What you write here cohenite really is a joke.

Starting with ocean heat content there is an argument from incredulity, a bit of cherry picking and a major error. If the argument is that there has been no warming since 1998, then warming of the oceans should be considered from 1998. The heat content has gone up by 9 x 10^22 J in the 0-700 m http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

cohenite though wants to cherry pick the period since 2003. Why? Even then his claim is bogus: heat content has gone up by 3 x 10^22 J. For the 0-2000 m heat content has gone up by 13 x 10^22 J since 1998 and by 8 x 10^22 J since 2003. Then because cohenite can’t understand why ocean heat content can increase even though sea surface temperatures are not different to those in the massive El Nino year of 1998 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ersst/visersst.php?img=ersst.1880.ann.png then it can’t be happening.

To top it off cohenite links to annual rainfall patterns for the Murray-Darling Basin in an attempt to disprove Abrahm et al’s statement that winter rainfall has declined in southern Australia. Something that has indeed happened. http://reg.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=saus&season=0608&ave_yr=T

spindoc, my mention of the lack of qualifications for Harris is an explanation of why the claims should be carefully examined. They are indeed found wanting. Harris is one of a group of complete amateurs in this area, like our own Anthony Cox, who get provided with a soapbox here and are happy to spout whatever rubbish they can so long as it denies the reality that the globe is warming and that humans are contributing to this. As for the NIPCC as far as I can determine it consists of 3 people – hence why I described it as a rump. One of those people heads up the Heartland Institute.

The IPCC SPM is authored by people who have appropriate expertise in the topic being addressed and contains biogeographers, economists, political geographers, ecologists, and climate scientists. This is the broad range of expertise that would be needed to address the issue of how to respond to climate change.

@Leo Lane...Hahahaha! Thanks for gut-wrenching laugh!

Did you actually make any calculations on the numbers given? 110,000 sq kms per day for the month of April, being 30 days, totals 3.3 million sq kms for that month. It then said the total ice sheet was approx 9 million sq kms. Which means that a growth of 3.3 million sq kms constitutes approx 50% increase in the size of the Antarctic ice sheet in one month. I suppose you're suggesting we've commenced an Ice Age, are you?

You totally ignore the fact that I acknowledged that the planet has its own cycle, and that it's debatable as to how much of climate change is planet vs human activity, but that both must impact. Which means, I don't really have an opinion, and my link of a drifting ice sheet was only one of interest, not of a claim for one argument or another.

And finally, my favorite, "Dick thr dunce"...immediately reminded me of the old joke, "before I went to yunyversity, I cooldnt even spel injuneer, and now I are one!"

I heartily congratulate you on your arrogant ignorance, illiteracy, lack of comprehension, cherry-picking, innumeracy and audacious use of ad hominem in the process.

Please don't bother replying.

‘morning Agronomist,

I’ve just checked your response against the points I asked you to address. I guess the schizophrenia has you beaten as you failed to address one single point.

Perhaps I could distill things down to something more manageable for you.

Since you have nominated all those, who by your reasoning should NOT participate in the CAGW debate, could you give us your nominations for those who ARE allowed to contribute?

Thanks.

Dick D and Agronomist. Both well said. If you look back at previous articles OLO has published on climate change you find exactly the same people, Cohenite, Lane, and their ilk spouting exactly the same kind of ill-informed unscientific rubbish in the comments section. Any attempts to lift the debate are invariably met with a barrage of ad hominen comments.

May I suggest you are both wasting your time trying to persuade them of anything that does not fit their extraordinarily narrow view of the world, a world free of facts, logic, common sense, evidence and humanity. But do keep writing. I at least generally learn something from what you say and am glad to do so.

2003 is the relevant time for OHC and the rest of the alleged OHC because that's when remotely reliable temp measurement began with the ARGO. Basically when you factor in the error prone measurement before ARGO nothing has been happening in the ocean since 1955:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/annual-forcing-into-out-of-the-ocean.jpg

And Agro you dill, you've also only looked at the MDB in the BOM link which includes ALL regions! Check again.

James, the only scientific evidence you've ever presented to support your high-handed arrogance is, well, non-existent.

EVERY time a clown of AGW like you comes along with their nose in the air looking down at those who dare to doubt the given truth of AGW I have given you chapter and verse of the scientific reasons why AGW is a lie.

Your belief systems are your business; the rest of us should not have to pay and clean up after you. Between the alarmists and the Islamists this world is going to hell in a hand basket for no good reason except the disciples of both AGW and Islam are fanatics.