Dick and James,

All I have ever done with you two is to ask you to show me the peer reviewed literature that ties the cause of global warming to humans.

As usual you both refuse to answer my simple queries except with derision and personal attack.

Why is that?

Is it that there is no proof of the link.

Imajulianutter, can't you read, or are you too lazy?!? My last two posts stated clearly that I don't have an opinion, that the link I posted was out of interest and not argument for either side, that spindoc posted extensive links (how much more do you want?!?), that I won't do your homework for you, and that the planet's own cycle versus human impact are debatable.

Oh, I get it, you like trolling. Don't include me in your diatribe of trite.

@James O'Neill, thanks for your kind words and good advice. There's quite a few trolls here, isn't there? Is there a way to have private conversations at this forum? There's a few people I'd like to invite to another forum that's low on trolls, high on good discourse, but I wouldn't link it here for fear of some trolls following...plus it's poor form to link another forum at a forum. The only thing, is that it's an international forum, not an Aussie one...though with the partisan aggression and ad hominem that flies around here, some might find it refreshing. :)

Cheers.

so Dick does that mean you doubt AGW?

No need to be nasty now.

Some mothers do have them cohenite and I guess yours was one. There was quite a lot of data available from various temperature probes for ocean heat, at least to 700 m, prior to 2003. Regardless of that you were still wrong in your claim that ocean heat had not increased since 2003.

The best you can offer is Anthony Watts? You are not even trying now. This is a better place to get an assessment of trends in ocean heat back to 1955 http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051106/abstract;jsessionid=BB1EC9C84977C9211289ED4AA8488297.f01t02 It uses real data as opposed to Watts’ fake data and tells a very different story.

“And Agro you dill, you've also only looked at the MDB in the BOM link which includes ALL regions! Check again.” In fact I linked to southern Australian winter rainfall, which corresponds to the statement made by Abrahm et al. I don’t know what you have been smoking.

spindoc, I do hope you don’t hurt yourself wrestling with that strawman.

I haven’t made any statement about who shouldn’t be allowed to participate in a debate about climate science. I have merely pointed out that there is a preponderance of amateurs amongst those denying the world is getting warmer and cautioned that amateurs, due to their lack of expertise, frequently get it wrong.

Ah fudge agro; Levitus 2012; done to death here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/an-ocean-of-overconfidence/#more-61861

And here:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/16/trenberths-missing-heat-still-missing-new-paper-shows-a-flat-ocean-temperature-trend-0-09c-over-the-past-55-years/

But David Stockwell has the most interesting critique of Levitus 2012:

http://landshape.org/enm/levitus-data-on-ocean-forcing-confirms-skeptics-falsifies-ipcc/

In fact Levitus 2012 severely undermines AGW. The IPCC says:

“The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence that the effect of human activities since 1750 has been a net positive forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2.”

Levitus 2012 concludes:

“The heat content of the world ocean for the 0-2000 m layer increased by 24.0×1022 J corresponding to a rate of 0.39 Wm-2 (per unit area of the world ocean) and a volume mean warming of 0.09ºC. This warming rate corresponds to a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 per unit area of earth’s surface.”

And my comment about Southern rainfall and the IOD still stands.

As usual thanks for coming agro.