Dear Leo Lane
You ask for evidence of anthropogenic climate change. First there was Arrhenius who said that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere had a greenhouse effect, stopping some of the radiation hitting the Earth from being reflected back into space. Then there was Keeling on top of Mauna Loa in Hawaii, about as far from industrial centres that you can get, measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide. And the graph went inexorably up in an annual jagged way, reflecting greater absorption of carbon dioxide by trees in the northern summer. We have gone from 280 to 380ppm since the Industrial Revolution when we started pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in a big way. Global warming is not all caused by volcanic activity - there is a large human component, from too many humans simply breathing out, to having too many farm animals belching methane (another greenhouse gas) or rice paddies spewing out methane, to humans burning fossil fuels in their factories and cars. So unless you can prove Arrhenius and Keeling wrong, you have to accept anthropogenic climate change.

Dear Australis. I understand that sea temperatures in the north eastern Indian Ocean near Australia were one degree higher prior to the recent floods and duly exacerbated the La Nina effect. As for global ocean temperatures, in 2009, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), announced "...the global ocean surface temperature for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 1.06 degrees F (0.59 degree C) above the 20th century average of 61.5 degrees F (16.4 degrees C)." This "broke the previous record which was set in 2005, making last month the hottest since 1880 (when records began) when it comes to ocean surface temperatures."

Curmudgeon
Do you know what cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias is?

Alice in wonderland
Yes, there is uncertainty in ‘attribution’ literature and it is quantified. Not acknowledging that is akin to saying CO2 has no warming properties.

KenH
Tell us, do you also think a 30% increase in [CO2] in 200 years is trivial when compared to the blips in the last 800,000 years?

Do you know what a 'snowball earth' is, with no minuscule amount of CO2?

Oh, and temperature rises have NOT always preceded increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide - no matter that your furphy is trotted out all the time.

Leo
Do you agree with the eminent emeritus that Professor Karoly is not an expert and that the Lord Christopher Monkton is?

Australis
Probably more out of ignorance than malicious intent, you, like many, completely distort what the Argo research has found.

Heat content and ocean temperatures have been rising since the programme was deployed. See Levitus et al (2005), Domingues et al (2008), Wijffels et al 2008), Levitus et al (2009)

ALL consistent with the conclusions of Roemmich and Gilson (2009) AND substantiated by Josh Willis – who published his correction in 2008, overturning the errors and misinformation that people like you still rely on.

Yes, the SOI is very +’ve, as expected. But, warm anomalies in the western Pacific have continued to develop over the last four months, more than expected.

The Earth System is reacting to evermore energy being spewed into the air, oceans and terrestrial biosphere.

To assert that “there's been no atmospheric warming trend since 2003” is nonsense - you need more than 7 years of data for significance tests. But you knew that, right?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/01/110113102154.htm

popnperish - the business about ocean temperatures making the la nina effect worse was either made up by you, or you took it from someone who made it up. The ocean cycles may (as I understand it) be due to temperature differences but as no-one really knows what makes these cycles tick, to say that overall higher ocean temperatures make them better or worse is straight speculation. No one knows.

As for NASA's pronouncements. Ocean temperatures are undoubtedly high at the moment so why are they high? global warmers insist that high concentrations of CO2 are somehow driving ocean temperatues, but skeptics point out that high ocean temperatures mean a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. (Warmer water holds less CO2.)

You can pick your ground on that one but the business about overall temperature levels affecting cycles is straight speculation.

Curmudgeon

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif

Hey bonmot

"Yes, there is uncertainty in ‘attribution’ literature and it is quantified." Not acknowledging that is akin to saying CO2 has no warming properties."

Quantified, yes, but....

An October 2010 critique of the IPCC’s evaluation of evidence and treatment of uncertainty by the InterAcademy Council noted (page 35, chapter 3), among other things, that “assigning probabilities to imprecise statements is not an appropriate way to characterize uncertainty. If the confidence scale is used in this way, conclusions will likely be stated so vaguely as to make them impossible to refute, and therefore statements of ‘very high confidence’ will have little substantive value.”

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report/Climate%20Change%20Assessments,%20Review%20of%20the%20Processes%20&%20Procedures%20of%20the%20IPCC.pdf

In a statement on 14 January 2011, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints said Vatican-appointed doctors had studied the case (of Marie-Simon-Pierre, bless her) "scrupulously" and determined her cure from Parkinson's disease had "no scientific explanation" and was therefore a miracle of the late Pope John Paul II, as she and her fellow sisters had prayed to him, also a Parkinson's sufferer. "Santo Subito!"

Is your hypothesis that anthropogenic global warming is the PRIMARY cause of "climate change", EWEs, etc, not a similar argument BY DEFAULT? "We don't know how else to explain it/them or what we think we are observing in Nature, therefore it must be due to anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions."

But again, where are your - established and verifiable - Laws of Climate Change?

Only in Warmerland can a phenomenon - "climate change" - be both a CAUSE and EFFECT.

Alice (in Warmerland)