Q&A, Leo Lane,

I've put the recently-updated NASA plot, including 2009, in my post
http://betternature.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/global-cooling-since-1998/

It shows (reading off the graph) 1998: +.57; 2005: +.62; 2008: +.43; 2009: +.58. 2009 is second-hottest, though essentially tied with 1998, 2002, 2007 (.56-58). So 2008 was cooler, as expected with the La Niña operating then, and 2009 is back up, as expected. 2010-2011 will be interesting - will warming resume with a vengeance (my tip) or will it stay steady or decline?

Leo Lane,

Wasn't going to bother, but you're slightly less offensive. Though why did you think implying I'm dishonest would "settle me down"?

Regarding your 25 January 2010 11:27:06 AM post,

My criterion for choosing a 'starting point' is not which answer I'll get Leo (another flame from you). There is a warming trend since about 1975. The immediate question is whether there is any clear indication in the data series that the trend has changed. Since the recent levelling/slight decline is similar to other temporary declines in the 1980s and 1990s, the evidence is not yet clear that the trend has changed. That's pretty much common sense. So I won't wear either your "dishonest" implication or your "incompetent" claim.

The scientific literature does not show temperatures higher 700 years ago than now. The 'hockey stick' is being refined, and is not discredited in the scientific literature.

"The point of the warmists is that until the whole of the .7 of a degree is gone, some warming is still there, so technically it is not correct to say warming has stopped, but it is certainly cooler than the paltry peak temperature in 1998." Well I can't speak for mythical "warmists", though I do try to speak for the science. This is another straw man. The argument is not simply that it is still hotter than the long-term mean, so warming is still in place. The argument is that there is no evidence the upward trend has stopped (see above), and there is much evidence that the mechanisms promoting warming are still very active, and getting more so.

Geoff,
this is probably a stupid question, but is it possible that the spike in temperature during WW2 is due in part to massive militarisation and industrialisation for weapons of war, beginning during or before WW1, and ultimately leading to worldwide conflagration? Emissions must certainly have topped anything previous due to industrialisation and agriculture. An idle fancy?

Thanks Geoff, here's another link putting "global warming stopped in 1998" (or it has been "cooling since 2001") into perspective.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/01/19/hottest-year/#more-2180

To qualify my previous post:

1. I only wish Bob Carter would publish his "research on global cooling" in the (reputable) journals. He doesn't.

2. Roy Spencer should do more research into negative feedbacks ('i's and 't's) BEFORE he publishes in (reputable) journals AND most definitely before he "publishes" on WattsUp.

3. Dick Lindzen should refine (or give it up) his IRIS hypothesis taking on board the debunking it has received.

Q&A, I'm not sure why anyone uses the land-based temperature record. It isn't transparent, it is subject to all sorts of adjustments, many of which are admitted by the various record keeping organisations to be subjective, and the datasets don't actually appear to be homogenous. And this applies to all of the commonly used temperature sets. If you want me to comment on why various sceptics might use the Hadley data perhaps direct me to specifics.

RStuart, I'd be interested to see the computer model that accurately reproduces climate for the last one million years. I've never heard of it. If you look at the video I referenced from Bob Carter you will see that one of his major points about the last 10 years is that it is not what the models predicted (although the modellers will tell you they aren't predictions, merely projections).

As CO2 has a logarithmic heating effect the major reason temperature hasn't gone up is probably that a 4% increase in CO2 has a negligible effect at these concentrations.

Yes, like GrahamY, I'd also like to see the nitty gritty of these computer models, together with their 95% or 99% confidence intervals for their projections of the mean. Typically, the more variables that go into the model and the further into the future that the projection is made, the wider these intervals become, thus rendering the main estimate to be practically useless.

Lato wrote;
Yes, like GrahamY, I'd also like to see the nitty gritty of these computer models,

Well someone a while back asked to see the source code of the model
program that the IPCC uses, but was refused. It might have been Michael McIntire of email fame.

I commented at the time that if it was not available for commercial
reasons, then it should be purchased, compulsory if necessary, as just
too much money is to be spent on its say so to allow such uncertainty.

I believe it is absolutely impossible for a computer program to
forcast climate as far out ahead of the input data as is claimed.
It is a total nonsense.