I'd be interested to see the data upon which the article is based. The graph on top just says "Ben Weller". A few times in the past the Daily Mail has published very similar articles that were immediately refuted by the scientists they quoted. Even this article ends with the statement, "So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications."


Response to an earlier, similar article by the same writer:
Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.

This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.

Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.

...

However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.

Todd look at your chart and the chart they use. It shows the same data. From 1998 to today temperatures have leveled out. If anything there is a slight decrease.

I think it's important to look at the data a number of different ways and it's good to see that if we zoom in on a 15 year period, the warming trend flattens out. However, I think it's a mistake to look for broad, long-term trends in such a small sampling. I know that C02 doesn't make the sun rise and fall every day and I know that phenomena like El Nino can cause fluctuations. I think when looking at all of the available data, a warming trend is pretty clear. I readily recognize the incentive for scientists to make the most alarming predictions -- our society and media focus on the most extreme of either side. At the same time, an impartial view seems to reveal a moderate warming trend that is not as dire as some predictions but still warrants concern. I don't understand even a fraction of climate science, so I tend to defer to the experts -- not a single nationally or internationally recognized research organization refutes anthropogenic global warming.

So you dont have a model that shows temperature rising since 1998. And I was pulling for you to win the nobel in 2013.

Take a guess at what would happen to your chart above if instead of using the average temp from 1900-99 we used the average temp for 1950-99 or 1910-2010 or 1912-2012. That is right, the hot areas would flatten out and the cold areas would look more extreme.

Since the X axis is titled "Anomaly relative to 1901 to 2000", I think what we're seeing since 1998 is a steady increase in temperature of 0.6 degrees C. In other words, not
a leveling off of the average temperature but a constant average rate of increase.

What We Know about Climate Change - YouTube

But I'm not a scientist and could be wrong. Laymen interpreting scientific data is what manufactured the Climategate outrage in the first place. What is undisputed is that
the decade 2000 - 2009 is the warmest on record.

NOAA’s Conclusive Report: 2000s Were Hottest Decade on Record | Discover Magazine

Nope you are misinterpeting the data. It is the difference in temperature by year using the mean temperature from 1901-2000 as a reference. As to your claim that it is the warmest decade on record; it depends on whose thermometers you use.

Sorry I couldnt find you a video, you will have to read:
NCDC’s new USHCN hockey stick trick | Watts Up With That?

PS It was the Y axis that is labeled.

Todd, there is no need to lie, you posted a study by a long discredited NASA renegade-it was not a NASA study.

Just one question for you: What is the optimum temperature for the Earth and how do we make the Earth that temperature? Until we have the answer, most of us are going to be reluctant to let people clip us with fanciful schemes and unproven theories unsupported by facts. Those same people did a bang up job on the world economy and now you want to turn them loose on humanity and the climate. I think not.
Assume for a moment that man is entirely responsible-do you actually think we are going to stop using carbon fuels? Could you explain to us your plans to replace carbon fuels? Can you estimate the human and economic cost? Can you cite any scientific proof that this will change the temperature of the Earth?

Choosing 1998 as a starting year (the year of the strongest El Nino in recorded history) is a pretty clear cherry-pick. Also, focusing on yearly changes accentuates outliers and conceals trends. If you take even a small step back, to the decade level, a warming trend becomes more apparent --


Graphs of other datasets (NASA) show a greater warming trend, even during the period since 1998 --


I know that none of the data is faultless and every method of analysis requires compromises, inviting the potential for fraud, but when the vast majority of methods show long-term warming, I'll be unconvinced by one or two overwrought reworkings.

FDXLAG, you're right that the graph shows variation from the 100-year mean, but the the vertical axis is still considered the X-axis (the Y-axis depicts years).

Go further back in time and we are in a fairly cool period for the last thousand years. Warmer temps were common as were cooler going back just 500 years. This is very inconvenient, so are the many failed efforts at modeling along with their dire predictions.

Start looking at the whole history of climate and understand the current muddle is almost meaningless as a statement of past or future climate.