Is there any possible natural reason for the entire globe to be .79 degrees warmer than last year?

Yes. Frankly there must be, because the AGW signal is pretty consistent at ~0.02°C per year. There wasn't a sudden jump in atmospheric CO2.

It's true we're entering a La Nina phase, but at the same time, there's about a 6 month lag before changes in ENSO are reflected in the satellite temperature record. 6 months ago we were still in the midst of the El Nino cycle. There are of course other cycles too - NAO, AO, PDO, and so on which could also be contributing to the difference.

*edit* how funny is it that David said the same thing as me and has 1 thumbs-down while I have 16? Just goes to show that deniers give thumbs based on the answerer and not the answer.

Paul, if you really think the planet is going to warm 8°C over the next decade, I've got a bridge to sell you.

I'm no time series analysis expert, but my opinion is that you can't use standard t-tests for comparing means of time series data because the assumption of independence is immediately violated in time series data and, no, I don't think anomaly data would follow a normal distribution (but what do I know?). I would think that significant warming would mean that deltaT is significant in relation to time, but your method of comparing means from two different time periods seems like it should at least provide some inkling of information. Linear regression can be use to test for significance but this violates the independence assumption the same as other parametric methods. I can run simple regression tests with a graphing software package I have if you'd like to send me the data somehow.

Your question points out the problem with using global surface temperature as a measure of global warming.

Global climate is a function of the heat content and distribution of heat within earth's envelope - oceans, land surface and atmosphere. In this system, the atmosphere contains the least heat, has the greatest temperature variability, has the most complicated relationship between heat and temperature due to phase changes in water vapor, and has the most rapid response times. Atmospheric temperature, in short, is the noisiest signal that you can monitor to determine global climate.

Total ice volume, oceanic heat content, and net radiative flux at the top of the atmosphere are much more precise measures of what our climate is doing. As instrumentation in these areas improves, we are getting a much better picture of what climate is doing. Air temperatures, meanwhile, will continue to be a noisy byproduct of what is going on.

"The reason why the increase has been so much greater this year than previously is because the heating has undergone a very rapid and likely catastropic [sic] acceleration."

Ok Mr. We Will Have No Unsupported Assertions, on what do you base this?

I happen to agree with you, but that's just my intuition.

What about delayed feedback from thermal saturation of the oceans? What is the current rate of increase of methane concentration, has it changed? Could we recognize a chaotic shift if one was occurring?

Sure there is, it's called (masking) any temperature extreme consolidated into an average hides both the lows and highs. The big question is what geographical locations due to what effects are responsible for the masking?

ed: If that's what your asking, nor does your link work.

I do understand the difference between a decade and one day, wish others did.

A 2 ppmv increase in atmospheric CO2 can't cause a 0.79°C temperature rise... So the answer is yes: There is a natural reason for the one-year difference in average brightness temperature in that particular mb range.

The satellite data are more sensitive to ENSO fluctuations than the surface data and the lower troposphere brightness temperature (measured by the AMSU) lags behind SST's by several months.

@ Dana... That is kind of funny. I gave you a thumbs up... Just to prove you wrong about us skeptics... ;)

Once again, climate change is over a large period of time. Comparing last year's temperature to this year's temperature just doesn't cut it. Also, we have had similar jumps in the past. I remember in the mid 1990's we had a few summers where Northern Ohio had multiple weeks of triple digit temperatures.

You even acknowledge that the temperature can spike from one year to the next.

Lots or reasons. Changes in the suns output is the biggest reason.

That's assuming the temperature even changed.

.79 degrees is below the margin of error for the system used to figure out the earth temperature.

You mean to tell me it's not even 1 degree warmer than last year? If anyone cries GW, they are wrong. Next year, it may be 2-3 degrees colder than this year. What will the GW crowd have to say then?

The majority of reputable scientists (outside of America) agree that global warming is a man made event, and is actually happening due to increased pollutant gases in our atmosphere.

Anyone that sits and yarps on about el nino or year to year variation is thinking too small scale. Fossil evidence shows that trees migrate with temperature variations, however this is now happening too fast for the trees to migrate with the temperature. Lots of evidence, but lots of ignorant trolls, you decide.

I bet it was that extra molecule in ten thousand of CO2.

That would certainly explain it.

Maybe the truth is that atmosperic temperature is not a useful metric for measuring the thermal balance of the earth. Afterall, the atmosphere has 1/5 of one percent the thermal mass of the oceans. .79 degrees (of atmospheric heating) is equivalent to .0016 degrees of ocean heating.