[duwease]

I'm not sure how a Google search for a series of loosely related graphs addresses either of my arguments. I assume you are thinking that their existence refutes them somehow, but I don't see anything on the first page that contradicts anything I said.

[phkahler]

>> I'm not sure how a Google search for a series of loosely related graphs addresses either of my arguments.

Your argument was that my argument was a strawman. Those graphs all show projections that have not panned out. To be definitive, either of us would need to locate the original claims from a reliable source.

[duwease]

Those graphs don't show a prediction of an x% increase for a particular decade, however. It seems you're interpreting them as literal average temperature predictions for a decade, when they represent where a linear regression line would pass through when that decade's averages are considered alongside previous decades' temperature data.

In case you don't grok the difference, the difference is that a relatively flat decade followed by a huge temperature jump will have the linear regression line for that decade be higher than the actual temperature, because the of the later jump. This is what is (likely) happening now (and what happened in 77-86, and 87-96). The most popular theory as to this seems to be that the heat is stored in the deep ocean, and then releases in a burst into the surface atmosphere.

Which takes me to my second point, that even with your interpretation (which is generally the interpretation of the graphs used to make the 'no warming in 15 years' argument), the graphs being used are surface temperature, and don't include ocean warming. As I mentioned above, including ocean temperatures shows a rise even in static decade temperature, without even involving linear regression.

If you'd like a source, the intended interpretation of the results are all in the IPCC reports, most of which have (reasonably) short summaries. http://www.ipcc.ch/