Actually, yes mhaze I am serious, and I don't think you have any standing to be berating people for being scientifically or statistically illiterate.

Actually, all these datasets are just different ways of measuring the same thing, i.e. surface air temps, whether it be from the land or sea surface. They are not in different leagues. They are different because they were measured in different ways. This is why as you correctly state we should not average them. But I do not advocate averaging them, that is a strawman of your own construction. The datatsets say that it has warmed since 1990. Of course all these datasets are derived from a very large amount of very choatic and variable data. So it is not surprising that the statistical significance declines from the mid-90s, but that actual "hiatus", as you put it may actually start much later, I would say after 1998 at the very least, as it's a bit odd to say that the hiatus started in 1995, when the hottest year on record occurred a mere 3 years later.

The thing is, yes the surface temperatures appear to have briefly plateaued, but there is quite a lot of evidence that the Earths oceans seem to be accumulating heat energy as fast as ever. If the oceans are still warming, can you honestly say that there has not been any global warming?

mhaze,

Even Snoopy eye-balling a dog's breakfast can see that since 1998 the rate has 'plateaued' - that is not in dispute. However, just because there's been a slowing in the rate of increase in 'global warming' does not mean the long term trend is false. We can still measure energy coming in and going out - the planet is still warming (you haven't studied statistical time series analysis). There is much literature detailing the complex coupling between atmosphere and ocean reacting to this input of energy, and how the planet might respond, as it is. It can even be argued that we are entering a new 'normal' and when the system has 'normalised', the trend will continue upwards.

You said you checked:

>> what Solomon actually said on the hiatus ... it seems Solomon has determined that water vapour declined by 10% between 2000 and 2009.

Weren't you convinced that water vapour would rise inexorably and therefore be the major positive feedback that would deliver us into the temp realms of Hades?

It just isn't fair when the real world won't do as its told, is it? <<

You really don't understand the difference between stratospheric water vapour and that of water vapour in the troposhere.

You really don't understand positive and/or negative feedback, short and long-lived ghg's either.

You really don't understand what Solomon is saying about the effect of increasing/decreasing stratospheric water vapour on tropospheric warming/cooling.

Either you really don't understand, or you are deliberately distorting and misrepresenting the science. Which is it?

Talking (as you were) about Cherry-Picking.

Here's a "championship cherry".

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/04/cherry-picking-is-childs-play/

first qanda,

wrote: "We can still measure energy coming in and going out - the planet is still warming".

Well yes, anything can be measured. But can it be measured accurately. Given the amount of new data coming through, casting doubt on previous measurements and the admissions from scientists like Hanson that they have undoubtedly misunderstood the role of aerosols in the cycle and the work of Svensmark in cloud research and a myriad of other new information, anyone asserting that we can measure incoming/outgoing energy accurately enough to know which is greater is either woefully out-of-date or at least has no right to claim to be conversant with the science.

qanda wrote:"you haven't studied statistical time series analysis"; "You really don't understand the difference between stratospheric water vapour and that of water vapour in the troposhere."; "You really don't understand positive and/or negative feedback, short and long-lived ghg's either"; "You really don't understand what Solomon is saying...".

Pray tell qanda, how do you know any of that. Since I haven't written on any of those issues but merely alluded to them, how do you know what I do and don't know?

I'll draw attention to this once again. Your entire method of arguing is to assert that others don't understand when you (1) have no way of know what they do and don't understand and (2) don't attempt to enlighten anyone about the issue.
Additionally by leaving things up in the air, you hope to insinuate that you indeed understand these things without ever needing to demonstrate such understanding. Yet when we've been able to tie you down to specifiics we've found that your understanding is rather rudimentary.

Presumably this methodology of yours works on some people, but not many.

Whatever floats your boat.

Bugsy wrote:"yes the surface temperatures appear to have briefly plateaued...".

Good, that's all I was trying to show. This whole sub-thread on recent trends grew out of warmair's assertion that temps hadn't stopped rising. Since it is spectacularly obvious that they have, as you say, plateaued, I was just making that point. I'll leave you to convince warmair of the nose on his face.

"all these datasets are just different ways of measuring the same thing"

Well yes and no. They are measuring temps but not the same temps. Some are measuring temps over the land only. Others a re measuring the temps over land and sea. UAH infers temps in the troposphere and stratosphere.

Assertions about heat accumulating in the deep ocean are based on very ambiguous data and are more in the nature of hope than fact.

The level of uncertainty in all these measures is such that we cannot say with any precision exactly what's happening.

But we can say some things with a degree of certainty:
* despite continued increases in CO2 levels temp rises are either negative or not significantly different to zero for period of 15 to 20 years.
* no model predicted this and no theory can account for it.
* it falls way outside the predictions of the IPCC and its fellow travellers.
* it proves one of two things - either CO2 is much less effective as a GHG as the sceptics have been saying since 1989 OR natural cooling factors are much more effective than the alarmists have assumed.

All of this (should)lead to the inescapable conclusion that the claims of an urgent need to shackle society to schemes to reduce CO2 emissions are massively overplayed. Even the MET are now admitting that there may be no more warming til 2018 by which time we'll have had a quarter century of no warming.

"the greatest moral, economic and social challenge of our time" becomes the greatest example of mass hysteria of any time.