Let's back up a bit.

Firstly, you said on Monday "The NIPCC Summary for Policy Makers has been released in response to the IPCC’s AR5."

No, the NIPCC published first, not in response to the IPCC report, a calculated move. From http://heartland.org/press-releases/2013/09/27/nipcc-heartland-institute-react-un-ipcc-climate-report-summary :

"The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on September 27, 2013 released the “Summary for Policymakers” of its fifth and latest assessment of Earth’s climate. The IPCC report comes more than a week after the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) released the more-than-1,000-page Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (PDF) and its accompanying Summary for Policymakers (PDF)."

The point is, the NIPCC publication could not actually respond to the incompleted IPCC AR5 but simply carries on as if it weren't there, in its own parallel universe.

The NIPCC differs with the IPCC on where we are let alone where we're going. Regarding "<< Can you demonstrate that any warming or climate change is outside the natural variability." >> and << just POINT to any IPCC empirical evidence, real data, real measurements. No models, forecasts or predictions thanks.>>

The IPCC's empirical evidence comes from the data and scientific papers published in credible peer-reviewed publications. Michael Mann's hockey stick is a starting point. There, I pointed, not to start a dialogue with you that I intend to maintain, but to get you going on the path towards enlightenment because your well-worn myths have already been countered by others at the sites I've given as examples.

So, just write down your case for rebuttal of the hockey stick, or anything else you like and check out whether it's an old myth or you've created a new myth. If it's the former, check the pre-prepared rebuttals and if the latter send it into Nature or another credible journal for peer-review

,or, send it to WUWT where it will be enshrined as fact.

The case for the rebuttal of the Hockeystick has been made: by the IPCC:

http://notrickszone.com/2013/10/17/climatology-sees-one-of-the-greatest-scientific-reversals-of-all-time-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-hockey-stick-charts/

Seriously Anthony, that graph you linked to was in fact an entirely different graph for the tropical troposphere. Perhaps you should read the legend next time.

Your comments also don’t address any of the points I made above. The fact that the graph started at 1983 rather than 1979 was not a criticism I made. The criticisms I made were to do with the choice of baseline, which I will remain critical of whenever Roy Spencer uses 1979-1983 as a baseline for the reasons I outlined above.

I think that counts as a fail, Anthony.

I am not in fact arguing that the current global temperature is towards the bottom of the confidence intervals for the models. I am arguing that Roy Spencer’s graphs are fudged.

This, Figure 1.4 from the IPCC compares the current models with current temperatures and previous projections. You can see that current temperatures fall well within the band of confidence intervals from AR4 and TAR and SAR projections.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/figure-1-4-final-models-vs-observations.png?w=1024&h=659

Thanks for playing Agro; your effort does not use the satellites [what does it use for the observations?] and still has a base period of 1961-1990.

As base periods go that is fairly even capturing as it does the last of the cool period which ended in 1976 and the part of the warm period which began in 1976.

Unfortunately the warm period started with a step in 1976-1978 due to the climate shift which is uncontroversial. This step meant ALL of the subsequent temperature increase up to the decline which began in 1998 occurred in 2 years. This means temperatures before the step are artificially cooled and this increases the trend; a basic statistical trick.

You will note that both Spencer's adjusted graphs do not use any base period at all but merely have a 5 year running mean along the whole of the data. That avoids such trend adjusting attributes as occur with a base period to produce anomalies.

And so what if Spencer's 2 graphs compare the modelling with lower troposphere observations; troposphere warming is crucial for AGW; it isn't happening.

And as for the ground temperature it isn't happening either and will soon reach the Santer magic 17 year mark:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/10/23/getting-very-close-to-meeting-santers-17-year-warming-test/

I mean seriously, don't some of the graphs used in Monckton's article give you pause; and please don't use Monckton as a counter-argument or I will use Gore.

Anthony, your arguments are simply all over the place. Rather than correct the wrong arguments you make, you are simply making more wrong ones.

Complaining about the use of 1961-1990 as a baseline is about as sensible as complaining that dates operate on the Gregorian Calendar. It is the baseline that is used in climate science and allows the various measurements and models to be compared. A longer baseline period is preferred, because it is less likely to be influenced by random errors.

Secondly, you have again managed to completely miss the crucial point about Spencer’s graphs. That is he used the 1979-1983 period of the UAH data as a base line. The problem with this is that the model used to generate the lower troposphere temperatures from the satellite data leads to an over-estimate of temperatures for this period, by up to 0.2 degrees. Using this as a base line slants all the post 1983 temperatures lower than they should be.

Next you try to conflate what is happening with mid troposphere temperatures with surface temperatures. The trouble with this is that the models that are used to generate the mid-troposphere temperatures from the satellite measurements do a relatively poor job because they contaminate the signal with stratospheric temperatures, which is cooling.

Anthony, if you understood even a modicum of climate science and how the satellite measurements were made, you wouldn’t make these mistakes.

I don’t take any notice of Monckton, he is almost as ignorant of climate science as you are and is known for being expansive with the truth.