Poor Agro, still pedalling the company line. Are you saying OHC has increased since 2003, when ARGO was introduced and reliable measurement began? Willis has a good post on the NOAA graph you find so strange because a trend line was inserted:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/25/ocean-temperature-and-heat-content/#more-80690

The really strange thing about OHC is the rapid trend down in SST since 2003:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2003/mean:12

The point is how can OHC be incresing when SST is decreasing?

And Moomba had it's hottest In January 2013? Wow, so did Newcastle; did you read the rest of the temperature history about Newcastle? Probably not; the irony is cruel; on the one hand the CC is trumpeting, or whatever Flannery does, about a new National temperature metric which doesn't rely on specific records and there you have Newcastle with a specific record and a monthly record 120 years earlier which was much hotter.

Same for you Bugsy.

Why don't you 2 guys get your heads together [sic] and explain BOM's methodology for achieving the National record? Was it a straight spatial weighting?

Dear Anthony,

I beg to differ.

This is a very salient point because if you do refuse to personally accept something this simple, when the answer is so glaringly obvious to the rest of us, then it speaks directly to the veracity of the rest of your assertions.

I ask again, do you Anthony Cox accept that there can 'be a continent wide summer record when no part of the continent had a record'?

Damn easy my friend.

I'm more a "climate" type of guy than a weather one, so I like at least thirty successive measurements (why thirty? Who knows; it's more than twenty nine?) to average out, before I talk about climate-type stuff, so here's what I did.

I looked at Sydney, which has by far the longest uninterrupted set of weather measurements in Australia. And then I looked at January 2013 and discovered two very hot days (7th and 18th; this latter the new record) and a 31 day average (see; Thirty one is even more than thirty is more than twenty nine) which was way above the usual 31-Day January average. Yeap January 2013 was 27.6 Degrees Max over the whole (flamin'?) month, whilst the usual is a mild 25.9Deg!

Now that's what I call climate change, maties.

And that's also where all you climate-change deniers get it all wrong; not looking at the thirty one day average. As an aside; Being deniers you probably reckon there are less than six million seconds in a year, eh? less than six million ants in an ant-heap; less than six million litres water in Sydney Harbour. Less than six million Big Macs sold every hour!

OK. So some of you might counter that the thirty one day average for January 1896 was 29.6 Degrees, and that that shows the climate (ie thirty or more successive readings averaged) was warmer back then, but I'll just let you have your little laugh, 'cause I know there were a lot fewer days in the average January in the 19th century!

And please don't start with the Calendar Denier smears when you run out of logical arguments to get you out of the hole you've dug for yourselves..OK?

Mr Cox, have you bothered asking them?

For your convenience:
Further information
National Climate Centre
Bureau of Meteorology
Phone (03) 9669 4082
Email Helpdesk.Climate@bom.gov.au

I'm guessing not, because I think it's highly likely that of you did and didn't get an answer, then you you would have said so (conspiratorial evidence). And if you did get an answer, then you wouldn't be asking us, now would you?

By the way, those ocean temperatures have not 'been flat' since 1998, as your blog links claim. I know it 'looks' a bit that way, but that is why we have statistics and do regressions isn't it?

I would suggest you extend your reading a bit before you embarrass yourself again. Here's another blogpost on your graph.
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2013/03/05/fact-checking-the-cherry-pickers-anthony-watts-edition/ (thanks Poirot)

Spot the difference.

What a load of rubbish again.

It is interesting to see that the denialists keep repeating myths and give links to web sites that are supported by the fossil fuel industries, then they may also be paid to repeat their rubbish as cohehnite/Anthony appears to do.

It is time the denialist stopped reading the kids stuff like Watts and Nova (they have no crediablity at all) and start in the real world where scientists are involved. They never refer to a actual scientists peer review paper just some old meteorologist misled incorrect discredited blog site.

It is also interesting to see that denialist like cohenite (with no expertise in climate or science) give no explanation why the world is warming other than say that they know better than scientist that have been studying it for years.

As we see on this blog denialists don’t have any knowledge of climate science, they simply don’t want human-caused climate change to be true.

Denialism is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality. It is an essentially irrational action that withholds validation of a historical experience or event or facts and we see that on this blog and their (paid?) aim is to discredit climate scientists.

And the denialist keep saying it is not warming, it is time they grew up and became rational adults.

In the mean time with recent record ice melting in the Arctic, which effects the weather in the northern hemisphere, as seen in recent weather extremes in USA and Europe is still melting and is at present causing a major interest in that large cracks are appearing in the multi year ice which some say could result in a ice free year.

PeterA
Unforuntately, all that you, and all the warmists have posted in this thread, are appeal to absent authority, assuming what's in issue, and personal argument. As these are logical fallacies, therefore they are not rational, and therefore they are not scientific which you would know if you knew anything about science, which you obviously don't.

Furthermore, REPEATING them doesn't strengthen your position - it only weakens it.

The basic premise on which you all keep falling down is the idea that it's a precondition of entering into the argument that everyone accept your BELIEF in ABSENT AUTHORITY as settling the entire issue. The best that can be said about that belief, is that it's simply irrational.

This means that you have to argue by evidence and reason, not by appeal to authority.

Then as soon as your irrational methodology is pointed out, we get this thicket of spiteful personal argument in substitution of the proof you should be providing. (Note: more of the same appeal to absent authority as incontrovertible is not proof; it just means you don't understand what you're talking about.)

Furthermore you also all fail to understand that science does not supply value judgments, whereas public policy requires them so, even if all your ASSUMPTIONS were granted, which they're not, you still wouldn't have got to square one in establishing their relevance to anything more than mere temperature measurements with no relation to public policy.

So ... go ahead. Got that evidence of catastrophic global warming that policy can improve, showing the units of a lowest common denominator in which you accounted for the downside of both options both now and in the future? You know - the *scientific* method.

Further replies by way of the standard warmist fallacies merely cement in your own defeat.