Quote IPCC
'• In addition to robust multi-decadal warming, global mean surface temperature exhibits substantial decadal and interannual variability (see Figure SPM.1). Due to natural variability, trends based on short records are very sensitive to the beginning and end dates and do not in general reflect long-term climate trends. As one example, the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade), which begins with a strong El Niño, is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade)5. {2.4}'
P3

From Nutter we have this:-

"What global mean surface temps have fallen? surely not? Well even the IPCC agree logic and maths say so."

How on earth could you possibly make such a statement ?
Everybody and his uncle in Australia, knows that 1998 was an extreme El Niño year. Now we know that El Niño years are some 0.2C or more warmer than average. The long term rate of warming according to the IPCC is 0.14C per decade as above, so over 14 years that means we should expect the surface temperature to have increased by 0.21 deg C on average, but by starting with a year which is already some 0.2C deg above average you have managed to totally distort the true situation, to artificially create the impression, that there is no warming in reality the figures are telling us that warming is continuing almost exactly as expected. I can't decide whether you genuinely don't understand this, or you are just propagating spin for purely political reasons.
The bottom line is that 2012 is estimated to be 0.05C degrees warmer than 1998 if you choose to use extreme values you are simply being extremely biased.

You are welcome to hold any opinion you fancy on climate change, but don't insult the Bom who provide a very valuable service to Australia and know far more about climate than you do. If you don't like the message then instead of shooting the messenger, you might like to consider doing something about the problem.

Well said Warmair. Look! all you doubters in this thread, the point of my article was not to discuss whether climate change exists or is anthropogenic. These facts are clear enough to see if you want to see them. If you want to take another oppinion that is your choice, we are after all (supposedly) living in a democracy. The point of the article is that nobody is discussing climate change either way. It appears to have dropped off the radar.

Countries like China, as an example, are continuing to industrialise and will not have that industrialisation process anywhere near what they require until 2020. They understand that their collective footprint will be considerable, with regard to the climate and have already started renewables programs that far out way what other countries are doing. In the UK and Europe generally, in countries that are already entrenched in industrial processes that create huge profits and employment, large sums have been invested in renewable energy projects. They all have carbon tax of one sort or another. These countries did the research, learned the facts and have been busily working out not how to avoid the subject, as though it is a killjoy at the party. They have done what clever business people do, worked out how to profit from mitigation. They all know the alternative is not an option and that to delay will cost more in the long run.

I say once again to those climate sceptics in this thread, stick to the discussion or find another article to attack that is about whether climate change exists or not.

Steel, you obviously can't read. The link is to specific papers beginning with Lindzen and Choi's paper which shows more radiation leaving the Earth than predicted by AGW; this means that the AGW prediction that the "missing heat" is not at the bottom of the ocean but, like Elvis, has left the building.

In other ways all the other papers at the link contradict a basic aspect of AGW. If you can't be bothered reading the papers, or can't understand them don't peddle snark to compensate.

Warmair, I'm still waiting for your response to the problem of IGA with GRACE which I raised on another thread. No matter, your latest quote from the IPCC shows that even they are now realising that natural variation can affect trend, something which was denied previously. One of the measures of natural variation is the PDO which clearly can explain the temperature trends during the recent period from 1900 onwards:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/clip_image0082.jpg

In fact compared to the effect of PDO and natural variation factors on temperature the effect of CO2 is minor. 2 recent papers have found this effect from CO2 to be less than 0.2C; see:

H.-J. Lüdecke, A. Hempelmann, and C.O. Weiss: Multi-periodic climate dynamics: spectral analysis of long-term instrumental and proxy temperature records, clim. past, 9, 447-452, 2013

F. Steinhilber and J. Beer, Prediction of solar activity for the next 500 years, Jour. Geophys. Res. Space Phys., Vol. 118, 1861-1867 (2013)

David the reason why there is less discussion about AGW is because unlike naïve people like you the real 'brains' behind AGW in the media and academia and especially the bureaucracy are shutting up because they know their theory is dead and the new government won't tolerate any more lies.

Except from the ABC, the Conversation, the climate council, the BOM, the greens etc. In fact you can see there is still a lot of TALK about AGW, it's just rubbish, like your article.

cohenite, did you actually read my article or is your piffle an automatic response to anything that mentions climate change. If you can't think of anything sensible to say... Say nothing. I'm sure other readers would appreciate that. Besides, you are wasting computer time and the Libs might want their machine back soon.

Brian,

yes it is best that you are out of here. You have revealed too much of yourself.
You obviously cannot reconcile your attitudes.

SteeleRedux
exhibiting your usual inaccuracy producing methodologies ... and vitriol as your faith positions are crushed by argument and reason.

Warmair

if average surface temps were rising as fast in a later period as an earlier period the overall average would be increasing. It is not it is falling.

Climate warmists are terrorists and the BOM is overrun by them.

My predictions re cyclones and storms have been more accurate than the BOMS forecasts... over the past few years... and the contrast this year is astonishing. I predicted no cyclones to the BOM 12. We have had one. There are only 8 weeks to go this season and the monsoon is already starting to recede. How can the experts have been so wrong when they 'know far more about climate than' me.

David
'the point of my article was not to discuss whether climate change exists or is anthropogenic. These facts are clear enough...'

We dispute your premise that the facts are clear. It is not clear warming is occurring. Why shouldn't we dispute the claims of you warming terrorists?

The very simple reason people have stopped talking about it because fewer and fewer believe in it anymore.

David writes and article about people not talking about climate change, and when BOTH sides start talking about climate change, says

" say once again to those climate sceptics in this thread, stick to the discussion or find another article to attack that is about whether climate change exists or not."

Strange!