Hi Tony,
Here is the link to peer reviewed , published paper which disproves AGW:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011637/abstract
The warming hypothesized by fraud backers to be human caused, is warming caused by Nature.

Tony,

If you think that these eleven references show the 'truth' about global warming then I can see why you hold the views you do. But I don't give them the same value as you do, at all.

Very quickly, (1) the IPCC has given up claiming a likely central estimate for climate sensitivity, and most of the recent published estimates hover around 1-2 degrees C. (2) Yes, CO2 has been increasing, though temperatures haven't, for quite a while. (3) Yes, so what. (4) I've written about the BoM's 'adjustments' on my website. Look it up. (5) Yes, though claims that the Arctic would be ice-free by 2015 don't seem to be borne out at all, and Antarctic sea-ice is increasing. (6) Things that 'may' have been the case don't really cut the mustard, do they? (7) See (6). (8) Yes. And no-one seems able to say what has happened, while the amount is not large. (9) See (6). (10) See (6). (11) This is simply a claim, without any kind of compelling evidence. Whatever the extreme weather event, someone is likely to point to it as an example of 'climate change'.

You didn't put in any link to papers that strongly support the view that warming must be bad, and that humans are responsible for it. The IPCC's AR5 pushes that view, but, as I said above, the argument is so convoluted, and so careful to avoid any kind of real debate, that it is hard to take it seriously.

That's it for me.

"You didn't put in any link to papers that strongly support the view that warming must be bad..."

Yes....as has been noted many times by "skeptics", the planet was much warmer in eras past - and the trilobites and molluscs thrived.

Not quite sure how that translates to the enhancement of human civilisation, however....

Don

"You didn't put in any link to papers that strongly support the view that warming must be bad,"

Interesting the scientists who have studied it, think it would be really bad. I would have thought that it was fairly obvious,based on a few simple observations such as faster rates of land drying, more extreme rainfall events, and failure of cold climate food crops, increasing insect damage, etc not to mention bush fires and coastal flooding.

http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/materials-based-on-reports/booklets/warming_world_final.pdf

http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2013/06/19/what-climate-change-means-africa-asia-coastal-poor

http://www.vox.com/2014/4/1/5570388/the-big-question-just-how-bad-is-global-warming-going-to-get

http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report#section-1947

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/climate-change/climate-science/climate-change-impacts/new-south-wales

Approximate decline in production In NSW by
2030 (%)
Wheat,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,8.4
Beef,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,0.7
Sheep meat,,,,8.1
Dairy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,5.5

2050 (%)
Wheat,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11.6
Beef,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,3.0
Sheep meat,,,,13.2
Dairy,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,11.3

Peter, thanks for the reference to the paper on tropospheric warming.

I think there are problems with relating that paper to global warming. Some very simple science – but note that I am not a climate researcher.

When the sun shines, it primarily warms the land and oceans. It does little direct warming of the atmosphere (although clouds would receive energy from sun shine).

The air temperature that we feel is primarily caused by the land and ocean warming or cooling the air. One of many indicators of global warming is the average temperature of that thin layer of air that touches the land and the ocean.

Note that over 90% of the received suns energy is absorbed by oceans. So, the temperature of the air from say 500 meters above the surface to the top of the troposphere has little direct impact of the value of the average surface temperature of the world.

As well, I understand that independent peer review of the paper you referenced found numbers of problems with that paper. I understand its conclusions were not supported.

And, of course, you know that the three authors of that paper are well known for pushing the anti-climate change view, and one apparenty received funding from the Heartland Insstitute to rubbish climate science.

If you want a very simple reference to Climate Change, please do a google search for Argo buoys. Over 3,000 buoys in the world’s oceans. They measure ocean temperatures down to 1km deep.

They are verifying that the oceans are warming. And as they warm, they “expand” like a piece of metal in a fire. This thermal expansion of the oceans is causing some 40% (from memory) of the current sea level rise. And the rate of sea level rise is increasing

>"Peter, thanks for the reference to the paper on tropospheric warming."

What paper are you referring to that you say I referenced?