Why is it that whenever you ask an alarmist about the lack of warming since 1998, they deny that it's true?

Some will say 2005 is the warmist. Of course, all of the temp reporting agencies agree that 1998 was indeed hot (1st or 2nd) only the group lead by Hansen actually places 2005 as the hottest. I tend to beleive the average of all of the temp reporting agencies as opposed to GISS.

Certainly there has been a tapering off of increasing temps lately. If the increase starts up again for the next 100 years, then that would be adequate proof to me of AGW. If it falls or staty constant, then that would be adequate proof that it is not occurring. At least to me.

Right now, I don't believe in AGW, and ceratinly do not like the sacre tactics by Al Gore, but I can't say it is altogether false.

you are correct that the mean global temperature has been cooler since 1998 (unless of course, 2005 tied or beat 1998 as the warmest mean global temperature in recorded history). You can look at a plot of temperatures and see this is true.

http://climate.nasa.gov/keyIndicators/index.cfm#Gl...

You are incorrect to ASSUME this is a significant or a long term trend. There is no evidence of that. In fact, the data PROVES the hypotheses that no significant cooling has occurred since 1998 and there has been significant warming since the industrial revolution.

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/10/26/statisti...

(i guess fox is just the typical "liberal media" now, huh)

Why is it you must rely on smoke and mirrors to propagate lies? I guess your politics make you a con (artist? - no science is involved). Can you honestly answer these questions - has their been a significant warming trend since the start of the industrial revolution? Was the "cooling trend" in 1880 a significant, long term trend? How about the one around 1940? Was that a significant long term trend? What makes you think 1998 is any different than 1880 or 1940? Science demands evidence and there isn't any that suggest we are in the middle of a "cooling trend." In fact, all the evidence shows we are warming (Land and sea ice melting globally - Antarctica too!, sea temperatures rising, sea levels rising, air temps rising, earlier springs at high elevations and towards the poles, melting permafrost, southern species shifting ranges northward). Heat is a cumulative thing. This could not happen unless more energy is put into the "system."

Remember, most of the warmest temperatures recorded since we have records have occurred in this decade. Maybe none have surpassed 1998 (or (2005) but odds are very good a new record will be set. At best, it should be a flip of a coin that the mean global temperature will exceed 57F. Instead, there is almost no chance of this. It will probably exceed 58F.

http://hubpages.com/hub/Earths-Temperature-Brief-H...

I think it will warming will continue because of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere, and the modeling work shows this to be the most probable result of human emissions. Most scientists agree. It is a matter of physics - higher CO2 concentrations mean higher temperatures. Because the earth is much more complicated than the simple relationship I state (ocean, land and atmospheric feedbacks cause a great deal of variability), it is hard to predict in the short term the weather. However, statistics uses simple mathematical relationships to evaluate mean responses and trends to determine if they are within the range of variability. The earth has significantly warmed sine the 1800s - this is a fact. The earth has cooled since 1998 - a fact. The cooling is not significant (i.e. the cooling is within the range of observed variability of temperatures since 1998, not a larger decline than can be explained by random chance). This is fact.

Rob,

With all due respect it appears that you know little, if anything, about the science of climatology.

You state that "They don't claim 2006 is warmer or claim 2009 will be" - this is precisely what they do.

You further state that "They don't start averaging temperatures over multiple years" - this is THE basic principle upon which ALL climate records are based. By definition, climate IS the average over multiple years.

Your argument makes as much sense as claiming that a botanist never works with plants or that an astronomer never monitors the skies.

- - - - - - - -

The myth concerning 1998 has been exploded so many times that I've lost count. To determine if the climate is warming or cooling it is necessary to compare values to a base-period. In order to eliminate anomalous events such as ENSO or volcanoes a base-period of 30 years plus has to be used. Different GTR's use different base-periods but they all show the same thing - consistent warming. When temperatures are smoothed to a 30 year mean, they can be seen to have been rising every year since 1976.

Using a less reliable 5 or 10 year mean does show small deviations from the otherwise upward trend. For example, in the 10 year mean there are slight dips between 2004 and 2005, between 1989 and 1990 and between 1972 and 1973.

At present there are no anomalous factors affecting the climate. The last one was the cooling effect of the La Nina Pacific current that ceased in April this year. Since then temperatures have reached new highs and the period since La Nina is the hottest on record.

- - - - - - - - - -

RE: YOUR ADDED COMMENTS

I'm not aware that the emials from the CRU do deny that it's not warmed since 1998. Why ever should they? This whole notion of 1998 is something created by the skeptics, the only time I ever reference it is in relation to skeptics claims.

Unless staff at the CRU were specifically discussing the claims of skeptics on blogs or Answers (and what are the chances of that) then there's no reason why it should be mentioned at all. Your statement makes as much sense as me claiming that skeptics beleive the world is warming because there's no evidence of them having stated that it's been cooling since 2003.

Because no statistical analysis supports "lack of warming since 1998".

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/12/07/riddle-me-t...

la Nina is blamed for the short-term cooling around 2008.

"only the group lead by Hansen actually places 2005 as the hottest."

NOAA is not lead by Hansen. The only surface product that shows 1998 as the warmest is the one that doesn't include the Arctic and is from the organization (CRU) denialist idiots recently claimed is perpetuating fraud.

"@ Baccheus and Jeff M...high quality. If we flow with 1998 as strangely sturdy El Nino (i'm particular that's precisely what alarmists have been asserting in 1998 and of no longer attributing it to AGW) than how long do you sense we would desire to consistently wait? If CO2 is using temperatures can we actually would desire to attend 30 years with flat or lowering temperature earlier you will say that in line with threat catastrophic AGW basically isn't occurring?" Wait... what? One edge grants information over a plenty longer era, coping with a shifting climate, something which 'usually' could take a super time-scale, and you're complaining that people who're proponents of international warming are in a position to shrug off a minor shrink for the period of the recent term? AGW in no way pronounced that it may be completely going up and in no way drop down for slightly, basically that it may be consistently going up at quicker costs. You, even nevertheless, at the instant are asking how long we would desire to consistently wait earlier we could re-think of our techniques... whether it rather is now passing above that dropping element it became at in the previous by using the very chart you offered. If, certainly, the temperature persisted to drop without issues like the strangely sturdy El Nino trend, we could certainly verify our information to make certain whether this meant another involvement. the genuine question is how some years of information do you prefer earlier you honestly hear to medical info and honestly experienced specialists. after all the final public of climatologists, people who've levels in those issues, are confident (and do analyze on that earlier you recommend there's a huge minority, as all polls can in basic terms supply it below 3% of them). it form of feels humorous which you believe pilots to fly your airplane, mechanical engineers to artwork on you motor vehicle, yet do no longer believe climatologists to enable you to recognize with reference to the climate. whether there is heavy political gout around all of it, there remains a time-honored consensus between the climatologists...

"any of the other tricks that the apologists use to hide the decline"

Go back to that email. How did he say he was going to "hide the decline"? Using what data? REAL Temperature data, perchance? Do you even know what decline they were "hiding"?

1998 was the warmest year on record. Just because 2009 is cooler than 1998, that does not mean we have cooled since 1998. You obviously don't know how to plot a regression function or even basic statistics.

1904 was the coolest year on record. By your logic, we are undergoing a 105 year warming trend (simultaneously with your 11 year cooling trend).

At least learn the basics of science and math before you bother posting here. Few of you deniers do.

Long term trends matter. 1998 being an outlier does not change the fact the 2000's are warmer than the 1990's.

You are either ignorant of being deliberately dishonest.

I have never heard anybody say it is not true, they say it is statistically insignificant and an extremely poor way of looking at noisy data. Do you look at what the stockmarket does for one day to decide what the economy is doing?