Not so. Using 22-year trends to smooth out most of the variability from the solar cycle we see consistent global warming, regardless of whether we use the most recent 22 years or the first 22 years available from this particular satellite record or anything in between:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from/to/plot/rss/from:1988/to:2010/trend/plot/rss/from:1987/to:2009/trend/plot/rss/from:1986/to:2008/trend/plot/rss/from:1985/to:2007/trend/plot/rss/from:1984/to:2006/trend/plot/rss/from:1983/to:2005/trend/plot/rss/from:1982/to:2004/trend/plot/rss/from:1981/to:2003/trend/plot/rss/from:1980/to:2002/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2001/trend

The warming trend is around 0.18C per decade, just as the climate scientists have been saying for many years.

I’m saying that the scientist didn’t say it. Otherwise it would be in quotations.

So again, show us where climate scientists ever predicted that snow would be extremely rare within a few years. It’s certainly never been the consensus view. It’s not published in the scientific literature and it’s not in the IPCC report.

T:And it’s certainly not because the period is so short, previous 15 years did experience statistically significant warming, the reason is simple – the warming almost completely died down, despite more CO2 in the atmosphere then ever.

You keep revealing a complete lack of understanding of statistics. The evidence is that there has been warming over the past 15 years. This is valid well above the 66% level defined by the standard deviation of the noise. It doesn’t quite reach the 95% confidence level. That’s what Jones said. Your interpretation doesn’t even rise to the 10% significance level.

Specify what conditions will falsify anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

How do you falsify AGW?

1.) You need to learn basic math. You’ll need it, because it will take a lot of work.

2.) Prove that CO2 isn’t really a greenhouse gas. (This is going to be tough. It’s backed up by some pretty solid data).

3.) Barring that, prove that mankind isn’t really releasing large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. (Again, there’s some pretty solid data lined up against you).

4.) Barring (2) or (3), prove that natural forces pull CO2 from the atmosphere faster than we’re putting it in. (So far, all the evidence is that the natural feedbacks actually make the problem worse).

Okay, those are pretty high goals for your first foray into climate science. If you simply want to know whether the warming “almost completely died down” since 1995, you’re going to have to wait at least another 10 years. (Those will have to be significantly cooler than the last 10, though, because right now we’re on track for significant warming.)

If you have disagreements take them up with NASA and the NOAA. They are the ones who recognize that: the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth’s natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.

NASA (1997) says there is no global warming, the computer models are wrong.

It is 2010 and the computer models are still wrong. Makes one wonder who the deniers are.

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth’s lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward.
…
Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase. There are several reasons:

* First, the influence of a man-made doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is small compared to the Earth’s natural cooling rate, on the order of only a percent.

* Second, there is a much more important greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, namely water vapor. Water vapor over the Earth is extremely variable, both in space and in time.

* Third, the ways in which clouds and water vapor feed back and ultimately influence the temperature of the Earth are, at best, poorly understood.

* Fourth, while the whole Earth is indeed in a state that scientists describe as “radiative equilibrium,” where the incoming sunlight equals the outgoing infrared radiation to provide a roughly constant overall temperature, the surface is far from this radiative balance condition. Evaporation and convection processes in the atmosphere transport heat from the surface to the upper troposphere, where it can be much more efficiently radiated into space since it is above most of the greenhouse-trapping water vapor. So in short, it is this convective overturning of the atmosphere – poorly represented in computer models of global warming – that primarily determines the temperature distribution of the surface and upper troposphere, not radiation balance.

Hey bonehead, that’s not what the “rejected” means in your link. The “rejected” doesn’t mean that the authors of the draft decided not to incorporate the reviewer’s comments. “Rejected” is the reviewer’s recommendation of what to do with the abstract – in other words, he reccommended that the authors scrap it and start over.

An author never has the final word in peer-review. That always goes to the reviewer. And once again, you are exposed as basing your argument on a lie.

That’s becoming typical of you, denialist.