I have this wonderful weather device in our backyard. It predicts weather perfectly with 100% accuracy every time.

A short length of string hangs under its tripod base. When it is wet it is raining, when it moves about it is windy, when it is dry it is sunny.

No need for climate modelling, or even batteries or computer input - certainly not affected by politics either. It just works !

cobber, you old mutt, he's an academic, alarmist and an activist. He's been caught out again saying something which makes no sense and again at the public's expense.

I can't remember you ever making a sensible comment, or even an interesting one; as trolls go you're a dead loss.

Dear Cohenite,

My dear fellow you are in quite an envious position. Despite some of the Global Warming scientists asserting the 17 years is a climatically significant period you have stated quite categorically that this is not so and the figure is 60 years.

Therefore you are able to soothe their concerns by stating that the global temperature trend over the most recent climatically significant period is resolutely upward in trajectory.

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1964/mean:13/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1960/mean:13/trend

Expanding ice caps.
Stalled surface temperatures.
Increasing DTR.
Oceans stable.

Repeat after me

Warming tells us:
Ice caps must disappear.
Surface temperatures must rise.
DTR must reduce.
Oceans must rise.

Damn the opposite is occurring

Turney gets stuck fast in summer Antarctic ice he said wouldn't be there.
Surface temperatures stalled for 17 years.
DTR increasing dramatically.
And Flannery lives on the shore of a tidal estuary and his toes are not yet as wet as behind his ears...

What a joke.

Steele the stalker continues to verbal.

What I said as opposed to what you say I said, is that the 60 year PDO cycle is a good indicator of what the climate is up to.

But since you are intent on trolling you also ignored what I added to that; which is the phases of the PDO are not neutral. AGW says they are and therefore natural variability does not add to temperature.

But as I showed the PDO phases during the 20thC were asymmetrical in both duration and intensity which means the +ve phases were warmer and lasted longer than the -ve or cooler phase.

I provided peer reviewed links to support this point.

Your little 'gotcha' graphs ignore this crucial point and are incorrect because of it. This graph illustrates my point and shows yours to be bereft of logic and meaning:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2702/4503452885_79b5c09c4f_o.jpg

I also said another major cycle, the AMO, should be added to the mix; in addition to the AMO, the SOI should also be included and when they are, hey presto as Roy Spencer shows the late 20thC temperature rise has a natural explanation:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/evidence-for-natural-climate-cycles-in-the-ipcc-climate-models-20th-century-temperature-reconstructions/

Then there is Stewart Franks' work on the IPO which modulates ENSO and also has an impact on climate patterns:

http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/weather/Franks2007.pdf

Graph 7 is particularly relevant. Not that'll bother you steele since you're here to be a nuisance.

Cobber. Read your post twice now and, for the life of me, could not find ANY reference, disputation, argument or anything in any way refuting the information presented by Mr Cox?

"another anti-science global warning denier post". My reading of the article was that it was pretty much all 'science'. It does make me wonder who is the 'anti-science" writer here.