For Jennifer, Dr Bill and other like minded contributors:

1. Lets assume Australia is not warming, that the temperature data has been "modified"
2. Also understand that the rest of the world is warming
3. So - what is the scientific rationale for Australia being different?
4. Option: all world temperature databases have been fraudulently modified
5. Query 1: how many people involved in these modifications?
6. Query 2: why isn't there at least one of those modifiers willing to tell all, to the media?

Jennifer, Dr Bill and other like minded contributors: please put brain into thinking mode before penning rubbish.

Agronomist your position on climate change is obviously one of a card carrying member of the gravy train riders association, & as such is of little value.

You talk of evidence, but your only contribution is using the tortured, corrupted propaganda put out by the usual suspects, without ever producing any convincing reason for the torture of the data, & thus no reason why anyone would consider it had any truth behind it.

We continually see contrived bulldust given as explanation for the decades long increase in Antarctic ice, with every little loss of ice in confined areas promoted as a loss to the total.

We see the same garbage about the arctic, glaciers, Mt Kilimanjaro, & anything the fraudsters can spin for a headline, splashed far & wide, only to prove untrue with in weeks.

Your IPCC continually put out exaggerated garbage, only to retract or reduce it in their next report, but never in press releases.

When you continually get exaggeration, & contrived headline chasing from the warmist brigade, there is absolutely no reason anyone with a brain would believe anything they say. There is just too much smoke coming off the whole crowd for there not to be a large fraudulent fire going in the pits of the warmist camp.

Speaking of rubbish, tony153, lets assume that IPCC are right; and that warming (however it was calculated) stopped almost 2-decades ago.

That would mean the world is NOT warming now; wouldn't it? Or are there words in-there that you don't understand?

Perhaps you could grab some data and decide for yourself if they are useful or not for analysing for the warming you seem so steamed-up about.

Start with Rutherglen, for instance, then follow some dots around a map of Australia.

Then get in touch with your own brain; pen something intelligent that you have worked out for yourself; and tell us about it.

You can then experience for yourself, how many people pan you for looking outside their square.

Cheers,

Dr. Bil

Bill

There are more things than Rutherglen and some dots around a map of Australia.

You should look outside your own square, more deeply.

It's been said before, take your research to the right scientific fora where it can peer reviewed, properly.

Tony 153, put a sock in it - there are far too many 'experts' from both sides here, including Dr Bill.

I don't have a square Dr. David.

Not bound by institutional arrangements; policy-hush; climate-money or outside influence; like from WWF for example.

I don't work in an information or science "silo"; nor a hub or institute. Weaving around Australian datasets; a free spirit am I.

I can even use my real name without fear of institutional persecution.

Dr. David, why not look at ACORN Amberley, Min.

There is an undocumented move there; and the meteorological enclosure is not standard - its bare black soil. Poor sods didn't like seeds in their socks I dare say! I wonder what they think of thick, sticky black-mud?

The issue David, is that if the base data are no good; any conclusions relating to trends are likely to be spurious.

Scientifically that would be true, wouldn't it?

If we deduct the trend-line and the residuals still contain steps, then several underlying assumptions relating to OLS regression are violated aren't they?

Why is that permitted in climate science, but not in other sciences?

Because its a crock, Dr. David

Cheers,

Dr. Bill

Dr Bill,
Regard the earth and its atmosphere as a system.

A very superficial understanding of thermodynamics would tell you that the earth would only warm if there were more energy coming into that system than is leaving.

Well, NASA satellites show incoming energy exceeds outgoing by approximately 1 watt per square meter of the earths surface. As you understand spreadsheets, to determine the total additional input, you could multiple 1 by the total number of square meters that constitutes the land and sea area of the earth (plus, you could add the area of the cryosphere as well). So, don't look to Rutherglen. Lift your head and gaze upwards.

Now, here comes a scientific term: the amount of additional energy inbound to us, each minute is, wait for it, humungous. To understand that precisely defined word, you might like to imagine a 1,000 watt radiator in each parcel of 33x33 square metres of our worlds surface, that is on, 24x7.

Even Alice's quarternian cat would understand that picture.

The world IS warming!

The IPCC does not "say". It is the organ through which thousands of scientists " say". And they say that warming continues but the rate of global warming has reduced. But, you need to understand that "global warming" refers just to that layer of air touching earths surface.

So, where is that heat going: not as much into the atmosphere, but much more into the oceans. As detected and measured by over 3600 buoys that measure ocean temperature profiles down to 2km beneath sea level, at 10 day intervals.

If you remain keen on Rutherglen, just concentrate on its wine.