There has been no statistically significant warming for at least 15 years. Yet some people, like commentator “Michael the Realist”, who is currently trolling Joanne Nova’s blog, are claiming otherwise. For instance
Again look at the following graph.
Now let me explain it to the nth degree.
# The long term trend over the whole period is obviously up.
# The long term trend has pauses and dips due to natural variations but the trend is unchanged.
# The current period is at the top of the trend.
# 2001 to 2010 is the hottest decade on the record despite a preponderance of natural cooling trends. (globally, ocean, land and both hemispheres)
# Hotter than the previous decade of 1991 to 2000 with its preponderance of natural warming events.
# Every decade bar one has been hotter than the previous decade since 1901.
Please explain why the above is true if not AGW with proof.
State of the climate 2012
http://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/state-climate-2012-highlights
The three highlighted comments are the ones that this posting addresses.
Using decadal average temperature changes to cover up the standstill.
The latest way to avoid the truth that warming has stopped for 15 years or more is by decadal averages. This can be illustrated by using an approximate model of the data. Assume constant average temperatures from 1960 to 1975, a linear warming of 0.6oC from 1976 to 1998, followed by a further standstill.
The decadal averages are
So, instead of 24 years of warming, it is 4 consecutive decades, that are each warmer than the last. The 2000s are warmer than the 1990s simply because there was warming the 1990s. It is political spin, relying on an ignorance of basic statistics, that is needed to make such claims.
ManicBeancounter 
Brian H
/ 27/08/2013Relying on ignorance seems to be the CAGW Master Strategy.
mrfabsblog
/ 31/08/2013Why did you post my comment twice? It is unscientific to choose a cherrypicked start year of a strong el nino. The only way you can then isolate the temperature (cooling or warming) is by comparing it to the next comparably strong el nino year. That has not occurred yet. Dishonest is making decisions of the climate with its many different natural cycles (ie 11 year solar cycle, ENSO cycles, 20 -30 year PDO cycles etc) on a year by year basis. Comparing it decadally is about the minimum grouping you should do, apart from looking at the obvious long term warming trend (obvious above).
manicbeancounter
/ 08/09/2013I did not post your comment twice. Just clicked on “approve via email” and within the WordPress Dashboard, WordPress only posted once. You cannot be a true “skeptic”, (by the John Cook / Michael Mann definition) as you have not checked all the data.
I was not aware 1960 was a strong El Nino year. This is a modelled trend, that roughly shows the main trend compared to actual. Or maybe you have posted this comment against the wrong posting? It is alright to make mistakes. We are all fallible.