

Atmospheric temperature is crucially important to our collective existence - true.

But there is also the matter of QUANTITY of heat energy and the extent to which it inhabits the oceans and solid matter at the surface of the planet.

When ice melts, an immense amount of heat energy is absorbed. Yet the temperature of the system does not rise. Where does the heat energy go? It goes into the liquifaction of the ice. It is embodied in the water itself, with no rise in the nett temperature (heat pressure).

It is a matter of some amazement to me that yer average Aussie bloke can use an Esky for his entire lifetime, without being aware of the operating principle of such a simple apparatus.

The ratio of ice to water is crucially important to life on Earth as we know it. It is the air-conditioning system which smooths out seasonal and solar temperature variation, as well as average planetary precipitation and much else besides. Too much ice puts the world on the slope to another ice-age. Too little puts the world on the slope towards a violent and energetic climate.

The great genius of life on Earth was that it had collectively evolved to keep the wobbly coin balanced on it's edge.

It didn't take much to upset it. The hairless apes may yet turn out to be a bad idea.

A cherry-picked analysis, for the following reasons.

Sceptics love the Hadley record, because it shows 1998 way above everything else. But Hadley ignores the Arctic and therefore under-estimates more recent warming. The poles are warming more than lower latitudes (as predicted), so the NASA and NOAA approach of at least including estimates the Arctic is more sensible.

El Nino (hot) and La Nina (cool) affect temperatures on a short timescale (1-2 years). 1998 was the strongest recorded El Nino, so its high temperature can be reasonably attributed to that, not to the longer-term trend. 2010 is right on the warming trend (and an equal highest ever) DESPITE the strong La Nina in the latter half of the year. And DESPITE the sun's irradiance currently being relatively low.

You can read a more balanced summary of the 2010 result here:
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2011/01/19/2010-equal-hottest-ever/
It shows the data from the four main institutions, rather than picking one that supports a point of view.

It also shows James Hansen's new plot of 12-month running means (rather than calendar year means). This shows more clearly the short-term correlations with El Nino/La Nina and with volcanic eruptions.

As to perceptions of a recent warming trend, most people do see a recent warming trend in the unadulterated, complete data, if they are presented in a neutral context, as documented nicely by Stephan Lewandowski:
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/43020.html

Who is this John McLean?

Clearly all of the world's climate scientists and bodies such as CSIRO, BOM, WMO and NASA should be beating a path to his door...or perhaps he is cherry picking as is typical in this blog and/or perhaps he is "paid" to obfuscate.

And before Hasbeen chimes in it should be noted that said scientists et al get paid to study the science of climate change not the end result. Therefore if they disprove AGW they still get paid so the 'conspiracy for gain" theory doesn't wash.

Chris Shaw, Geoff Davies and Bon Mot.. go back and look at the first link Bon Mot so thoughtfully provides. This purports to show that temperatures have been rising since 1975, through careful drawing of the lines through the graphs. In fact there are two distinct stages in each graph. Ignore the lines and look at them closely. They all show that temperatures rose between the mid-70s and around the turn of the century.. since then, with big variations, temperatures have basically flatlined. Now go back and look at the material about third hottest or second hottest.. again that all confirms that nothing much has happened since the turn of the century.. if its the second hottest, how come its just the second hottest after a decade?

To over come this problem, activist scientists point to ice. The heat they origianlly forecast is somehow going into the ice. They then point to indications of this or that piece of ice melting. The problem with that ad hoc theory is that sea levels don't really seem to be doing anything. Look at the satellite data from the University of Colorado.. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/results.php look down under global mean sea level.. if anything the tiny annual increase in sea levels are moderating, not accelerating.

You'll have to look for some other explanation.

Because Mark old boy, if one is to comprehend the graph, one has to read the 2nd link as well.

Primary schoolers might just look at pretty pictures/graphs but at some point, one hopefully graduates to a higher level of cognizance :)

Leave it with you.

Chris Shaw - terribly sorry, your argument also referred to water. Yes, the sea surface temperatures around Australia are at a record high - so there you go, you have a semi-plausible out. The problem is that ocean heat content, as a concept, has been tossed around for some time with different bits of research saying different things. But in essence the deep surface bouys measuring temperatures have only been in operation for a decade or less, so drawing conclusions would seem to be premature.

In any case, as with most of these on-the-fly explanations, they would have been vastly more impressive if we heard about them before actual results proved the original projections wrong.