http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_...

There is james Hansen's paper if you wish to read it.

- The 5-year running mean of global temperature has been flat for the past decade. It should be noted that the "standstill" temperature is at a much higher level than existed at any year in the prior decade except for the single year 1998, which had the strongest El Nino of the century. However, the standstill has led to a widespread assertion that "global warming has stopped". Examination of this matter requires consideration of the principal climate forcing mechanisms that can drive climate change and the effects of stochastic (unforced) climate variability. - (Page 4, "Global Warming Standstill")

Then they goes on to explain it here:

- Indeed, the current stand-still of the 5-year running mean global temperature may be largely a consequence of the fact that the first half of the past 10 years had predominately El Nino conditions, while the second half had predominately La Nina conditions(Nino index in Fig. 1). Comparing the global temperature at the time of the most recent three La Ninas (1999-2000, 2008, and 2011-2012), it is apparent that global temperature has continued to rise between recent years of comparable tropical temperature, indeed, at a rate of warming similar to that of the previous three decades. We conclude that background global warming is continuing, consistent with the known planetary energy imbalance, even though it is likely that the slowdown in climate forcing growth rate contributed to the recent apparent standstill in global temperature. - (Page 6)

So pretty much what I have been saying in here since this topic was brought up. The ENSO cycle has been controlling temperature in the short term and is most likely related to the neutral to negative PDO. As well, within the same section, they go into a much talked about denier and news media statement that is blown out of proportion in that volcanic and Chinese aerosols are masking the warming. While it may contribute somewhat to the slowdown in warming it still remains relatively unknown as to how much but given the increase in human aerosol emissions it does seem plausible.

As for the "two-decade pause in global warming..." I believe that to be an additional devious attempt at calling into question the current warming. the time period continues to be extended. First it was 1998, then it was 1995, now that has been pushed back to 1993. It is a technique used by those who want to manipulate others who are to lazy to check for themselves and will believe wholeheartily in whatever people say that confirms their preconceived notions.

The overall 'atmospheric temperature' has only risen a degree or even a fraction of a degree. If you stop right there you only have a partial fact. There is a scientifically calculated formula to determine the amount of incoming solar heat retained given the amount of CO2 and other green house gasses in any given particle of atmosphere....let's agree that the above is a fact...because it is!

Below 350ppm of CO2 the Earth radiates as much solar energy as it receives in a 24 hour cycle. Today our CO2 load is closer to 400ppm and increasing at a rate of 15 ppm per decade. So why isn't the atmosphere heating up? Short answer...read on!

The excess heat energy leaves the atmosphere for a cooler medium...energy goes from hot to cold. This is also a scientific fact. The excess atmospheric heat goes to melt ice and warm seawater. As long as these heat sinks exist the excess atmospheric heat will rise slowly if at all. This principle of heat seeking cold is why your beer cooler works or why the radiator on your car prevents overheating of your engine.

Conclusion: Those that say there is no 'global warming' site only atmospheric heat...in that they're correct. However if you check out where atmospheric heat goes and the results of that heat migration you get a totally different picture...a far more scientific valid picture. Of course if you deny that the world's ice IS melting...then you just have to shake your head and walk away. I hope this helps!

Two decade? I haven't heard that one.

As to the warmest years on record, what they don't tell you that record is really 'instrumental record' and that started around 1987. Even that may be phony, since the keeper of the records, James Hansen, has been caught cooking the books.

http://www.c3headlines.com/fabricating-f...

If you will look at the following chart you will see that the Earth's temperature has been declining for the last decade. Notice I used 'unadjusted' data and went back only a decade. I stayed away from 1998 since El Nino caused some confusion, mathematically, and I won't get into that.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

As to your statement about the Economist coming from nowhere, This trend has come out publicly many times. However, our news media is not honest and usually puts articles like those on a back page.

Quote by Ross Gelbsan, former journalist: “Not only do journalists not have a responsibility to report what skeptical scientists have to say about global warming. They have a responsibility not to report what these scientists say.”

If you feel deceived, you are not alone.

On indication, besides the fact that ten warmest years in the instrumental record happened after the warming supposedly stopped, that the claim that it has stopped is a lie is that the denialists stories about when the warming supposedly stopped do not match. Some say 10 years, some say 15 years, some say 16 years, some say 17 years and now, some say 20 years. It is kind of like how denialists can not get their story straight about who started global warming; Maurice Strong, Margaret Thatcher or Al Gore. But the truth is that the first person to talk about AGW was Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

The paper is referring to the global MEAN temperature (as in average) is flat, not the actual yearly temperature. This is another case of the DA deniers reading what they want to hear rather than what it actually says.

So this doesn't mean there has been no global warming, only that the mean temp is unchanged. If for example the 2013 temp were to be say 10° C higher than the 20th century average, then you might see a slight change in the mean temp for a two decade time period but still barely noticable

Regardless of the crap the DA deniers keep tossing at us, they come up short where climate science support is concerned

@big Gryph: "So this doesn't mean there has been no global warming, only that the mean temp is unchanged."

Let's take a closer look at that statement.

"Global warming is an average increase in the temperature of the atmosphere near the Earth’s surface" http://www.epa.gov/heatisland/resources/...

"In mathematics, we normally consider average as the sum of all values divided by the number of values added. Strictly speaking, it is the ‘arithmetic mean’, or simply referred to as the ‘mean’. The mean is almost considered synonymous with average, but statisticians will definitely disagree, because, in essence, mean is only a form of describing an average." http://www.differencebetween.net/science...

Since you are quick to point out to others their lack of scientific understanding, perhaps you could explain to us how "the mean temp is unchanged" is consistent with "an average increase (in temperature)"

Denialists, following the advice of their idol, to tell big lies repeatedly, so people will believe them

Your intuition is surely correct. This distortion is well on its way to becoming the anti-climate-science liar-denier-dupe sound-bite of the month. Wattsup was on it early, but may not have been the very first to launch the distortion into the anti-science copy-paste-o-sphere (of which Yahoo Answers features some of the most stubbornly ignorant copy-cats and wannabes).

If you read Economist carefully, you'll see that they do not give the matter the same spin deniers do. The deniers fail to mention the second of two Economist pieces (in the last issue) which states the magazine's CONCLUSIONS. See: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

IF the Hansen quote is actually true, "five-year mean" is the likeliest explanation for how 2012, 2010 and 2005 being "the warmest years on record" have not bucked the TEN YEAR (says Economist, NOT "two-decades") flattening of the longer term warming trend.

Basically, this installment from the denier BS machine amounts little more than another variant on the nitwit trick-claim that "I just shoveled global warming off my driveway, therefore Al Gore...."