Many can pray for rain as long as they like but that will not bring the rain to Southern California.
Yes, something positive should have been done long ago but it wasn`t.
We just kept on breeding.
Business as usual.
Perhaps doing something now may mitigate the affects of climate change but we won`t stop it.

Lyn Bender has excelled herself! Not only the hysteria but now lie after lie. I could not begin to point them out.
Your little "Non violent" mates will now start to attack?
Its OK Lyn see these people have made an absolute fortune out of this fraud and there is no chance they will let their mansions be seized for damages so it is all just froth and bubble.
Hysterical lies and I really do question your sanity never mind your racism and ageism. Yes Lyn another old white man has the temerity to talk. I told you in a previous piece of nonsense you wrote. Your discriminatory attitude will be put up for all to see every time you write.

Ateday remember Flannery and his "it will never rain again in Brisbane" before devastating floods?
At least he is now confining his prediction to what ever happens saying Climate change! Hot, cold, wet and dry - "Its global warming sorry climate change.
I just hope ateday you have not bred, will not breed and do not live in Brisbane?

At 3 pages, this is just too long to read about the same old same old from another alarmist who doesn't know the difference between accepting that there might be some climate change at the moment (just like there has been since Adam & Eve) and accepting the fact that it is nothing to do with people, nor will ripping and gouging money off ordinary consumers make one jot of difference to any change that occurs.

Definition of a conservative: someone to whom nothing is obvious until -long- after it's happened.
“Conservative leader” is an oxymoron, since conservatives don't actually go anywhere -except maybe backwards. Our noble leader appears to feel he can make problems go away simply by ensuring they're not reported in the media.
The balance between progressives and conservatives has worked reasonably well in the past; we need the progressives to have brief spells in power to make the necessary changes -and we need the conservatives to provide stability in the between times.
What we don't need is for the conservatives to be in power when major changes are required.
It isn't the conservatives who have let us down; they're just doing what they've always done.
It's the incompetence and ego driven rivalry of the progressives that has failed us.
Abbott looks like being our Chamberlain. I wonder if Turnbull is up to being our Churchill?

This is a repugnant article. The author advocates "civil disobedience"; and seeks to wash her hands of any consequences for such advocacy by saying "(non-violent) resistance on multiple fronts".

This is garbage the left and the Greens have shown time and time again that they are capable of violence and destruction.

What is with the psychologists? Lewandowsky is a psychologist and has written papers that are based on lies and deceit. Now we have this psychologist advocating [non]violent protests based a string of alleged 'facts' none of which are true.

For instance the author says:

"The IPCC (U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) predicted in report after report that weather patterns would intensify and extreme weather events would become increasingly common. Now with the release of its 5th report its message is becoming more shrill and unequivocal, but who is really listening?" This is a complete misrepresentation, in short a lie. In fact what AR5 said was there was NO connection between AGW and extreme weather:

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

Chapter 4 of the Report 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”

Nature Journal the most prestigious AGW journal says there is not sufficient evidence for claims that extreme weather is caused by AGW:

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

New research shows that if AGW is real it would cause LESS extreme weather:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004976?np=y

Even the MET agrees that AGW cannot be said to cause extreme weather:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25675937

What we have as shown by this author is disciples of AGW still believing in AGW and becoming more hysterical as the official evidentiary sources they relied on start to contradict their beliefs.

This is not just delusional it is fanatical.

Cohenite, you show signs of being quite fanatical yourself.

The Met Office also said (from your link):

"the chances of extreme weather occurring may have altered because of climate change. So it would be consistent with the picture we have seen of increasing rainfall in the UK over the past few decades."

You can continue to cherry pick the science to suit your world view all you like but just because you can, does not make it right.

Get a life.

So much vitriol. Like gangs of kids in the playground, each side is trying to shout longer and louder than the other. What a bonanza this global warming debate is to on-line baiting.
Meanwhile there are kyacks in the Northwest Passage, California is drying and southern Oz cooked this past summer.
Anyone checked on Greenland lately?

Lyn is writing her first novel! She should do well, if this work of fiction is any indication, she has a vivid imagination.

I can't understand why the lady continues to make a fool of herself with these pieces, rehashing all the failed arguments of the global warming fraud. Could it be this rubbish is her application for
preselection as a Greens candidate in an upcoming election.

She doesn't even seem to understand her own discipline. If she did, she would know that all this fluff, so much of it already totally discredited, is only likely to drive any thinking person away from her belief. When so much she writes is utter tripe, how could it not?

'Experts and activists such as James Hansen, Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein are now saying there will need to be mass civil disobedience to bring about massive divestment and to keep coal in the ground. '

Yep the left love to build a case for violence and disobedience. Keep feeding those rebellious natures Lyn. Self righteous indignation while flying the planet telling others not to heat their houses in winter or cool them in summer is a favourite pass time of the High Priests. By all means feel guilty about our self indulgenece but stop inventing a new faith to disguise it.

The connection between population and emissions although clear are not in any way useful in solving the problem.

Over the last 25 years emissions have roughly increased in line with population. The population is not due to level out until around 2050, unless humans are decimated by an epidemic or a large scale war. So while a massive reduction in population would ease the problem, the only ways of achieving it in any useful time frame is either not practical or devastating.

The reasons it is so hard to get people to come to terms with the problem are I believe.

1 The know reserves of fossil fuels are worth something of the order of 100 trillion dollars and the economic imperative is to exploit this resource.

2 Humans have a number of advantages over all other creatures and the use fire is either at or near the top of the list.

3 The access to abundant cheap energy opens up huge possibilities.

The problem which is now clear is that the downside of burning vast quantities of fossil fuels is the dramatic alteration to the earth's climate. In theory we know all we need to know to avoid the worst aspects of climate change, we just need to acknowledge the problem and get on with it.

The article makes the same old mistake that climate change does not end on the 1st Jan 2100, even if emissions were to magically stop on that date. Temperatures will continue to rise for decades and probably centuries from the time we actually manage to stabilize levels of GHGs in the atmosphere.

Greenland, nothing unusual:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/2012/00000058/00000212/art00015

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/11/12/1315843110.abstract

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/greenland/vintheretal2006.pdf

Whatever melting is occurring in Greenland may be due to interior thermal effects:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n9/full/ngeo1898.html

Ozdoc; thanks for reading the link; yes the MET spokesperson hedged his bets and wouldn't definitely commit to the notion that AGW would lead to a decrease in extreme weather but who can blame government employees when they have to deal with the ratbags who believe in AGW. But what about professor Muller:

http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/expert-claims-climate-change-is-making-tornadoes-weaker/story-fnii5s3x-1226766820533

Have you not read the Nature and IPCC links which are rather more unequivocal about the lack of a connection between AGW and extreme weather? No, I thought not. And of course you won't read the definitive Reanalysis project:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.776/pdf

Which shows no trends in the planet's major climate indices such as North Atlantic Oscillation, the tropical Pacific Walker Circulation,
and the Pacific–North American pattern, which means no climatic basis to claims of increased extreme weather.

What a pack of weirdos alarmists are; even when their own evidentiary sources contradict them they still believe and when those same official evidentiary sources dare imply AGW is GOOD more disbelief.

What are the psychological terms for these attributes, delusion, projection, cognitive dissonance?

Cohenite
If you are prepared to accept the information given in the IPCC report AR5, on the subject of extreme weather events, then I expect you to also take seriously their other conclusions such as:

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased."

http://www.climate2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

I strongly recomend people look at the above link before they acept the rash claims of those who deny there is a problem.
To those who can't handle more than one page just read the bits highlighted in brown.

Anyway Cohenite you are distorting what the IPCC is saying from the above link we also have this.
"Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been observed since about 1950 (see Table SPM.1 for
details)."

Table SPM1 here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ipcc_ar5_spm_table1.png

True warmie, it's a mixed bag with "low confidences" for cyclones and droughts and "very likelys" for hotter days and nights and therefore decreased DTR.

All you can do is then go out and look at the data.

1 NO warming for 17 years; that is indisputable, according to RSS, the most reliable temperature indice. Are you going to dispute that warmie?

2 DTR is NOT decreasing; globally:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ipcc_ar5_spm_table1.png

Or in Australia:

http://kenskingdom.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/max-v-min-linear.jpg

This is despite a firm BOM prediction [as well as the prediction from SPM1] that DTR would decrease:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/JCLI-3265.1

Karoly and Braganza's paper states the AGW position that DTR will decrease because the AGW effect is more pronounced at night and therefore night/minimum temperatures will increase more than max/day ones.

The fact that DTR is not decreasing is a major contradiction of AGW.

3 2013 was Australia's hottest year; according to BOM it was but not to all the other temperature indices:

http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=2613

So warmie, like everything I look at what is presented and then I do my own checking. Maybe you should start doing that too and stop being so gullible

warmair it is not good talking to cohenite.

He never makes reference to pear reviewed papers just cherry picks, his writings are becoming a joke and not worth wasting time in reading.

Also would I trust a lawyer to provide me information on any subject - no way, they are paid by the client to support their case, even if they do not believe in it.

A recent report titled Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/08/why-climate-deniers-have-no-scientific-credibility-only-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

That follows up the previous report that out of 13,950 peer reviewed climate articles only 24 papers are by deniers, and most of those antiscience articles were criticized and not supported or even cited by other scientists.

There is increasing evidence that the world is warming and everyday there is another paper with more information that links humans to the climate change that is occurring.

So deniers stop cherry picking, writing myths and provide scientific evidence that humans are not causing climate change, so far you have dismally failed, and also stop making reference to the laughable antiscience blog sites such as WeUseWishfullThinking, there is no science their that stands up to scrutiny.

Lyn Bender reveals poor knowledge about the matters she discusses.

Today in Forbes.com, the following op/ed article presents a better argument against the kinds of sensationalist garbage written by the likes of Bender and others on the matter of climate change.

I commend all to read it -

Forbes
by Patrick Michaels, Contributor
Will the overselling of global warming lead to a new scientific dark age?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/02/03/will-the-overselling-of-global-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/

For those who can't check it out, here are a few copied paragraphs -

"Paltridge was a Chief Research Scientist with the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). The latter is Australia’s equivalent of the National Science Foundation, our massive Federal Laboratory network, and all the governmental agency science branches rolled into one.
"Paltridge lays out the well-known uncertainties in climate forecasting. These include our inability to properly simulate clouds that are anything like what we see in the real world, the embarrassing lack of average surface warming now in its 17th year, and the fumbling (and contradictory) attempts to explain it away.
"Climate scientists have been profoundly defensive about the known problems. Paltridge elegantly explains that this has to be the case, and describes the likely horrific consequences when the day of reckoning finally arrives.
"That day is coming closer, because, as Paltridge notes, people are catching on: 'the average man in the street, a sensible chap who by now can smell the signs of an oversold environmental campaign from miles away, is beginning to suspect that it is politics rather than science which is driving the issue.'"

And here's a few lines from Patrick Michaels bio -

"My writing has been published in major scientific journals, including Climate Research, Climatic Change, Geophysical Research Letters, Journal of Climate, Nature and Science, as well as publications like the Washington Post, Washington Times, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Houston Chronicle and Journal of Commerce. I have a Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison."

All the above is from climate scientists whose comments are not irrational hysteria and flibberty-gib.

Cheers all.

About Greenland, and they do say a picture is worth a thousand words.
Google images on Greenland melt is interesting.
For those who can read, some of the accompanying data is interesting as well.
As to what it means in the bigger picture, and I'm reminded of the weather man who ponderously intoned that it would either rain, or it wouldn't.

PeterA, what junk. Normally I don't respond to trolls but in your case I will oblige. I always refer to primary documents or data; the fact that such documents or data is at a site like my good friend's Anthony Watts, is beside the point.

The links in my last comment are to data and in the case of the Karoly and Braganza paper, a paper!

You're obviously very concerned that your pet project and belief, AGW, is rotting like the smelly dead fish it is but could you at least get your facts right?

Oh sorry, I'm talking to an alarmist; no facts required to be an alarmist.

And to top it off you link to Desmog, the alarmists' blog of choice and another phony consensus 'paper'. Geez, how gullible are you?

Agree with about lawyers though. Have to watch them there lawyers.

halduell, wow man, that's deep, I give you 4 papers, which is odd since oddballs like PeterA say I never give real evidence, but then he's a troll, and you reply by saying, well I'm not sure what you're saying; but I'm sure it's profound, whatever it is.

Maybe the author of this tripe, sorry, article, can do a psycho-analysis of PeterA and halduell?

Coenhite if you want anyone to take you seriously and regard you as something other than a troll you might try writing a post with no insults and silly language in it.

Cohenite, not only are you showing signs of fanaticism, you are being quite shrill about it too.

Do yourself/everyone a favour; take a Bex, lie down, whatever - just don't burst a blood vessel in your brain.

OLO published articles on climate change quite regularly. Equally regularly the usual suspects indulge in name calling, drag up irrelevancies, and generally froth at the mouth. Why is it one wonders they feel so threatened by what is, in world terms, a generally unremarkable view.

After all, of scientists who have actually expressed an opinion about the human role in climate change, 97% say that the currently observed nature of climate change is in fact human induced. Cohenite would probably say they are all part of a worldwide conspiracy, but I think we can safely ignore his/her views on this as on much else.

Between November 2012 and December 2013 there were 9137 articles on climate change in peer reviewed journals. Of these, only 1 (yes, one) rejected the human causation factor. Of course one could always say (and Cohenite et al do) that all the editors of all the scientific journals are part of the same world wide conspiracy.

I am not a scientist, so I am inclined to accept this overwhelming weight of opinion in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Just as I accept what the cosmologists say about our infinite universe; or the doctors about the links between smoking and a variety of diseases.

Or one can look at it from a insurance perspective. Are we so confident that we can ignore what the weight of scientific opinion tells us and risk potentially devastating consequences for our small and fragile planet? I prefer to not take that risk, for the sake of my children and grandchildren and those who may follow them.

James

Listen I believe you. There are thousands of articles written supporting the claim warming is caused by human activity.

Can you cite one among all those that has actually proved the link ... with data not modelling.

Thanks

DTR durinal temperature range increasing.
Increasing polar ice caps in summer. See nasa and chris turney.
Stable or falling surface temps for the the past 17 years.

Climate change: yes. Global cooling probably.

There are yachts iced in in the NW Passage. They have been there since last northern summer. The only kayaks in the Passage would be ones sitting on top of the ice.

Cohenite. Do admire your calm persistence in presenting 'hard' evidence disputing and questioning the theory. Have you tried to argue from the point of view of the number of fairies dancing on the head of a pin? Lyn would relate to this line of argument far more readily than mere recorded evidence.

Imajulianutter. Succinct and hitting the nail on the head. I too am awaiting a post that provides the precisely methodology used in distinguishing between 'human' induced climate change and 'natural' variation. I'm afraid that the 'CO2' knob doesn't seem to work, increasing CO2 and the temperature hiatus?.

Lyn, I think you covered all bases in this one, however I did not see the one about 'big oil', big coal' and 'big tobacco' (Cohenite, how about cutting me in on a bit of that action will you, you gotta be rolling in it by now). Lyn, Lift your game there lass.

Climate change or not. What does it matter if we can't do a damn thing about it ?
Those of you who keep bleating this subject are the least to curb your excesses.
You're just wasting good OLO time & space.

Supporters of the AGW fraud are either ignorant or dishonest. In the case of the nonsense about 2013 being Australia’s hottest year our author may have simply believed a fraud backing liar.

The” hottest year” yet in Australia was asserted to be 2013, by David Jones of the Bureau of Meteorology. The temperature upon which he relied was taken at Moomba, South Australia, where the temperature record commenced in 1995.
The temperature record kept at Bathurst since 1858 showed that 1939 was a hotter year than 2013.

Jones has previously shown his support for the AGW fraud, so this effort is no surprise.
It is reminiscent of Hansen, the highly qualified activist, and his dishonest support of AGW.

In his desperation to show global warming, he tampered with the temperature record for a number of years, using his position at NASA, before being forced to succumb to the truth, that 1934 was America’s hottest year, and hence the supporters of the AGW fraud are not supported by any facts, but by computer modelling now shown to bear no relation to reality.

The Maldives have not been inundated, there have only been predictions by fraud backers that they will be. Such predictions never become reality, just as lies by the crooked railway engineer who runs the IPCC never become true.

There is no science to support the AGW assertion, which is why fraud backers rely on the ludicrous statement of the IPCC that it is "94% Certain"

The melted Arctic ice always comes back, and the Antarctic ice did not melt, as has just been demonstrated by the fraud backers from University of NSW, who were stuck in the Antarctic ice which they asserted had been melted by AGW.

We are fortunate to have an educated PM who knows that AGW is crap, and are rid of the clown who signed the flawed Kyoto protocol.
Australia is well placed to deal with climate change.

Nutter
Well actually it easy to prove that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gases increase the surface temperature.

The fact are we can measure the temperature of any object by analyzing the light or radiation it emits. Everybody is aware that a hot object glows red and the hotter it gets the whiter it glows. Now we can measure the temperature of the earth near the surface either by measuring the radiation emitted there or directly with a thermometer. The result is close enough to 15 deg C but if we measure the Earth's temperature from space by radiation the result is -18 deg c. now this means something in the atmosphere is trapping enough heat in the atmosphere to raise surface temperatures by 33 deg C. We know that oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb radiation from the surface so that leaves us with water vapour co2 and methane as the main culprits.

'There are thousands of articles written supporting the claim warming is caused by human activity.

Can you cite one among all those that has actually proved the link ... '

Warmair

You answered a different question and one I did not ask.

The question you answered was: Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and how does it increase temperatures?

Try again. Just prove the link between human activity and warming.
Quite simple really.

Sufficient will be, just one peer-reviewed paper from among all those thousands supporting the opinion 'that the currently observed nature of climate change is in fact human induced.' I don't want to see another opinion. I just want to see proof of the link.

@James O'Neill -- James, if you want your contributions to the climate change debate taken seriously, your first step is to get on to Google, find out where the '97%' figure you quote came from, and understand why anyone citing that in a discussion merely exposes their complete ignorance of the real issues. Do that for a few more of the 'facts' that you have absorbed from the alarmist establishment, and you will be in a position to make up your own mind on the topic. Till then, you are simply acting as a mouthpiece for propagandists.

Crikey. Candide says no silly language or insults; sure, I present the facts and I get insulted but when I have some fun that's bad; holy double standards. Anyway thanks for the advice; ditto to Ozzy.

Warmie gives a little lecture on the Photoluminescence of CO2. However warmie ignores saturation and log effect of CO2 which means any capacity of CO2 to 'warm' has largely been exhausted.

Warmie also ignores 2 other properties of CO2; firstly at Earth temperatures the radiation leaving the surface is not absorbed by CO2 but by water; a simple Modtran analysis shows that when water is present CO2 does not absorb ANY radiation leaving the surface; CO2 only absorbs when there is no water:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Caryl_11.png

As the graph shows CO2 only absorbs radiation when humidity is less than 1%.

The second point is that measures of radiation leaving the Earth, OLR, should be decreasing if the extra CO2 was causing AGW. That is not the case; NOAA satellite measurements for 30 years show OLR is increasing!

I can't believe anyone is still regurgitating the 97% consensus figure but here's James O'Neill doing just that. The 97% comes from the Cook paper which is arguably the worst paper ever. Cook selected 11944 Abstracts from papers on climate and discarded 8048 papers or 67.4% because they had no position about AGW. Of the remaining 4014 papers or 32.6% of papers, 3973 or 99% of the remaining abstracts fell into categories 2 and 3. Only 41 or 1% expressed support for Cook's definition of the consensus that:

"Humans are causing global warming."

That’s 1% not 97%.

I can't believe the obdurate gullibility of AGW believers.

Nutter
Quote
¨Just prove the link between human activity and warming.¨
And
¨Sufficient will be, just one peer-reviewed paper¨

here is one:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/09/10/1305332110.abstract

You could also try googling

human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere

Warmie gives a little lecture on the Photoluminescence of CO2. However warmie ignores saturation and log effect of CO2 which means any capacity of CO2 to 'warm' has largely been exhausted.

Actually warmie is well aware of the of the log effect of CO2 as are the scientists. Saturation is in fact not as simple as you would like to make out. As the concentration of CO2 increases so does its ability to absorb new wave lengths.

¨Warmie also ignores 2 other properties of CO2; firstly at Earth temperatures the radiation leaving the surface is not absorbed by CO2 but by water; a simple Modtran analysis shows that when water is present CO2 does not absorb ANY radiation leaving the surface; CO2 only absorbs when there is no water:¨

Another typical example of trying to mislead people. While it is true there is some overlap in the specific wave lengths absorbed by water vapour and CO2 it is by no means all. More importantly as altitude increases the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere dramatically falls (something to do with it falling out of the sky). Co2 on the other hand remains well mixed in the atmosphere and becomes significant at height. At height CO2 concentrations still remain around 400 ppm, whereas water vapour has dropped below 5 ppm.

Oh Dear, Oh Dear !
Still arguing about the wrong problem !

warmie goes to the big guns, a paper by Santer et al which defines the AGW signal as Tropospheric warming and Stratospheric cooling; neither is happening;

Troposphere, RSS lower troposphere measurement since 1997:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

Stratosphere; the Stratosphere is interesting; this graph from RSS shows why:

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

The high peaks represent the dramatic temperature effect of volcanic eruptions which throw debris into the atmosphere; these warm the Stratosphere by absorbing solar radiation. The most recent eruption was Mt Pinatubo in 1991. The heating effect usually lasts about a year and when the debris settle normal Stratospheric temperature resumes. As the graph shows after the sudden decline in temperature after Pinatubo there has been no cooling and indeed a slight warming since about 1995.

Warmair you do have a great sense of humour. The first sentence of the paper you claim links human activity to warming contains the words 'modelling predicts'. Of course modelling is a human activity and it does predict warming. Lol.

But this paper is mostly based on assumptions and not actual events. Assumption based evidence proves nothing. Try again... seriously.

Warmair. "current climate models are highly unlikely to produce this distinctive signal pattern by internal variability alone"

Just answer Imajuliarnutters' challenge without reference to the 'models' . We all know the reliability of 'the models', how about data?

James O’Neill. On the nonsense of 97% of climate scientists. This misinformation came out of another attempt to mislead by fraud backer John Cook. In ignorance of its mendacity, you mentioned it in your post.Here is a sensible comment on it :
“Either through idiocy, ignorance, or both, global warming alarmists and the liberal media have been reporting that the Cook study shows a 97 percent consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. However, that was clearly not the question surveyed.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

There is general agreement that human activity contributes to climate change. What the fraud backers cannot face up to is that the effect is insignificant. The effect is so trivial that it has no scientific significance, and is not measurable. It is like the pollution which occurs when the waterfront dwlling ex-inister for Lies about Sea Levels urinates in the ocean adjoining his home. He pollutes the water, but the effect is not significant or measurable.That is why there is no scientific evidence of any human effect on climate.
All we request is that Lyn and the other fraud backers wasting space here, admit the truth.

Slence really is golden.

@Leo Lane and others.

One reason I am reluctant to engage in debate in this forum is that the responses one receives are all too frequently offensive and attack the person rather than addressing the arguments. I also have a policy of avoiding debate with people who hide behind a nom de plume.

I am aware of the Taylor article that you cite. What you fail to point out is that Mr Taylor is the M.D. of the Heartland Institute, a right wing think tank in the US which the Huffington Post described as having "a penchant for misrepresenting science".

In the comments section of Taylor's column there is a response from a Russell Seitz who points out the systematic fallacies in Taylor's article.

As I said in my original post I am not a scientist. I try to read the science as intelligently as I can. Notwithstanding the criticisms of the Cook et al article (the source of the 97% claim) the fact is that the overwhelming majority of articles in the peer reviewed literature acknowledge a human contribution to climate change. There is of course scope for reasoned debate about the extent of that influence.

But even if one takes the view that humans make little or no contribution to climate change the fact of the matter is that the climate is changing, as it has done for the 4 billion plus years this planet has existed. Some of that change is beneficial; eg the case of Greenland. In other cases it is not. The policy challenge surely is to identify the nature of the change and where possible to adopt policies to ameliorate any ill-effects.

To engage in vituperative name calling is surely the modern equivalent of fiddling while Rome burns. The planet deserves better than that.

James are you now suggesting you might not think warming is occurring but whether it is warming or cooling doesn't really matter, yet you acknowledge you don't really know to what extent humans are influencing that change but that we should develop and introduce policies that will control those changes.

I think it was better that you kept silent.

James my alternative is that as individuals we should prepare to face the coming cooling and just deal with it.

Proposing spending huge amounts of taxpayers money to try to stop the cooling or even mitigating the effects would be just plain dumb.

Don't you agree?

Can you please point out where I have attacked you or anybody personally on this thread? I have issued challenges and debated reasonably. For you to suggest otherwise is either gross misjudgement or deceitfully offensive.

Seriously James, you think human emissions of CO2 are going to damage the Earth or more particularly the biosphere?

Relativity is instructive; so even if you accept the so-called AGW science and the forcing, that is energy input into the climate system by anthropogenic CO2 [ACO2] it is dwarfed by natural sources of CO2 and more particularly the energy expended by the phase changes of water.

The relevant references for this are page 263 here:

http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EE_21-4_paradigm_shift_output_limited_3_Mb.pdf

Equation 3 is the relevant one which says:

dU = CvdT + Ldq + gdh – PdV

This is a rewriting of the First Law of Thermodynamics which both allows for a determination of the relative energy input of the phase changes of water and therein a comparison of the forcing or energy input of a doubling of CO2 as predicted and calculated by AGW theory.

The forcing from 2XACO2 is 3.7 W/m2 over the next 100 years or however long it takes for ACO2 to cause a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Compared with this the phase changes from water generate energy fluxes from Ldq and PdV that well exceeds 1000 W/m2 each and every day!

A second paper is by Makarieva which is discussed at point 8 here:

http://theclimatescepticsparty.blogspot.com.au/2013/06/man-made-global-warming-wrong-ten.html

The role of water has been overlooked in AGW science and I am fascinated that even a basic Modtran analysis clearly shows that back-radiation is dominated by humidity and that any back-radiation from CO2 only occurs when humidity is less than 1%, which happens very rarely on earth:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Caryl_11.png

That should be fatal to AGW but no one seems to notice!

And don't be so sensitive James, after all prince Charles isn't calling you a headless chicken.

Nutter
I don’t have a lot of time so if I go quiet it only means I have more important things to do.

You asked for a a single peer reviewed article demonstrating that CO2 is responsible for causing global warming which I gave you. You then objected because you claimed that it was based on a model. Well this is the way science works, first someone comes up with an idea which seems to satisfy the know facts, now this idea or model allows one to make a variety of predictions which can then be checked against the real world. Should those predictions turn out to be correct then the model becomes accepted as a theory.

In the link I gave previously that is exactly what they did, specifically they compared the type of warming that would be produced by an increase in GHGs , when they checked it against the real world data they found it matched far better than any other explanation. The important points are that the thermal profile of the atmosphere is quite odd under GHGs warming. Near the surface it heats up but at high altitudes it cools down considerably. Further to that from satellite data they have found that radiation from the frequencies that CO2 absorb have declined steadily since the 1970s. We have the smoking gun the bullet, the victim, and the perpetrator all present, now all we need to do is accept the evidence.

If you want an example of a good model we have one for how the earth, moon and planets move, which is so good that it can predict to the second when and where the next solar eclipse will occur. It is also pretty useful for predicting tides and the like.

"In the link I gave previously that is exactly what they did, specifically they compared the type of warming that would be produced by an increase in GHGs , when they checked it against the real world data they found it matched far better than any other explanation."

That's wrong; it's been explained to you why its wrong and yet you persist.

You're a troll and you have nothing better to do.

Warmair, the only problem is the models use the wrong amount value in
each of the three projection for the amount of fossil fuels available.

This has been pointed out by the Global Energy Group at Upsalla university in Sweden.

Unfortunately the IPCC contributors do not seem interested.
The correct data yields a lower temperature value than the lowest
projection of the three.

So until they use the real data it is all a bit pointless.

'You asked for a a single peer reviewed article demonstrating that CO2 is responsible for causing global warming...'

No I asked

'There are thousands of articles written supporting the claim warming is caused by human activity.

Can you cite one among all those that has actually proved the link ... with data not modelling.'

Do you warmair, often encounter difficulties in your relationships with people? A significant or complete lack of basic comprehension skills can often be a cause.

Quote Nutter
¨Can you please point out where I have attacked you or anybody personally on this thread? I have issued challenges and debated reasonably. For you to suggest otherwise is either gross misjudgement or deceitfully offensive.¨

And then this we get this from you:-
¨Do you warmair, often encounter difficulties in your relationships with people? A significant or complete lack of basic comprehension skills can often be a cause.¨

When people resort to insults as you have just done it clearly shows they have no valid arguments.

Bazz

I am highly dubious about that claim there is not enough fossil fuels to increase CO2 to the levels quoted by the IPCC. I was not able to find any article supporting the claim, using the phrase you suggested.

The figures I have seen elsewhere suggest that if we were to burn all the know reserves of fossil fuels we would be able to push CO2 levels well above 1000 ppm.

http://theconversation.com/methane-and-the-risk-of-runaway-global-warming-16275

http://www.carbontracker.org/carbonbubble

It is worth noting that there are other factors besides just the available fossil fuels and they are:-

1 land clearing is also adding considerably to CO2 emissions.
2 As temperatures increase the capacity of the ocean to absorb further co2 declines.
3 Methane hydrates may become unstable also research is being done to utilise the vast deposits of it for fuel.

Warmair,
It is on the University of Uppsala Global Energy Systems web
site. I no longer have the link. I think the original may have been in
Swedish but I think Michael Lldeli (got that wrong) did a translation.
It was about three years ago.
Start here;

http://aleklett.wordpress.com/

That is the author's blog.
It was published in a scientific publication on energy, but again I cannot remember.
Anyway send Prof Aleklett an email.

Warmair

I only had a question. I am not debating anything and have no arguments.

Yes I call into question your ability to get on with people. It is far kinder than calling you stupid or dishonest when you insult my intelligence by deliberately twisting what I have asked and by refusing to answer my question by going into explanations that are silly and unrelated my question.

If you cannot understand my question or don't want to answer it then don't answer it.

It is a very simple question.

'There are thousands of articles written supporting the claim warming is caused by human activity.

Can you cite one among all those that has actually proved the link ... with data not modelling.'

So far your answers are no.

Warmair hs been asked to supply a reference to science which demonstrates that human emissions affect climate. He has failed to do so and should be regarded as admitting that he knows of no such science.

The IPCC indirectly make the same admission when they make the puerile statement that it is “94% certain”. After outlay of billions of dollars on scientific research which produced no demonstration of a human effect, would a better guess not be that it is99.9% certain that human activity has no significant effect on climate?

warmair and the other fraud backers should stop flogging a dead and disreputable horse. After the education hey have received on this list, their persistence evidences dishonesty rather than ignorance.

Ah ha. This is where all the fun it to be had! Bonza!

Let's start with an easy one.

Dear Leo Lane you old reprobate. I haven't had the pleasure of your company in a while.

Let me get this straight. You don't believe there has been any evidence to show that humans have influenced global temperatures. Okay, fair enough, but by the same measure do you reject the evidence put forward by many on your side that there is in fact no upward trend in global temperatures?

For instance when Cohenite gave us a link showing a downward trend in lower troposphere temperatures did you look at it and say 'Well that's another reason why I don't believe in global warming'? Or didn't you bother because your mind is firmly made up?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

I mean is it just a total rejection of evidence based science or is it cherry picking to fit your world view? I happen to think it is the first but you could prove me wrong by telling me what it would take for you to accept that the world is warming and that humans are having an influence on the world's climate?

I suspect you actually can't but hell, I'm not perfect. The floor is yours old son. Go for it.

witless Goebbels has entered the building

Lol.

Dear utternutter,

Now be a good chap and wait your turn. We have all day. I promise I will get to you.

Perhaps reflect on your own words of wisdom from earlier in the thread;

"Slence (sic) really is golden."

Leo you missed a few points here.
I provided a link to one of many papers that demonstrate a clear link between CO2 emissions and global warming. Then Nutter complained that he wanted a link that relied solely on data and no theory. To which I responded by explaining that is not how the scientific method works.

Somewhere along the line Cohenite chips in with some nonsense about convection as if it was some wonderful new revelation, when in fact it has been well understood since the 1930s and is part of all climate models, whether it is for a 7 day weather forecast, or the probable impact of GHGs on future climate.

Here is a link to a good site if you really want to understand something about GHGs and climate.

http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/atmospheric-radiation-and-the-greenhouse-effect/

Thanks, Steele. You do understand, do you,, that there are two issue, one whether human emissions have any significant effect on climate, the other is whether there is currently any global warming.

No one, from the fraud backing camp, despite constant requests, has given us a reference to any science supporting the assertion that human emissions have any significant effect on climate.

The planet has not warmed since 1998, which is the reason for the fraud backers’ annual announcements of “hottest year on record”. They are desperate to prove warming, so tell desperate and futile lies about the temperature.

The planet is not currently warming, and human emissions have a trivial effect on climate.

Raising irrelevant aspects of the matter and making vacuous remarks like “cherry picking”does not help you in backing the AGW fraud. You need some science, and you have none.

warmair, you were shown that surface temperature is not rising and that Stratosphere temperature is not cooling in complete contradiction to Santer et al's paper, and now you link to SOD.

Unlike you I have read SOD who is sometimes useful like when he says:

"In essence radiative forcing is the change in TOA flux. When less flux escapes this is considered a positive radiative forcing. The reason is this: less flux radiated from the climate system means that less energy is leaving, which means the climate will heat (all other things being equal)."

NOAA TOA measurements of OLR show more radiation is leaving Earth; this means that by AGW's own criteria there is less radiation within the climate system to cause AGW; again it is a complete contradiction of AGW based on real data and not modelling; see NOAA's graph:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/olr-s-pg.gif

And NOAA data graphed with temperature anomalies at the surface:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorOutgoingLWradiationAnomalyMonthly%20and%20HadCRUT3%20since1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

The connection with surface temperatures increasing and OLR increasing is a straightforward product of Stefan-Boltzmann and more importantly the fact that CO2 in the atmosphere is not trapping that radiation from leaving the planet.

That is an indisputable contradiction to AGW, Santer and anything else you idiots and supercilious suckers for AGW want to throw up.

But please you and the man with the porno sobriquet continue to provide amusement by presenting your 'proof' of AGW.

The last thread you were on steelee you showed you were just another abusive liar. I expect you will continue in that vein here.

Your last exhibition showed you lack any credibility.

Dear Leo Lane,

Understand completely the two issues. What is important to discern is what type of information you consider goes to answering them which is why I raised a specific example. Do you accept that the link Cohendite provided is a valid part of proving there is no warming trend? He certainly thinks it is otherwise he wouldn't have posted it. It is a very straight forward question.

Dear utternutter,

Manners me lad. Didn't your mum teach you nuffin? You can have your turn soon.

Steele, I did not look at it. There is plenty of proof that there is no current global warming. The temperature is not rising. As I pointed out, there is an annual lie fest among the fraud backers to assert “hottest year on record”. As I said above, The” hottest year” yet in Australia was asserted to be 2013, by David Jones of the Bureau of Meteorology. The temperature upon which he relied was taken at Moomba, South Australia, where the temperature record commenced in 1995. The temperature record kept at Bathurst since 1858 showed that 1939 was a hotter year than 2013.


Jones has previously shown his support for the AGW fraud, so this effort is no surprise.
It is reminiscent of Hansen, the highly qualified activist, and his dishonest support of AGW.

All knowledge is provisional, and if you refer me to science which is at odds with my current opinion, I will change my opinion. How did you form your opinion? You have not been able to produce any science to support it, so what is your basis for supporting the AGW fraud backers?

Dear Leo Lane,

Well could I invite you to look at it and give me your opinion.

Here is the link again.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

Would you see it as a valid piece of evidence that the global temperature trend is down. This is obviously a site trusted by Cohenite and he evidently feels it is an important part of the puzzle. What I am really trying to get a handle on is what type information you particularly are prepared to entertain.

This is what the author says;

“Please note:
I have no particular axe to grind in the "Global Warming Debate" one way or the other. Indeed, as a life-long Green I think a shift to a efficient and sustainable way of life is a Good Thing whether or not CO2 is a significant problem in and of itself.
My aim here is only to use what skills I have as a programmer to help others with greater domain knowledge to discover and debate what is happening. No angle, no hidden agenda.
After 30 years of messing around with (and being messed around by) computers and complex software, I would just say this:
Computers are great tools for helping you think; just never rely on them to do the thinking for you.”

All very reasonable one would have thought. So does the site, the link to troposphere temperatures, and the author measure up for you?

Why would I show you any manners.

You tried to denigrate me by comparing me to Neville Chamberlain but you used a quote that could only possibly have been attributed to Adolph Hitler.

You were witless in that endeavour and Goebells like in your twisting and turning in refusing to apologise and withdraw your slurs.

You just look more foolish trying to talk down to me, Witless.

Like Wood For Trees which steele is being tedious about other sources also show no temperature increase in 17 years such as Skeptical Science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

The SKS calculator is also used by Werner Brozek in his straightforward analysis, assisted by Nick Stokes here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/03/statistical-significances-how-long-is-the-pause-now-includes-september-data/

Santer who warmair linked to earlier as proof of AGW, says that 17 years is evidence of climate significance:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract

So there you have it; the most reliable of the most reliable temperature indices, the satellites, RSS, shows no warming and in fact cooling for 17 years.

People who still believe in AGW are smug dopes.

Steele, you have not disclosed the basis of your fraud backing.

Indirectly we know it is not science, so it must be some mental aberration.

I have attempted a sensible interchange with you, but that is not possible. If you did try to contribute, thanks for your unsuccessful attempt

Here are more papers which rely primarily on observations to confirm global warming theory is correct.

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/08/02/papers-on-changes-in-olr-due-to-ghgs/

Cohenite

Thanks for the link to the temperature calculator here:-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

The link requires one to set start and end points and select temperature data.
I choose start 1993 end 2007
Land data Best
The result was:-
Trend: 0.428 ±0.342 °C/decade (2σ)
Now being a bit of a pessimist I like to consider the worst case scenario
which is 0.75 deg C per decade or nearly 7.5 deg C over a century.
Yes I unashamedly cherry picked the data now it is your turn. I will spit the difference with for you any continuous period greater than =>15 over the last 40 years using the calculator you linked to above.

warnair
Words and phrases such as ‘simulation’, ‘theoretical study’, ‘conservatively estimated’, ‘Observed decreases in BT trends are expected’, ‘simulated spectra have been calculated’, ‘Based on abstract’, ‘used to simulate the changes’, ‘a strong link between increases in surface temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established’,(without reference to proof) ‘The accuracy in surface temperature and cloud feedbacks, however, is limited by the ambiguity in their fingerprints.‘ are common in the first five or six of the articles you quoted.
All tend to suggest to me there is much uncertainty and mere guess work in all those papers. None attempt to or explicitly prove the human link.
Throwing a multitude of this type of work at me as proof is lazy. At the very least you should read it first.

Warmair, you do not answer the question, because you do not read the irrelevant papers to which you refer. You have no science to justify your position
Please bear in mind that one the difficulties of the AGW fraud promoters is that the CO2 content of the atmosphere has risen without the resulting rise in a rise in temperature as predicted by the fraud backers. The warming which occurred prior to 1998, released natural CO2 into the atmosphere. This increase is asserted by the fraud backers, without any scientific basis, to have come from human emissions

There has been no increase in global temperature for going on 17 years, leaving the global warming assertion in tatters, and the fraud backers desperately lying about increasing global temperatures.

Any chance that you will acknowledge the truth, and stop wasting everyone's time,?

Dear Leo Lane,

Lol. That post to me was pretty lame my friend.

You are dancing around the link it like its a bomb about to go off. It ain't a bomb mate. You are allowed to open it.

Look, you made the statement earlier in this thread that “There is no science to support the AGW assertion” and that “effect is so trivial that it has no scientific significance, and is not measurable”. You then went further stating quite emphatically that “There is plenty of proof that there is no current global warming. The temperature is not rising.”

So it is perfectly reasonable for me to ascertain whether the science you are using to assert the former is the same science you are using to assert the latter.

I chose the Wood for the Trees site for a couple of reasons. The first it was used by one of your side, Cohendite, therefore one as vociferous as he accepting it as valid I felt would have quelled any misgivings you might have had. Secondly the author of the site appears pretty keen on presenting the raw data and letting us make of it what we will.

So I felt it was neutral ground and eminently suitable for the task at hand. If you reject it then the obvious conclusion is, barring Hobart getting a run of 50 degree days, you are firmly entrenched in your view on the topic and it is a pointless exercise anybody attempting to present evidence to change your mind.

Indeed it makes you a fundamentalist.

Here is the link again.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

Dear utternutter,

Shhh.

warmair, the point is how long the current pause [actually cessation] in temperature increase has been going.

I showed that with the most reliable indice, RSS, the cessation is over 17 years; all the other indices show periods up to the present of no temperature increase for periods less than RS.

The salient point is that all those periods are up to the present. No one disputes the 1990s were hot but to truncate your period at a point before the present is not just cherry-picking it is nonsense because as your own time selection shows the trend has FALLEN since that period so extrapolation from your period as you foolishly do is, as I say, nonsense.

Seriously, read the Brozek link I provided with Nick Stokes. Stokes is one of the smartest guys going around, smarter than me with statistics and certainly ahead of you. He believes in AGW but even he knows that the temperature trend has gone no where for a long time; read this or give up:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/03/statistical-significances-how-long-is-the-pause-now-includes-september-data/

Steele, are you on medication?

Steele, I have seen plenty of sites like woodfortrees, and the assertion of evenhandedness is usually an assurance that they are pushing for the fraud, like the deceptively named “Skeptical Science” run by the disingenuous fraud backer John Cook who recently made a spurious claim of a consensus of climate scientists.

A site selected for a purpose by Cohenite does not make it one acceptable to me. Whatever game you think you are playing, leave me out. I just want a rational response from you.

You will not even disclose the basis on which you support the fraud. All we know is that you have no science to back you, and you will only respond to inquiry with inane questions.

hey guys
here is how Steeleredux does things.

'I did not set out to be completely historically accurate in my analogies
Posted by SteeleRedux, Monday, 20 January 2014 10:23:58 AM

'Then it would be reasonable to assume you use the same inaccuracy producing methodology in all your pronouncements... including those pertaining to warming.'
Posted by imajulianutter, Monday, 20 January 2014 5:21:47 PM

There has never been a denial.

Dear Leo Lane,

Nice try you old coot but I'm a wise up to your shenanigans!

You see I was the one who asked you a question first and now you are trying to rewrite history and label me as the obfuscating one? Not having a bar of it I'm afraid.

Well it looks like Hobart has to get a run of 50C days then before that 'open minded' L.Lane will shift his opinion. I did predict as much. You remove science from the debate and you are left with opinion which you are perfectly entitiled to do. But in the end that is all it is, opinion, so please excuse me but I think I will ignore it.

Dear Cohendite,

You are next, mainly because the other kid in class has been so rude trying to butt in all the time.

I'm happy to stick with Wood for the Trees.

You posted the link;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

to make the case that because the Lower Troposphere was apparently cooling then the case for Global Warming was broken.

But there was another data series for Lower Troposphere temperature trend in your drop down menu - UAH NSSTC and that was going up steeply.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/trend

In fact if we head down the list the following global data sets all revealed an upward temperature trend.

WoodForTrees Temperature Index - http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1997/trend

GISTEMP LOTI global mean - http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1997/trend

GISTEMP dTs global mean (extrapolated) - http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:1997/trend

HADCRUT3 variance-adjusted global mean - http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/trend

HADCRUT3 unadjusted global mean - http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997/trend

HADCRUT4 global mean - http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997/trend

Every single one of them showing an upward trend in temperature anomalies since 1997, something you have contended over and over again just isn't happening.

So why shouldn't the readers adjudge what you have done as one of the most spectacular examples of cynical cheery picking ever to grace this forum. Audacious doesn't cover it, it To be that blind to all the contrary evidence on a site you are using to make your case must almost be considered a form of mental illness.

No need to return my pill bottle any time soon.

Steele you say:

"Every single one of them showing an upward trend in temperature anomalies since 1997, something you have contended over and over again just isn't happening."

I have contended no such thing; I said RSS showed a 17 year hiatus in temperature trend with the others showing lessor periods; for instance my last comment states this:

"all the other indices show periods up to the present of no temperature increase for periods less than RS."

Read the link I provided to warmair about the Brozek and Stokes analysis, or bugger off.

Still no denial.

What an ass.

Thanks, Steele, you finally disclose a basis for your delusion.

Have a look at Robert Carter’s clarification of trends. You obviously are ignorant of it. I watched it when it first came out so was never at the disadvantage which you suffer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfMM3bVbhQ

Uploaded on May 7, 2011
An excellent presentation disputing man-made global warming using nothing but pure science and statistics by Professor Bob Carter (Australian geologist). It would be very difficult to dispute his facts. In this video he pretty much proves that over 10,000 years the earth has been cooling. Looking at shorter periods of time one can find what ever they want in the numbers. There have been many periods of rapid warming and cooling over this period.

He examines the data concerning climate change, Global warming, the problems with the idea that CO2 is driving climate change and global warming, & examples of the scientific data being ignored over populist views about CO2 causing climate change and Global warming;...the hypothesis fails the test.
You can finally clear your poor polluted mind, Steele.

Dear Leo Lane,

Would think far more highly of dear Bob if he wasn't being paid directly from the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think tank funded by the likes of the Koch brothers who are determined to protect their billions of dollars tied up industries directly impacted by a price on Carbon.

However here is dear coolist Bob in 2009;

“Nonetheless, by coincidence, growing recognition of a threat of climatic cooling is correct, because since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards. Global atmospheric temperature reached a peak in 1998, has not warmed since 1995”.

Yet if we plug the year 2000 into Cohenite's link every single trend graph is upward.

What a clown.

Dear Cohenite,

Rubbish mate but let's go with that fantasy.

Anyway you wrote, “all the other indices show periods up to the present of no temperature increase for periods less than RS.”. What on earth do you mean? How much less? I tried them all from the year 2000 as stated above and all trends were up. How small do I need to go with the time period to see the artefact you claim is there? And why do you get to use the year 1997 for you graph but we are told we need to go with a smaller time scale for ours?

Lol. Not a good look my friend. It must get painful tying yourself up in all those knots attempting to get the figures to show what you want.

from the Heartland Institute, a right-wing think

Here we go again.
No wonder there is so much scepticism when that is the best response.
Really ?
The stupid thing is it is all irrelevant.
It does not matter whether global warming is true or not !

Steele, you either know nothing about statistics, or you do in which case, you're lying.

As I said to warmair, we are talking about the present and the trend to that point.

Brozek and later Stokes, looked at all the temperature indices and used SKS's calculator. Their methodology was:

"We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month."

Why do this?

Because a negative slope from a particular month satisfies the 95% certainty criteria from NOAA. Fitting a trend line to any data involves standard deviations, or how much variation from the average of the data exists. A 95% confidence level means all of the data fits within 2 SDs of the trend line; and this gives a good confidence that the trend is representative of the data.

Starting with a negative slope, which is what you are testing for, allows the 95% confidence level to be tested from a cooling period.

Is that clear?

2 things; there is considerable variation in result between the indices; that is when they turned negative leading to the present. That should be a worry if you're looking for reliable statistical evidence.

Secondly, even within each indice's flat temperature trend there will be short periods with increases; as long as they don't exceed the 2 sigma 95% confidence level you know the trend is a good fit; see RSS with 17 annual mean samples:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/mean:17

Anyway the first post by Brozek is here. You should read this if you don't know what you're talking about porno man; or if you do know what you're talking about, keep lying:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/10/has-global-warming-stalled/#more-79260

Dear Cohenite,

Magnificently true to form. Get painted into to a corner then in a flurry of tentacles and ink you create a cloud of virtually incomprehensible crap in order to make your escape. Pft, pft, pft, squeezing those little sacs for all they are worth.

You know I'm now at the stage where I think it is cute. It is always difficult on OLO because often we can't put a face to a name, but in the future whenever I see 'Cohenite' this will be my go-to image;

http://static2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20110110023450/disney/images/thumb/e/eb/Pearl.jpg/258px-Pearl.jpg

“Pearl is a pink flapjack octopus in Finding Nemo. She says she has one shorter tentacle than the rest, though this is barely noticeable. She is pink like her father. She also claims to be able to walk on land. Whenever she gets nervous, or scared, she squirts her squid ink, or "inks" as she calls it.”

Anyway let's try and wade through the cloud.

So you have directed me to a site where they went through the various data sets from Wood for the Trees and marched the the series backwards to see how far they could go and still retain a flat trend line. Of course if they went back too far all the global trend lines would have been positive so they had to pick and choose quite carefully.

For HADCRUT4 they could supposedly push it back 12 years and 2 months but for UAH it was only 8 years and 3 months?

What the hell?

Can't you see how absurd this exercise is? This is the antithesis of good science. It is manufacturing a result to fit your idiocy.

What you need to take a hypothesis like Bob Carter's;

“since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards”

And then test it using valid tools like WfT's which returns the following;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend

Note, not one single trend line has “turned downwards”.

Hypothesis thus rendered false.

One day mate you are going to shake yourself and think 'How did I ever get involved with this crowd?'

Steele, you have obviously not watched Carter’s presentation, or worse, have watched it and failed to grasp what he says about trends.

You have the opportunity to break away from your sick obsession, and all we hear from you is your pitiful bleating about the Heartland Institute, and its resolute support for objective science. This is always your cry because you have no relevant response. Heartland is not making life hard for you, as you believe, it is giving you the opportunity to escape the delusion in which you have entangled yourself in a way that you cannot, or will not, explain.
I wish you good luck. You really need it.

It is very hard conversing with someone who is determined to be obtuse.

Steele is doing that.

The purpose of the Brozek article is to establish the furthest negative monthly trend from the current point. That was done to see whether that negative trend was maintained up to the present through all the data points from that furthest negative trend point.

Brozek used the methodology used at Skeptical Science to test the trend from the furthest negative trend to the present in each temperature indice.

How else could you test the thesis that temperature has been flat or even negative from some past point to the present?

Steel has been shown that the data points from the furthest negative point can fluctuate up and down from that furthest point to the present. The point is the trend.

A confidence level of 2 sigma points has been applied to establish a 95% confidence level that the various trends ranging from over 17 years for RSS and lessor periods for the other indices are a true trend in the data.

Yet we have this steel character running about wearing out WFT and like a delinquent with a machine he doesn't understand presenting his mud flung equivalents as evidence.

This is the calibre of people who believe in AGW.

What? That's it? Nothing from either of you? Oh come on, you must have some comeback that involves a modicum of science.

Okay perhaps we will exclude Leo Lane because he has made it pretty clear he is not interested in the science but will be arguing from opinion from here on in.

But Pearl? Not one link to refute my evidence? And you call ME obtuse? How much more direct could I be?

Tell you what, let's go Myth Busters on this.

Here is the myth.

“Since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards”

Here is the experimentation;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:2000/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2000/trend/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/trend/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2000/trend

Now I declare this 'Totally Busted!', any dissenters?

Anyway, all laughing aside I think you two are done and dusted.

Hey utternutter,

Your turn mate. Whatcha got for me?

Here is the myth.

“Since the turn of the 21st century all real world, long-term climate indicators have turned downwards”

No porno guy, the myth is temperatures are still going up.

The evidence is plain or plain to reasonable people that temperatures are not going up. RSS shows temperatures have stopped rising for a climatically significant period.

The methods to establish this are all AGW approved methods and standards.

So, we have the really weird situation where by AGW's own criteria AGW is contradicted yet the devoted believers cannot accept that disproof even when it is sourced from within AGW.

The AGW supporter, not just delusional, but so deluded it does believe its own delusions.

I have watched your usual twisting and turning and have nothing to add to your title as olo's 'witless Goebels' who employs an inaccracy producing methodology.
You've simply exposed yourself all over again.

And still you haven'd explained how the following fit your fantasy:
Increasing durinal temp range.
Increasing ice caps.
Stable surface temps.

James are you now suggesting you might not think warming is occurring but whether it is warming or cooling doesn't really matter, yet you acknowledge you don't really know to what extent humans are influencing that change but that we should develop and introduce policies that will control those changes.

I think it was better that you kept silent.

Cohenite Whoa, The ABC reported this afternoon that in fact global temperatures have not gone up. No mention of why they have said they have been, and its the hottest year on record, we are all going to die reports for ever?
Turns out it's the Trade Winds! Yes the Trade Winds! they are pushing all the warmth to the bottom of the sea. No seriously that is what they reported. What utter nonsense we have now reached the realms of Wonderland! Oh Toto we are not in Kansas anymore.
If it had not cost so much money it would be funny. BOM head sacked. ABC head sacked and no pensions for you bad boys.

I have been reluctant to reenter this discussion because it is obvious from the 4 or 5 commenters who have dominated the past dozen pages of comments that they are talking past each other. People arguing from entrenched positions, impervious to rational debate and intent of ad hominen attacks do NOT add to the sum of human knowledge. We are long overdue for a period of silence from you people, and you know who you are.

One of the main themes seems to be that because global temperatures have plateaued over the past 12-15 years then this is a fatal blow to those who argue that global warming is happening, and that humans are primarily responsible. That these are two separate issues seems to escape most.

This morning SMH carried a story that research by Professor Matthew England and his colleagues demonstrates that the so-called plateau is due to unprecedented strengthening of east-west trade winds. This is likely to be a finite process and when it ends, sooner rather than later, temperatures will recommence their rapid increase with potentially catastrophic consequences.

I don't have the expertise to evaluate the scientific validity of this claim, which will undoubtedly be subject to analysis in other peer reviewed literature. What I am not prepared to do, unlike Bowyer and others, to dismiss it as some lunatic conspiracy theory. I am happy to see what the real debate brings, not the ravings all too obvious above.

For those who missed the point I made earlier, the Heartland Institute is one of the lunatic ravers and those who rely on it as a source for anything only demonstrate all too clearly their profound ignorance of what scientific inquiry is all about.

“Judge not, lest ye yourself be judged”.
Liars think everyone is dishonest; cheaters expect to be cheated and thieves know there is no honour among thieves.
Ultimately, the flat earthers rely entirely on the idea that 97% of all climate scientists are rogues, while 3% are honourable, objective and honest.
IOW, they think scientists are much like lawyers.

J Bowyer the 'heat is at the bottom of the ocean' meme really sums up AGW; a totally fanciful idea contradicted completely by the evidence in this case the measurement of Outgoing Longwave Radiation; see the NOAA graph:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/olr-s-pg.gif

And the graph based on the NOAA data and the temperature data from HadCRUT 3:

http://www.climate4you.com/images/NOAA%20CPC%20EquatorOutgoingLWradiationAnomalyMonthly%20and%20HadCRUT3%20since1979%20With37monthRunningAverage.gif

What these graphs show is that there is NO OLR available to be at the bottom of the ocean because it has left the planet.

Now look at this Grim character with his grubby little comment; how arrogant.

And we see the other sort of arrogance from O'Neill who is morally superior to the 'deniers'. But at least we have confirmation that the temperature has stopped rising when O'Neill witlessly refers to England's latest 'paper'.

England is an activist and devotee of AGW. Trade winds!? We saw an attempt before by Trenberth, the originator of this idea of the missing heat being at the ocean bottom to explain it by winds:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

So have the winds increased:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E-ocean-surface-wind-anomalies.png

No. What a load of BS.

Quite right Grim. Scientists are just following the money. Offer money to prove global warming and bingo! No honesty whatsoever.
Now we have the edifying spectacle of the "Scientists" who have argued for years the world is actually getting warmer, admitting it actually hasn't. End of story, one crooked peer backing up another.
BOM head sacked! first thing to do and let the rest know that their big fat pension is dependant on not being caught being dishonest.

Dear utternutter,

Yup, nothing, thought so.

But there is one thing Cohenite said that caught my eye;

“climatically significant period”

It use to be a standard line from the doubters that the time scales were too small to say anything definitive about the veracity of climate models.

Well I might be misconstruing things so we should really go to the source.

Dear Cohenite,

What pray tell do you deem to be a “climatically significant period”?

Witless Goebbels

'And still you haven't explained how the following fit your fantasy:
Increasing durinal temp range.
Increasing ice caps.
Stable surface temps.'

Yep Nothin'

James

it would have been better if you had contained yourself. But you didn't... again.

Listen steele you have been given Santer's paper defining 17 years as a climatically significant period so are you being difficult? Here it is again:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016263/abstract

Just following on from James' infatuation with the latest England paper about winds driving Trenberth's missing heat to the bottom of the ocean.

I have already given the TOA OLR data which contradicts this point and a graph of global wind speeds which shows them decreasing but apparently England's passing wind schmozzle based on increasing winds is also contradicted by his mate, Vecchi's earlier paper showing winds slowing:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/10/seven-years-ago-we-were-told-the-opposite-of-what-the-new-matthew-england-paper-says-slower-not-faster-trade-winds-caused-the-pause/

In fact a lot of research has shown that a phenomenon known as "Stilling" with slower global winds has been happening:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487

And the Walker circulation has not been increasing:

http://landshape.org/enm/files/2011/01/walkerarticle.pdf

And of course the ocean is not warming and at the surface is actually cooling.

England has generated this farrago of a paper based on models. And like the pea-brains they are the MSM has picked up on it and so have the usual twits who believe in AGW no matter what.

Dear Cohenite,

Damn it, I've been inked again.

Come on mate, I didn't ask what Santer thought it was, I asked specifically what period do you personally deem to be “climatically significant”?

Well?

Interesting bringing Bod Carter into the conversation. Now rarely do I find myself in agreement with him, but I do agree with him that anything less than 30 than years (know as a climate normal period) is not going to be very significant (see pages 56 and 57 of his book " The counter consensus").

Specifically the problem we have is that the increasing temperature trend is estimated to be around the 0.18 Deg C per decade and we know that a strong El Niño can produce a temperature spike well in excess of that figure. Similarly, a La Niña produces a dip below the trend, so before we can come to any sensible result for a period shorter than 30 years, we need at a minimum to filter out temperatures fluctuations caused by these factors also we need to consider other factors such as volcanoes, aerosols and the solar cycle. It is clear that period starting in 1997 through to mid 1998 was heavily influenced by a particularly strong El Niño event. So to use that as your starting point is somewhat devious. Nevertheless one still has to carefully pick the only data set able to achieve a flat trend never mind a declining one. The recent articles about the strengthening trade winds are just a reflection on the fact that we have we have had a higher number of La Niña events recently thus reducing recent warming trend.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/FR11_All.gif

http://blogs.nicholas.duke.edu/thegreengrok/files/2013/03/201213-noaa.png

http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/comment-page-2/?wpmp_switcher=mobile&wpmp_tp=2

"The strengthening trade winds"

It's a shame this paper by England and other similar papers will get publicity.

In 2006 one of Matthew England's fellow scientists Gabriel Vecchi, found the exact opposite to what England has found:

http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/walker.shtml

Vecchi said:

"The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi."

Other researchers such as Australian scientist Michael Roderick noted a global decline in wind speeds and coined a term to describe this called "Stilling":

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022169411007487

Matthew England is not the first AGW supporter to attempt to explain the stop in temperature by saying winds are carrying the "missing heat" to the ocean bottom. Trenberth has done it:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract

Trenberth used wind "variability" increase to explain the movement of heat to the ocean bottom. Even a cursory look at wind variation as measured by AMSR-E shows a DECLINE in wind variability:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/AMSR-E-ocean-surface-wind-anomalies.png

The real nail in the coffin of this idea that "missing heat" is being carried away to the [unmeasurable, how convenient!] ocean depths is shown by the increase in radiation leaving the Earth from NOAA:

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/teleconnections/olr-s-pg.gif

How can heat in the form of radiation be transferred to the ocean bottom when it is not there because it has left the Earth?

Does anyone ever think about these things? Matthew England has written a paper using cutting edge computers which does not make sense and is contradicted by basic data. GIGO.

In answer to your question steele, 60 years; you figure out why.

OK I am convinced! this is an outrageous fraud.
Scientists coming up with all this baloney? Tony Abbott was spot on the money, confirmed! End of!
We should now start to exact the necessary recompense for monies wasted. Let the perpetrators start paying back what has been stolen

Steele, you have confirmed beyond any doubt, that you do not have a clue.
To a realist the cessation of warming means that the warming has ceased. To a fraud backer it means that some nonsense must be dreamed up to base an argument that warming has not ceased.

The fraud backers came up with “a climatically significant period” as a basis to argue that when global warming stopped. It had not really stopped until a climatically significant period had passed. A refined form of lying in contrast to their standard blatant form of falsehood.

Steele now asks a Realist to supply details of a fraud backing lie. What is the length of time applicable to the fiction concocted by the fraud backers?

In regard to presentation of standard blatant lies, fraud backer Obama is a good example:

“On multiple occasions, and most recently on May 30th of last year, President Obama has said, and this is a quote he has used several times, he said that 'the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even ten years ago' and that 'the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or ten years ago.'
"Both statements are false, and through letters to you, Ms. McCarthy, and on the record in this Committee, we've asked the EPA to provide us with the data backing up these two statements, the two statements made by the president, but they don't have any data and referred us to the UN IPCC. And, their scientists, apparently, the EPA thought they were the source of this.
"Well, we went there and they had nothing to back it up, so apparently the president just made that up.”
http://eaglerising.com/4224/conservative-senator-calls-obama-liar-global-warming/

Steele, you must be proud to be a fraud backer and have the courage to make such a fool of yourself.

Dear Cohenite,

Thank you, 60 years it is then.

Well putting that figure into the Wood for Trees calculator that you kindly furnished us we get the following;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1955/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1955/plot/gistemp/from:1955

All upward trends and all statistically significant.

So you will have to explain to us why to assert the world has stopped warming when your own parameters show that over a climatically significant period the opposite has occurred.

Dear Leo Lane,

One moment please while I search your post for any data/evidence to support your opinion.

Back now. Didn't take long. Opinion only I'm afraid.

Oh well, perhaps next time.

Leo

Chucking unsubstantiated insults around does not further your case nor does it add anything useful to the debate.

In 1935 the international meteorological organisation IMO agreed that an average of conditions over a period of 30 years would be defined as as a climate normal period, with the first period being defined as 1901 to 1930. Now much was made of this by people such as Bob Carter previously when he wished to dismiss some 30 odd years of warming as not significant. So it is perfectly reasonable to use the same argument for a considerably shorter period. In any event the warming has not stopped it has just slowed down due to a run of La Nina years.

http://www.aos.wisc.edu/~sco/normals.html

Cohenite
I see nothing controversial about Mathew England paper. Whether there has been a drop in global wind speeds over the last century or shorter periods is not the issue. The equatorial trade winds only represent a small portion of the globe so are unlikely to have much impact on global average wind speed. Anyway the data clearly shows, they suddenly increased around 1998 so regardless of previous studies his paper is consistent with the data.

http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/8511/westtradesleadbl4.png

I have not been able to find a more up to date graph. Note for some reason the author has decided to reverse the sign of the data so moving in to the negative area actually means an increasing wind strength.

El Nino and and La Nina events are clearly related to equatorial trade wind strengths as noted below.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/02/17/the-trade-winds-drive-the-enso/

Steele, I said you had not watched Carter, but of course you had. He explained why short term trends could be made to support any proposition, so were valueless.

The long term trend, over 30,000 years shows that the Earth is cooling. This makes sense because on the cycle of climate ages we are due for an ice age..

What appealed to Steele is that short term trends can be produced to support any proposition, so he scuttled off to produce some short term trends to support the AGW fraud.

steele, you are pathetic. Your 'gotcha' trick is really juvenile.

I didn't say 17 years was climatically significant Santer and the AGW establishment did.

Of course the world has warmed during the 20thC; arguably because of the effect of PDO which has an approximate 60 year cycle with a +ve or warm and a -ve or cool phase. During the 20thC there were 2 +ve phases of the PDO, the first from 1910-1940 and the second between 1976-1998 to 2002.

The correlation between PDO and temperature is clear from this:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-PDOAMO-correlation.gif

This correlation between PDO and temperature is to be compared with the LACK of correlation between CO2 and temperature:

http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-CO2Temp.gif

So I agree the 60 full cycle of the PDO is a useful guide to determining a climatically significant it is also plain the full cycle also provides a good explanation for the temperature increase during the 20thC.

Co

Don't call witless goebbels juvenile or childish it only sends him into a frenzy of deception ... self deception

Wow. Another inking. Oh well. As my grandfather was fond of saying 'Slippery as a Butcher's dick'.

Dear Cohenite,

Please show me where I stated you believed that 17 years was a climatically significant period. You can't because I never did. I in fact went to great pains, despite your obfuscation, to determine what you personally deemed the period to be. You finally furnished it as 60 years and I simply fed that into the Wood for Trees calculator that you yourself used. There is no gotcha moment being sought here I am just highlighting to any readers left the total inconsistency and cherry picking which is the prime feature of your presentations.

What it surely means is that any pronouncements from your good self about the globe no longer warming can now be met with the retort “this is not a 'climatically significant period' to be making that assertion”.

I'm certainly okay with that.

If this has made you feel uncomfortable then may I respectfully suggest you refrain from posting links to sites that supposedly make your case, some of us might take the trouble to actually read them. Perhaps a retreat to opinion that Leo Lane feels so comfortable with is appropriate.

Now perhaps you might like to tell me why when I plug in global temperatures and the PDO into your Wood for Trees there is little if any correlation betwwen the two. What did your crew do to get such a perfect correlation in the graph you posted?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/plot/rss-land

Dear Leo Lane,

Just a quick peek again. Nope. Just opinion.

Well perhaps we can put it to good use. What is your opinion of the following claim by Cohenite?

“A confidence level of 2 sigma points has been applied to establish a 95% confidence level that the various trends ranging from over 17 years for RSS and lessor periods for the other indices are a true trend in the data.”

Quote Cohenite
"So I agree the 60 full cycle of the PDO is a useful guide to determining a climatically significant it is also plain the full cycle also provides a good explanation for the temperature increase during the 20thC."

Well that's an easy one it does not, as there is no long term warming trend associated with the PDO you will have to find some other reason. The graph below shows this most clearly.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/PDO_vs_Temp.gif

Warmair what is the R2 of the SKS graph? The graph I have linked to provided that degree of correlation at .85 which is very high.

Steele, you are a troll; your graph [sic] comparing RSS with the PDO index is nonsense since RSS starts in 1979 and the index in 1900.

Comparing apples with apples, HadCrut 4 with the index shows a good correlation when the correct adjustments are made; the correlation moves somewhat after 1990 which is interesting but since HadCrut 4 shows a flat temperature since 2000 I would think the increase shown in the long HadCrut graph is an artefact of the hot 1990s:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:168/scale:2/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:168/offset:2

Do you have anything sensible to add?

Dear Cohenite,

Are we looking at the same bloody graph?

Hell mate I'm happy to say there is some correlation between the two, ie when the PDO drops dramatically there is a minor pause in the inexorable march upward global temperature figures.

There is nothing like the direct correlation you or your mates are claiming and anyone with eyes in their head and half a brain in their skull would see just as I have.

As to your missing dip running the mean at 168 months is just too much. Pull it back to 60 like this and it starts to manifest itself.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/mean:60/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:60

Actually steele now that you mention it I think the graphs are EEGs of your brain activity with the red and green representing each hemisphere. My moneys on the green side.

warmair, I should mention in relation to the PDO graph I linked to that it includes both the PDO and AMO which would explain the better correlation then with just the PDO. A good discussion of the combined effect of the PDO and AMO is here by Easterbrook:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/17/cause-of-the-pause-in-global-warming/

Witless

how did you GF know a butchers dick was slipperly?

Guesswork or a error ridden methodology?

The more you say the more you prove your witlessness.

Dear Cohenite,

Now we are talking. Happy to say there is a correlation between global temperatures and the Atlantic multidecadal oscillation (AMO).

Why on earth did you trot out the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) when it is obvious to all and sundry bar the fanatics that there is sweet FA correlation between it and global temperatures. Oh. I see, learning on the job. That is fine, happy to be Mr Ockham.

But you have a wee problem. It appears separating out the GW factor from the AMO is not a settled exercise.

“The AMO signal is usually defined from the patterns of SST variability in the North Atlantic once any linear trend has been removed. This detrending is intended to remove the influence of greenhouse gas-induced global warming from the analysis. However, if the global warming signal is significantly non-linear in time (i.e. not just a smooth linear increase), variations in the forced signal will leak into the AMO definition. Consequently, correlations with the AMO index may alias(?) effects of global warming.”

“Several methods have been proposed to remove the global trend and ENSO influence over the North AtlanticSST. Trenberth and Shea, assuming that the effect of global forcing over the North Atlantic is similar to the global ocean, subtracted the global (60°N-60°S) mean SST from the North Atlantic SST to derive a revised AMO index. Ting et al. however argue that the forced SST pattern is not spatially uniform; they separated the forced and internally generated variability using signal to noise maximizing EOF analysis.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation

Since Sea Surface Temperature (SST) readings in the Northern Hemisphere closely align to the HADCRUT4 (as you would expect them to do) the question becomes why does that area of the Mid Atlantic act differently?

Here I have graphed all 4 series. You will see a direct correlation between Global temperatures via HADCRUT4 and the Northern Hemisphere SSTs. A lessor but not insignificant correlation with the AMO but nothing with the PDO.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:120/from:1850/plot/esrl-amo/mean:120/from:1850/plot/jisao-pdo/mean:120/from:1850/plot/hadsst2nh/mean:120/from:1850

Now I'm off to listen to my mate Don sing about a Jester on the Sideline, I told him he was nutty.

The jester is only poking fun at you, your GF and both your witlessness.

Besides you refuse to address the central issues. You swan around pretending greater knowledge of issues of much lesser import thinking that will distract those of us who understand clearly the real substance of the issue.

Groan. Steele you haven't offset or scaled your graph properly, nor have you considered that the PDO has both a warming and a cooling phase which have been well documented; try this instead:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2012/every:13/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:1910/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1910/to:1940/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1940/to:1970/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1970/to:2000/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:2000/to:2012/trend/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:13/scale:4/offset:5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:13/scale:5/offset:5/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/trend

Nor have you appreciated that PDO is perhaps the SUM of ENSO:

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf

http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040313.pdf

Or maybe it's not:

http://jisao.washington.edu/pdo/

In any event both the PDO and ENSO are correlated with SST [at least you got that bit!]. And what has SST been doing since 2003; graph it and see.

Now I don't have any more time to play with you but come over here and give it your best shot:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16021&page=0

Regardless, you really shouldn't be so arrogant, you haven't earned the right.

Dear Cohenite,

You truly have me in stitches. Ah, very, very amusing.

It is like you are trying to compare an elephant and a mouse.

You - 'They both have ears'.

Me - 'Look at the size of them'

You - ' They both have noses'

Me - 'Look at the size of them'

You - ' They both have toenails even'

Me - 'Look at the size of them'

You - ' Well they both are mammals though'

Me – 'Yeah but look at the size of them'

Mate, I'm sorry but you are like the emperor with no clothes.

In keeping with your definition of climatically significant periods being over 60 years let's just simply look at the complete trend lines for the two. One is going up significantly and the other if anything is heading down.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/to:2012/every:13/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:13/scale:4/offset:5/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1900/mean:13/scale:5/offset:5/trend/plot/jisao-pdo/from:1900/trend

It is as basic as that. Why on earth does that not register with you? You really do have it bad.

Steele, you do realise the PDO index is the reverse sign of temperature?

No, I thought not.

Graham gives me time off for calling people idiots so I won't.

Lyn
You have distracted those who usually get all exited when John Pilger writes on OLO.
The climate change deniers seem to ignore the fact that about 70% of our planet is covered by oceans whose temperature and levels are rising.

"The climate change deniers seem to ignore the fact that about 70% of our planet is covered by oceans whose temperature and levels are rising."

No they're not:

Sea surface temperature since 2003, the time the ARGO floats were introduced and reliable measurements made:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2003/trend

OHC to 700 meters where 90-95% of the ocean heat lies, also from 2003 and compared to the model predictions:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/ocean/global-ocean-temperature-700m-models-argo.gif

Deny that!

Dear Cohenite,

Yes they are.

Some bloke called funnily enough Cohenite has assured me that a climatically significant period is 60 plus years. If we plug that into your same calculator we get this;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1954/trend

a decidedly upward trending graph.

For fun though, knowing it has no probative value, at least test for a time period half that;

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1984/trend

Still upward.

Let's try for 1/3rd of a 'climatically significant period' just cause we can.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1994/trend

Still resolutely upward.

It is silly I know but lets for the sake of the party try for ¼.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1999/trend

Hey look at that. Still reaching for the sky.

But you know and I know this is just silly talk. A climatically significant period would not be 15 years, nor 20, nor 30. It is 60.

I commend your faith in me steele and what I say; now also be assured you are a pest.

Thus endeth the lesson.