To be fair Janama, I posted a blog site because it's all Anthony seems to read. The only papers he references are those that are reproduced on said blog sites, or he's only read the abstracts, which are freely available.

Oh look, an Energy and Environment reference, I love those guys. And using 4.5 years worth of data too. Excellent, hard hitting stuff. I bet it's referenced all over the scientific literature. The full name of the organisation that Craig Loehle works for is the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement Incorporated, the environmental resource for the forest products industry.

I am very glad that such not-for-profit research organisations have enough money to spend on analysis that doesn't seem to have any relevance to their industry. I only wish that Australian industries had the same attitude. Maybe I should get a job there.

Bugsy - now you know that only 4.5 years of data was available! It still contradicts the theory that the missing heat is in the oceans.

For the sake of peace and quiet, yes I agree, as does Anthony, that it is possible to have a national record without having component records. It may well be the case that this is what happened with the record summer; we don't know as the Bureau has not made public its methodology. It may also be true that particular areas of Australia may have had an inordinate influence on the temperature record due to very large distances between thermometers, where any uncertainty is magnified by the area weighting.
I also agree that 10 years is too short a time to determine a trend (as for 31 days- good grief!) but to this little black duck that flatter looking part over the last 10 years looks very interesting in the light of enormous CO2 emissions and IPCC scenarios. (10,000 years might show an interesting trend.)
Now that that's out of the way, let's look at the other claims of the Climate Commission, in particular those eye catching 23 records. 6 of the 23 are not records at all- and another 4 can't be checked because BOM methodology has not been released. At the very least it is misleading. I would have thought Anthony's critics would have been all over these, but the best they can do is say "But.. but.. Moomba had a record." Big deal. How long has Moomba been operating? Since June 1995!

Janama,

Blogs ain't blogs when it comes to popular analysis of papers and their data.

Some blogs actually have scientists on board who are trained in the disciplines covered by their commentary, and who reference peer-reviewed material for their analysis.

Here's one looking at Loehle's claims:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-cherry-pickers-cooling-oceans.html

Poirot: from John Cook's website describing himself.

"Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. He studied physics at the University of Queensland, Australia. After graduating, he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. "

you were saying?

Janama,

You know what I'm saying...that the people who run the blogs to which I link have at least some scientific qualifications and expertise - who actually understand the things they are explaining.

As opposed to jumped up weathercasters and lawyers passing themselves off as knowledgeable on climate science.

I'd stack Gavin Schmidt or Grant Foster up against Anthony Watts or Anthony Cox any day.

Like I said - blogs ain't blogs.