You're always fun agro; especially when you are being devious. The Willis post at WUWT notes this about Levitus 2012:

"Here’s the problem I have with this graph. It claims that we know the temperature of the top two kilometres (1.2 miles) of the ocean in 1955-60 with an error of plus or minus one and a half hundredths of a degree C …

It also claims that we currently know the temperature of the top 2 kilometers of the global ocean, which is some 673,423,330,000,000,000 tonnes (673 quadrillion tonnes) of water, with an error of plus or minus two thousandths of a degree C …"

Aren't models wonderful things?

David Stockwell's excellent piece compares the IPCC forcing as expressed in atmospheric temperature as being "+1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2.” to Levitus 2012 which shows a rate of 0.27 Wm-2 also expressed as atmospheric temperature which is less than 1/6th of the official IPCC forcing. This comparison is predicated on heat moving from the ocean to the atmosphere!

So when you say David Stockwell says "that it is not possible for a water body to transfer heat to another object" you have either completely misunderstood him or are verballing him

Agro

'The behaviour of humans is no way to assess the validity of science.'

But hey Agro isn't consensus a uniquely human behaviour?

lol lol rocking lol

nincompoop, unmitigated idiot are really very kindly

Dick, your term “extremism” and your parameters for it do not seem appropriate. I assert the truth, and you find me extreme. You call yourself “Dastardly Dick”, and then say that I am puerile? “Fraud-backer” is a most appropriate term It is not about name calling, if that is what you mean by “puerile”, but about composing the right name.
When I originally became interested, I wanted to know about the science. I eventually discovered that it was not about science, but about duping people The Climategate emails banished any doubts I had about the bad faith of the AGW promoters.

As to the science, Professor Bob Carter says:
, with the formation of the IPCC, and a parallel huge expansion of research and consultancy money into climate studies, energy studies and climate policy, an intensive effort has been made to identify and measure the human signature in the global temperature record at a cost that probably exceeds $100 billion. And, as Kevin Rudd might put it, “You know what? No such signature has been able to be isolated and measured.”
That, of course, doesn’t mean that humans have no effect on global temperature, because we know that carbon dioxide is a mild greenhouse gas, and we can also measure the local temperature effects of human activity, which are both warming (from the urban heat island effect) and cooling (due to other land-use change, including irrigation). Sum these effects all over the world and obviously there must be a global signal; that we can’t identify and measure it indicates that the signal is so small that it is lost in the noise of natural climate variation.
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/tag/professor-bob-carter/

It is fraudulent to represent that human emissions have any but a trivial effect, which is not measurable.

.

Dear spindoc,

Lol mate okay. You remind me of one of those poor characters who gets around with a sandwich board advertising slung around his neck. Most do it for the money but you do it for free. Here is a dollar in your cup anyway.

Dear imajulianutter,

Thanks for accepting the area around the south pole is experiencing temperatures nearly 4 degrees warmer than normal. Puts things in perspective doesn't it.

So the proof you required for AGW. I'm sure we have waltzed this dance before but here goes. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humans are directly responsible for increasing the concentration of it in our atmosphere, pure physics says it has to have an impact on temperatures. If you don't accept this tell me what law of physics you are determined to ignore.

That steele is not proof.
It is a mad mass of unsupported assertions from which you try to deduce a result.
You haven't supplied any supported proof of AGW.
To you it is a belief. I need actual proof.

Now tell me what are the normal temps around antarctic for you see I believe your beliefs so suspect that while your claim temps have risen 4degrees and there is no specified starting point they might still be in a range that allows antarctic ice to increase.

In the last couple of weeks Reports have been published about changes that are actually occurring created through climate change. There has been the NCA document outlining climate change in the US. There have also been Reports about how glaciers in West Antarctica have been retreating at a fast pace.

One of the Reports about Antarctica uses data derived from satellites, planes and ships; that is, measurable data. The other Report has arisen from computer modelling, both studies agree that glaciers are in retreat in Western Antarctica.
The NCA Report lists all areas in the US as having been impacted by climate change.
Climate change deniers have yet to produce peer reviewed documents as extensive as those created by climate change scientists.

Newspapers from Alaska and Sweden acknowledge anomalous temperature changes. A tourist document from Greenland acknowledges glacier retreat.
A paper by Professor Lesack in relation to the McKenzie River has shown how temperatures have been increasing over decades (published in 2014). Professor Lesack found that temperatures had been rising over many decades (beginning in 1958), temperatures had increased by 3.2 degrees C in Spring and 5.3 degrees C in Winter.
Have the deniers been able to debunk epidemiological studies in relation to ailments created by climate change ...I don't think so.
Have deniers been able to show that permafrost is stable and not melting... I don't think so.
Have deniers been able to show how coastlines in Alaska are not being savagely eroded as they are no longer protected by ice... I don't think so.
Ice melts through warmth; I'm waiting to have somebody deny this.

Credibility is lost when deniers keep suggesting that temperatures have been in decline over the last 17 years when records have since been broken. There is an over 70% chance we will experience an extensive El Nino event later this year; and going on into next year, how will that be described if it occurs?

If the deniers can come up with a document such as the NCA referenced by over 3,000 papers, then, they might have credibility.