The decade isn't over. Let's go back and see what GISS said about 2007 again, shall we?
"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century".
I.e., based on the 0.2 C/decade trend, we should now be about as warm as 1998.
Let's quote the Hadley Centre UK now:
"These cyclical influences [El Nino, La Nina] can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."
You’re begging your own conclusion.
I beg to differ -- read what I just quoted again. It's not my conclusion. I just read the press releases.
And here, you go so far as to assert that something you think will happen but which has never happened serves to demonstrate that something which has already happened doesn’t really mean anything.
I guess you misunderstood. Unfortunately, even decadal variability doesn't change the physics of the situation. That was MY point. Long-term trends are just that.
So you still are adhering to the notion that global warming isn’t only happening, but it’s accelerating? So I guess next decade, we’ll have to have .4 degrees of warming. Or actually, .5 make up for the fact that so far this decade is at best steady, not, as you relate it, warming slightly slower.
You exaggerate. Let's say that the total global temperature rise over the 21st century ends up being 3 degrees. (That'd be wonderful, actually, given the current status.) Let's say it only warms up 0.1 C this decade. For fun:
2000-2010: 0.1 C
2010-2020: 0.25 C
2020-2030: 0.25 C
2030-2040: 0.3 C
2040-2050: 0.3 C
2050-2060: 0.35 C
2060-2070: 0.35 C
2070-2080: 0.4 C
2080-2090: 0.4 C
2090-2100: 0.45 C
Adds up to 3.15 C over the entire century. With acceleration.
So you can keep doing all the analyses you want, and think about them what you want to think. But hold off on telling me I'm wrong if the next year in which a full-scale El Nino occurs doesn't set a new all-time global temperature record.
>> You exaggerate. Let’s say that the total global temperature rise over the 21st century ends up being 3 degrees. (That’d be wonderful, actually, given the current status.) Let’s say it only warms up 0.1 C this decade. For fun:
>>2000-2010: 0.1 C
>>2010-2020: 0.25 C
>>2020-2030: 0.25 C
>>2030-2040: 0.3 C
>>2040-2050: 0.3 C
>>2050-2060: 0.35 C
>>2060-2070: 0.35 C
>>2070-2080: 0.4 C
>>2080-2090: 0.4 C
>>2090-2100: 0.45 C
>>Adds up to 3.15 C over the entire century. With acceleration. <<
Well, now we’re waiting an entire century to see us make up for the lost warmth? And begging a completely arbitrary prediction of *acceleration*?
>> I guess you misunderstood. Unfortunately, even decadal variability doesn’t change the physics of the situation. That was MY point. Long-term trends are just that. <<
But the “long term trend” existed only for 25 years? How is that any different than the “long term trend” from 1908-1941? How can you be so certain that your “long term trend” isn’t simply resuming the course of a 100 year trend which was interrupted by the fleeting effects of global dimming, which I actually think is the case? And if a ten-year interruption, unexplained by the greenhouse-gas model, doesn’t break the model, then how can we possibly say models of other explanations are broken?
Here’s a model: Solar activity, with considerable lag, plus the effects of global dimming. Plus maybe a tenth of a degree of CO2 warming since 1970. Or maybe the sun is actually getting brighter in spite of the sunspot cycle; NASA also noticed planetary warming on the other solid-surface planets they could test: Mercury, Mars, Pluto, the moon, and three moons of Jupiter.
You accept a priori that accelerating global warming is happening, so when you don’t see it happen, you regard it as an anomaly.