No warming since 1998 - is this argument based on signal or noise?

Question

We frequently hear the argument from skeptics that since 1998 was the warmest year on record (if you average all datasets; GISS has 2005 as the warmest), this means that global warming has "stalled."

An interesting discussion at the link below shows that with an artificial dataset, you can have a constant warming trend, and yet due to the year-to-year noise you can have a cooling trend from 1998-Present.

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/wiggles/#more-507

Of course, in the real data we have a warming trend from 1998-Present

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/t1998.jpg

But the point is that the 'global warming has stalled' argument is fundamentally flawed, based on the noise rather than the (warming) signal.

Do skeptics understand the difference between signal and noise? If so, do they admit that 1998 as the warmest year on record does not mean that global warming has "stalled"?

Francis - You could have just answered "no, I don't understand the difference."

Answer 1

A one year trend in climatological terms is totally insignificant and therefore any arguments made on those grounds, for or against AGW theory, are pure fallacy. The long term data is what matters. I'd make the same argument if 2006 for example was the hottest year on record globally. That figure would be completely irrelevant in isolation.

Francis please make a logical argument - last time I looked soundbites and conjecture didn't fall into that category.

Answer 2

There are a number of levelings and even reversals in the long term trend from 1867-2006. These do not mean that the overall trend is over, nor are they simply the effect of noise. What they do indicate is that global temperatures are not simple phenomena, but instead respond to a number of inputs.