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?