Perhaps the author would like a fact finding inquiry into BoM akin to the one on the home insulation scheme. Either way heads must roll. BoM hereby charged with lying to the Australian people. Since the author is unusually keen on numbers and graphs for a lawyer perhaps he should present his paper to a scientific conference where people can spot errors.

FWIW where I live had fewer frosts than normal in 2013. Cloud then kept the temperature range in check all day. Therefore BoM's claim that the diurnal range is compressed seems correct to me. Big mention of the ship stuck in ice. How come no mention of the 50C temperatures in Australia at the same time?

You should rally stick to law Anthony. Pick little bits of evidence that support your case and ignore the elephant in the room. Good lawyer tactics!

Scientists have always said GW will cause more extreme weather events. This is happening more every year - now we have Alaska balmy while Michigan freezes. They explain that as a 'slackening' of the circum-polar jet streams.

But your awesome grasp of science proves they're all wrong?

Another thing, systems as complex as the temperature of the whole Earth and oceans do not change homogeneously and linearly so don't think we're fooled into thinking your graphs provide 'evidence' disproving the scientists' science on global warming.

By the way, I do respect you for being up front about who you represent. But who funds you and Climate Skeptics? I'd love to know who funds Jennifer Marohasy too. Are you just doing your 'climate denial evidence' stuff out of the goodness of your heart to defend 'civilization as we know it?

Nice title! Could I make a suggestion?

Why don't you join forces with the Singer and create a Mischievous Lawyer's Alliance (MLA)?

The pair of you could combine your intellectual forces to bring us weekly articles. Some of them could be entitled:

- Why We Are Entering Another Ice Age.

- Why God's Children Should Rule The Earth.

- Why All Lawyers Should Be Knighted.

- Why Only Lawyers Should Be Elected To Parliament.

- Why Arctic Vortexes Show Global Warming Is Not Hotting Up.

- Why Lawyers Should All Go To Private Schools.

- Why Lawyers Fees Should Be Tripled.

- Why Legal Training Creates Near Geniuses and Complete Scoundrels.

There, that should do for starters!

Thanks Taswegian, your anecdotes about frosts were helpful. However, it is clear you did not read the article which says:

"Still, there is no doubt 2013 was a relatively warm year for Australia"

Wether it was a record depends on whether you want to believe the BOM record or every other temperature record. What about that Taswegian?

Good old Roses says:

"Scientists have always said GW will cause more extreme weather events."

No Roses, in fact the IPCC scientists have said the very opposite, which is even if there is AGW it isn't causing extreme weather events; see SREX, the IPCC Special Report into Extreme weather:

http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

Chapter 4 says:

◾“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
◾“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
◾“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”

See also the editorial in Nature, the most prestigious pro-AGW science journal:

http://www.nature.com/news/extreme-weather-1.11428

Nature says:

"Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming."

Now Roses, you and every other believer in AGW can maintain your faith if you like but don't pretend your position is evidence based or scientific; it is not.

I do however agree with your statement:

"Are you just doing your 'climate denial evidence' stuff out of the goodness of your heart to defend 'civilization as we know it?"

Yep and that I detest waste and stupidity, the 2 defining characteristics of AGW.

I have to correct Mr Cox the fact the Australian Scientists promoting global warming were not reported trapped in polar ice is wrong. I read it in the UK Mail online, twice in fact.
However I did not read this fact in any Australian media? Australian journalism the inability to catch your own posterior in both your hands?

Talking of lawyers, AGW, the great bogeyman, which causes both warming and cooling, also has an effect on lawyers:

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

As you can see, AGW, along with causing everything else which is wrong with the world also causes lawyers' incomes to increase. Yah.

AGW is now a catch-all phrase, devoid of evidence into which certain people pour their discontent and frustrations. It is also an outlet for the vanity and egos of general mediocrities who can gain status by declaring they are saving the world and are better than those spoil-sports who want real evidence, reliable science and who don't want to fund the indulgences of a pack of whingers.

lies lies and statisitcs. Please Mr Abbott along with the ABC make cuts to BOM so they can only report facts. Something very hard for those holding the gw faith to do.

This article is a typical example of pseudo science nonsense adulterated by pretty cartons.

For example the scientists are currently trying to figure out why the observed diurnal temperature range is well in excess of that predicted by models.

In any event the diurnal temperature difference has far more to do with cloud cover than AGW.

Again we have the same old rubbish about the tropical hotspot. This is not evidence for or against AGW is simply an expected response from higher surface temperatures whatever the cause of the heating. The reasoning is simple higher surface temperatures are expected to lead to higher rates of evaporation. The extra water vapor will on condensation will boost temperatures at altitude. Now this process is what is called a negative feedback that is it to say it would moderate surface temperatures. If it is really not present then we can expect even higher surface temperatures

"AGW is now a catch-all phrase, devoid of evidence into which certain people pour their discontent and frustrations. It is also an outlet for the vanity and egos of general mediocrities who can gain status by declaring they are saving the world and are better than those spoil-sports who want real evidence, reliable science and who don't want to fund the indulgences of a pack of whingers." Thus spake Cohenite!

One day, soon, he will have to eat his silly, extremist words just like the proponents of the Flat Earth Society eventually had to.

"A wise man never speaks of certainties in a world that is filled with natural imponderables, frequent disasters AND stupid humans."

Well you are wrong about the DTR as the link to AR4 shows but let's talk about the THS. It is clear that the IPCC expected a THS to happen; see Figure 9.1, page 675 of AR4:

http://www.webcommentary.com/images/fingerprints.jpg

It is plain that a THS from AGW is different from any other heating source; to say other wise is to contradict AR4.

There is some confusion about the THS amongst AGW scientists. Peter Thorne for example, a prominent AGW scientist in a 2008 paper concluded that the model predictions and observations about a THS were in good agreement and that pre 1979 radiosonde temperature data, which is from weather balloons, had been responsible for any disagreement.

However, in his second 2011 study Thorne et al concluded that the observations since 1979 disagreed with the model predictions but when the observations from the radiosondes from 1958 were added the models and observations were in reasonable agreement.

Everyone is allowed to change their minds.

However, Thorne's latest paper disagrees, in varying ways, with studies by Paltridge 2009, Christy et al 2010, McKitrick et al 2010, McKitrick et al 2011, McKitrick et al 2011 and Fu et al 2011.

You are correct in saying a THS is a negative feedback. The reason for that is THS is really a function of water vapor feedback, not a first order forcing.

You would therefore not see a THS in MODTRAN as implemented on line because a surface temperature offset entered in MODTRAN only affects the temperature up through 10 km and it’s constant.

You get the THS only if the lapse rate decreases as temperature goes up because the moist lapse rate gets lower as specific humidity goes up (higher energy content/kg). So a decreasing lapse rate is actually a negative feedback, but the increased radiation from increased water vapor is supposed to more than make up for that.

And this where arguments that a THS is not essential for AGW are disingenuous and so irritating because AGW says there will be increased RH and SH so a THS would be inevitable. But it isn’t there.

Claiming Antarctic land ice loss is not in decline is a highly dubious claim, by taking only one study out of the numerous that have been done, which relies on laser altitude measurements, when we have data from a number of other sources such as the grace satellites is highly suspicious.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Grace/news/grace20121129.html#.Us9ZqtIW2Cl

Numerous studies have been done on Antarctic ice.
The general conclusion is that ice loss from the east Antarctic ice sheet is minimal due to increased snow fall, but when combined with the west Antarctic the ice loss has been substantial. It has also certain that there has been an increase in the rate of ice loss since 1992.

(Shepherd and others, 2012).
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/338/6111/1183
Quote abstract.
Between 1992 and 2011, the ice sheets of Greenland, East Antarctica, West Antarctica, and the Antarctic Peninsula changed in mass by –142 ± 49, +14 ± 43, –65 ± 26, and –20 ± 14 gigatonnes year−1, respectively

The tropical hot spot.
Sorry you can't have your cake and eat it too.
If the hotspot is not there then it means surface temperatures have not risen. Given a choice of believing we can measure the air temperature accurately to within 0.1 deg C and 50 feet at an altitude of 12 kilometers or accepting that the surface temperatures are wrong I will go with the go with the surface temperatures being correct.
There is no reason why GHGs should affect the moisture levels in the atmosphere at any point other than the surface.

Doesn't really matter whether AGW due to CO2 is true or not.
Note CO2 emissions in the US and some other developed countries has
fallen because the price of fossil fuels has increased.

Towards the end of this decade there should be a marked fall in CO2 emissions.

Global temperatures at the surface have been flat for at least 8 years and over 17 years depending on which temperature indice you look at:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/22/hadcrut4-is-from-venus-giss-is-from-mars-now-includes-november-data/#more-99765

Now given that the surface temperature is flat and SH is falling it is entirely consistent that there is NO THS. That is elementary, the evidence is plain.

Yet AGW theory has predicted increases in both temperature and SH and [therefore] a THS generated by AGW as Figure 9.1 showed.

The absence of a THS is indisputable evidence against AGW.

The article gives plain evidence about air and SST at the Antarctic.

In respect of the sheet ice no one has disputed that the Western Peninsula has lost ice. The WAP is a miniscule part of the Antarctica.

In addition that ice loss from the WAP is arguably not due to AGW:

http://phys.org/news196255601.html

This modern evidence against AGW being responsible for the WAP is supported by historical evidence which clearly shows greater melting in the past:

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract

Have any of you experts compared the NASA satellite photos of the Antarctic and the Artic of December 2012 and December 2013.

As regards the BOM claims. The BOM is often wrong. It's failures to provide the Australian people with accurate forecasts to enable them to prepare and plan in the face of extreme and 'normal' weather events is woeful.

Answer these questions.
What was the strenght of cyclone Yazi when it crossed the Nth Qld coast?
Was it possible to predict the extent and area of the downpour that caused the flooding in Toowoomba, Grantham and Brisbane, when all those people were killed?
How many cyclones has the BOM predicted for this year?
How many did they predict for the last three summers and how many arrived?

Answer those correctly and you will soon understand how useless the BOM has become since it has been overrun by climate warming terrorists.

As Australia is but a pawn of world wide weather forces any statistics limited to Australia are superfluous.

Another day and another anti-science article on OLO.
More fodder for the rubes and more funnies for the rest of us. You should try world news daily I'm sure runner and co post there to, maybe even write some of the "news" items.

While the vast majority of Australians know that if your taking advice from a lawyer you’re in a dark place.
But If you’re getting your science facts from one then you’re in a silly place.

Tony, get over it ... boring!

Boring? If you're anti science, don't comment on an article exposing false science.

Cornie said:

"While the vast majority of Australians know that if your taking advice from a lawyer you’re in a dark place.
But If you’re getting your science facts from one then you’re in a silly place."

Make that:
"While the vast majority of Australians know that if your taking advice from cornie, you’re in a dark place.
But If you’re getting your science facts from one who knows his subject, you are getting accurate information."

Anthony Cox is looking at the claims by the BoM.

Dr Jennifer Marohasy also doubts their accuracy and has requested details.

So far, the BoM has not responded to her reasonable requests.

They must know that FOI will expose their inaccuracies.

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/requesting-verification-of-2013.html

For Leo Dorfman,

I am most definitely NOT anti-science.

I am most definitely NOT commenting on false science.

Google:

"Leo Dorfman" and "climate sceptics"

Make your own mind up.

What gibberish from doc and corny; can anyone make a considered response to the article, even if it is wrong? Where is Agro when you want a decent argument?

Hi Anthony,

This seems to be one of the few places left where the science is still being discussed. In the rest of the world in general and the EU in particular, the debate has now moved to economics and politics.

One of the best summations of the global state of play for CAGW came this week from Graham Lloyd, “Green Dream On Ice As ‘Coal Frenzy’ Grips Europe”.
The Australian, 11 January 2014

In his comments on media reports from around the world, there is not a single mention of the science? It is also clear that the last remnants of CAGW are Euro-centric and much as our own media might like is to be otherwise, by not reporting it, CAGW seems set to collapse completely.

Sadly, many Australian members of the warmertariat will be shocked because they knew nothing of what was really going on, they will be ill prepared for the news and will have to quickly find another “cause”

That's true Spindoc, the science of AGW is dead but it still jumps around like a crazed zombie; see, for instance the latest effort from Abrahams and Nutticelli from Skeptical Science, given prominent space at The Guardian. Their effort is critiqued here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2014/01/skeptical-science-crap.html

If a mug like me can spot the gaping holes in AGW science what hope does it have.

The other side of the AGW coin to science is renewable energy and it looks as though the SCs in the coalition, notably Hunt and McFarlane are going to win the day and enforce the maintenance of the RET target of 20%; see:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/policy/cabinet-rift-on-ret-hunt-firm-amid-scrapping-calls/story-e6frg6xf-1226799349909#

Apart from the fact that renewables don't work the sheer cost of this folly will be a major economic hindrance for some time.

Like a leech the blood-sucking AGW still has its fangs firmly stuck in the neck of Australia.

cohenite
Well the considered response is you are wrong.

1 The Antarctic ice sheet is melting, as I have pointed out above. Your link referred to an estimate using laser heights only, unfortunately that is not a good way to estimate ice volumes, because as the ice melts the weight on the land declines and the surface rises. A much better approach is to measure the gravitational pull of the ice using satellites as per the Grace system. This clearly shows a net ice loss for the whole Antarctic.

2 The so called hot spot argument only proves you are clutching at straws. The long term data is highly problematic because the earlier weather balloon data was gathered for the purpose of local weather forecasts and the instrumentation was not standardised. Modern satellite measurements are also problematic because of interference from other layers of the atmosphere, satellite decay, and instrument drift.

It gets worse because what we are trying to confirm is that the temperature at an altitude of around 10 to 12 kilometres has increased by around 0.15 deg C more than the surface over the last 40 odd years. It is hardly surprising that no one has been able to prove that this has indeed happened, but the lack of proof in no way indicates that it has not happened, only that we are unable to get sufficiently accurate data. Then our sceptical friends reverse engineer the argument by saying well if the hotspot is not there then it indicates that the humidity must not have risen which is I grant quite clever, but is actually just a straw-man argument. Humidity levels can be directly measured much more accurately than this clumsy method could ever hope to achieve.

Last but not least when the IPCC listed the fingerprints of GHGs in AR4 they were actually referring to the fact that at a much higher level in the atmosphere substantial cooling ( around 2 to 6 deg C) had occurred and this is good confirmation we understand how increased levels of GHGs affects the atmosphere.

Thanks for coming warmy and having a shot. Some more papers about Antarctic ice from the land, the WAP and sea-ice:

ftp://ftp.nerc-bas.ac.uk/pub/photo/PR-2012-09-Mulvaney/documents/nature11391_proof1.pdf

http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/7/635.abstract

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5554/476.abstract

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2007GL032529/abstract

Could you also comment on this graph of sea temps around the PIG:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/pine_island_glacier_sea_temp.jpg

And this graph of sea ice anomalies:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

GRACE is a great concept but is plagued by IGA, Isostatic Glacial Adjustment. To the layman, IGA can be simply explained as when the ice increases it compacts so a radar beam from a satellite will read as though the ice is DECREASING when it is actually INCREASING.

GRACE has thrown up some other curly ones such as given high temperature readings when in fact the radar was calibrated to fall within the ice which was warmer than the air!

Anyway looking at the above papers using GRACE we have 3 measurement techniques; synthetic aperture radar, PALSAR, and GPS, all radar based systems; 2 of the 3 systems show markedly less ice loss from the Antarctic hot-spot, PIG, and the WAP generally, and one shows more; all this in a historical context of less ice loss today than in the recent geologic past.

Your argument about the 'absence' of a THS is very strange. If I read you right you are blaming imprecise measurements at that height. That maybe so but it is not me relying on those measurements but AGW, which theory predicts a THS.

Additionally you are saying the cooling in the Stratosphere is more reliable evidence for AGW when the Stratosphere is HIGHER than a THS!

Anyway the Stratosphere is NOT cooling:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tls/plots/rss_ts_channel_tls_global_land_and_sea_v03_3.png

Since the Pinatubo eruption the Stratosphere has actually warmed!

It appears that Cohenite's life depends on AGW being proved to be a hoax or a complete mistake. Most normal people would adopt a wait and see position but not him or her.

I wonder why it's so important to him or her? Does he or she have shares in fossil fuels? Does he own a garage with multiple petrol bowsers? Is he a rev-head? Perhaps he's a man who can't live with uncertainty? Perhaps he can't live in dark surroundings and needs a light on all the time? Perhaps his ego thrives on dominating others, on ridiculing them? Perhaps he wanted to be important and never was?

I think Cohenite needs help to tone down his obvious stress, his extreme frustration with those who have an open mind or even dare to think that global warming could be a reality.

Be gentle with him please. People with black and white personalities are always on the edge and are easily damaged.

I thought the arrangement was you wouldn't talk to me David G and I wouldn't reply to your condescending, sneering tripe.

Or was that some other fool?

You can always tell the gravy train riders.

No scientific argument, just bland statements of claims already refuted, reference to authority, & attempted put down of those who show them up.

We could actually feel sorry for them, if they weren't so nasty. It must be hard to realise you bought a fraud, & built your future on quicksand. But hay fellers, we didn't make you do it, we just saw through the fraud, a hell of a lot earlier than you.

David

I hope you are not suggesting Global Warming Terrorists are open minded?

No, Imajulianutter, not open-minded. More feeble-minded!

g david that is a radical departure from your usual position. I'm surprised but good on you. you are truly open-minded.
what changed your mind about warming terrorists?

Quote Cohenite
"GRACE is a great concept but is plagued by IGA, Isostatic Glacial Adjustment. To the layman, IGA can be simply explained as when the ice increases it compacts so a radar beam from a satellite will read as though the ice is DECREASING when it is actually INCREASING."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_Recovery_and_Climate_Experiment

Grace satellites work by calculating gravitational pull from small differences in distance between each other their speed and height.. Grace is not affected by Isostatic Glacial Adjustment as the measurements directly translate to mass so it does not matter if the ice and snow is compacted or not. The height and speed of the satellites is measured by GPS to pin accuracy in fact less than the width of a human hair, not radar as you appear to think. By the way IGA is the rebound of the earth surface due to removal of the heavy weight of ice not whatever you seemed to think.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot-intermediate.htm

The point of about THS is the level of accuracy required. The measurements have to be some 50 times more accurate than those required to establish stratosphere cooling. To look at it another way even if the temperature measurement was dead accurate, it would be necessary to also measure the height to within +or - 25 feet to provide evidence of the hot spot, but on the other hand to establish cooling of the stratosphere height data with an error of +or - 500 feet would is good enough. This becomes a huge problem for THS when dealing with historical data. There are of course other indirect methods of trying establish the hotspot which hint at its existence.

"Grace is not affected by Isostatic Glacial Adjustment as the measurements directly translate to mass so it does not matter if the ice and snow is compacted or not."

Ok, tell that to the scientists at Real Climate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/weighing-change-in-antarctica/

They say:

"Subtracting the GIA signal from GRACE data would not be a problem if we knew exactly the history of the evolution of the ice sheets and the rheology and spatially varying structure of the solid Earth. However, we don’t. The greatest impediment is the uncertainty in reconstructing the post-LGM Antarctic ice sheet. Unlike the formerly-glaciated parts of the Northern Hemisphere, 98% of Antarctic bedrock remains covered by ice and the ice sheet periphery is covered by extensive ice shelves; together these introduce substantial uncertainty in reconstructions. Indeed, previous estimates of the extra volume of Antarctic ice at LGM, compared to present-day, ranging from 3 to >30m of equivalent sea level (Bentley, 2010)."

IGA/GIA is definitely a problem for satellite radar/gravitational modelling. The compression confounds the satellite measurement no matter how you describe it.

As for the THS and measurement difficulty, the relevant level is the characteristic emission layer, CEL, at which level the optical depth is zero; see:

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.0581.pdf

The varying levels are well known and the problems described at the SKS article are rather disingenuous.

The point remains a THS was predicted by AGW and it is not there.

You know these comments by the denialistas would make a wonderful script for a Goon show.
maybe they should put them all together as a comedy routine and sell it to one of the shock jocks to spout.

Robert Le Page - Thanks what about a Government tax on the AGW scamm as in they pay us not we pay them. A tax on every article on AGW and a tax surcharge on their wages. Al Gore the multi millionaire with mansions and a carbon footprint bigger than an Indian village, bah.
All the failed labour politicians are heading into the not for profit sector. This actually means the executives pay no tax and get massive tax free expenses sector.

I can only assume Robert, you are talking about those who deny the scam is dead.

Haven't you noticed the tsunami wave of awakening sweeping Europe. Even Germany is cutting fool subsidies for Mickey Mouse power technologies, & building coal fired power plants, just as fast as their little legs can go.

It really is a pity that this wave of sanity only developed to the east of the UK. It appears as if the ratbags have a year or two left there, but then, what was that thing about mad dogs, & Englishmen?

Thank god my family left generations ago, giving time for us to become sane.

When did you say you arrived?

*Apart from the fact that renewables don't work. If a mug like me can spot the gaping holes in AGW science what hope does it have.*
Perhaps someone who can actually see the wood for the trees?
It does look as if renewables are no good. These 2 million households obviously do not understand that reducing your power bill to zero or having a credit is a fools game and it does not produce any of that lovely CO2 that is so good for the environment.
*Giles Parkinson, REneweconomy 13.01.14
Clean Energy Regulator says Australia now has 2 million small scale renewable energy systems – enough to power Perth, Hobart, Darwin and Canberra.*
Australia has now installed more than 2 million small scale renewable energy systems – reaching the target just eight months after the country achieved its first one million rooftop solar systems.

Yes and electricity prices for the unfortunate trapped in renting has skyrocked.
Ford and Holden have departed snd budinesses are closing because of electricity prices and the carbon yax.

Sad but hey the effects are Australia is not reducing CO2 emissions one iota.

What a goose. Are you in favout of hurting our poorest for no gain. That is arrogrant selfish stupidity from someone on taxpayer handouts.