"DTR has decreased over the last 50 years"
On venus the DTR is zero, is that what we're aiming for?

I come back to 'nutter, and ask him why it is OK to assume Antarctic ice volume is increasing: "'Sea ice thickness exhibits a small negative trend while area increases in the summer and fall balanced losses in thickness leading to small overall volume changes.' (Increases.)

His brackets. The NASA IceBridge project is actually trying to determine nett volume loss/gain but 'nutter seems to again have prescience that he's are not sharing with the scientific community.

On the other hand, it is a fact that a vastly larger ice area has been lost in the Arctic than is gained, on balance, in the Antarctic, a point he studiously ignores while calling all and sundry deceivers.

Tink! (the sound of my penny in his hat)

Agro, interpret the Karoly conclusions about DTR for us, will you.

In the meantime all Ken did was take BOM Australian maximum and minimum data and apply a 12 month smoothing to the data and then a second order poly for curve fitting; he did use data only from 1978 whereas Karoly uses 1951-2005 Global data.

Torak and some buddies found a decreasing DTR for Australia for the period 1951-1992:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016980959400070T

So Ken's straightforward analysis is the only one which is up to date, not global and doesn't rely on model comparisons.

It's a bit like AGW; lots of really, really smart guys on multi-million dollar computers finding the world is going to blow up and making lots of money while some little guy with a pencil shows the opposite

Steele, back again to talk about anything but the basis on which you back the AGW fraud, and to complain about it being called a fraud.

You have been given the reasons that it is a fraud, but you give no reason why it is anything but a fraud. You do not want it called a fraud because you have an antipathy to the truth for which you wish us to cater. The benefits of your status as witless do not stretch to us complying with your requirement that the truth be ignored by us, we simply accept that you will not acknowledge the truth, and we will nevertheless refrain from calling you a crook or a liar, in acknowledgement of your witless condition.

You are now of negative value to the discussion. It would be nice if you found a site frequented by other witless people and could devote your efforts to it.

I said Jennifer Morahasy was a scientist, and that her presentation is clear. She cited the temperature record which showed that the BOM was wrong about 2013 being our hottest year. Fraud backers desperately want a “hottest year” to show an upward trend in temperature. The fraud backers’ prediction of higher CO2 levels causing a rise in temperature has not been fulfilled, so "hottest year" lies are prolific.

You posted some words which you say are from Jennifer Morahasy. You posted some words the other day which you said were Obama’s, then a couple of days later said they were Bush’s words.In a few days, whose words will you say are those you have now ascribed to Jennifer If you want to be a smart-alec, Steele,you should understand that you need the appropriate equipment in the top storey, and you do not have it

I will not respond to you any further, you have gone too far in your puerile nonsense. You are a witless and deceptive fraud backer, incapable of interaction on any sensible basis.

Tink!

cohenite, I was more interested in the fact that Lewis and Karoly had plotted historical data for DTR, showing a decline over the last 50 years – see Figure 4D.

What they also did was compare the observational data with models and found the models did not reproduce the observational data perfectly. Which is no surprise. The models underestimated the decline in DTR. Models containing just natural forcings were the worst at predicting changes in DTR, whereas those containing natural and GHG forcings were the best.

The main deficiencies in the models appeared to be around modelling of cloud cover, something we know the climate models are not good at. Cloud cover of course increases the minimum temperature, where the models were worst.

So over to Ken Stewart. He used data from the BOM website. So answer this question, why did he plot the monthly mean maxima and minima separately and then eyeball the difference? Why on earth would you do that when BOM actually provides the DTR which you can plot directly? Could it have something to do with this? http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries&tQ%5Bgraph%5D=dtr&tQ%5Barea%5D=aus&tQ%5Bseason%5D=0112&tQ%5Bave_yr%5D=T

I am also struggling to understand why Ken and yourself are fixated on Australia, when climate is a world-wide phenomenon.

But you might ask yourself why Ken Stewart’s model is predicting maximum temperatures in Australia to increase at an accelerating rate?

I wouldn't say we were fixated on Australia but we do live here and alarmism is very active locally.

Your BOM graph is known to Ken but as I said he does his analysis from from 1978, just at the beginning of the satellite era. During this period DTR is NOT decreasing, that is indisputable based on the BOM data.

The point of the analysis was to rebut some hysteria from one of the usual suspects, in this case Karl Bragnanza who said the Greenhouse effect is real and explains temperature.

The period from 1978 is a valid climate period by any 'official' standard but the DTR data, a crucial, essential part of the Greenhouse effect, disproves the operation of the Greenhouse effect in this period.

I also wouldn't worry about max temp increasing at an accelerating rate; it's probably a local effect.