That is the nature of climate change, worse storms more floods more droughts, hotter summers and colder winters maybe.
Any one that cannot see difference is happening, will never be any different no matter what.
Greenland is in freefall, the northern hemisphere is taking the brunt of change before the south at the moment, subject to change. Antarctic is melting, just not as severe as the Arctic.
IF Co2 was stopped now the lag time will put us in for decades of wild conditions to come.

Alice

Earlier in relation to Mount Wellington I did not mention that it has had snow quite often on the summit at Christmas time.

Sadly, your reference provides an abstract only.
I'd like to see comments from the author of the study rather than blog comments from a climate change denier.
The Pine Island glacier makes up 175,000 km2 almost twice the size of Tasmania.
Is there a hot spot near the Totem glacier of Eastern Antartica?
Are there hot spots in the Himalayas, Andes, and mountains of New Zealand?
What is happening in the Arctic?

Hot spots are not mutually exclusive to ground lines of ice sheets being undermined by water eating into them. There are hot spots elsewhere, I've yet to see them having a major impact on climate change.

A royal commission into climate science?

Whatever, bring it on.

My own preference is that no-one sitting in "judgement" has not Recently re-sat at absolute minimum, first-year thermodynamics or chemistry.

I can assure anybody that the comments of runner, Leo Lane, mhaze and others less offensively vocal have already demonstrated that they could not without considerable study.

Not one of these has mentioned the difference between "heat" and "temperature" in a chemical system. There are simple systems in which "heat" is absorbed without great temperature change. There are systems in which the addition of "heat" results in a cooler compartment within the system. Their arguments are all about what other people have said, and ignore what I would expect an inquisitive sub-adult to be capable of determining for themselves.

Bring it on, you losers.

Ant, I salute your determination in pointing out the severe deficiencies of these twits, but honestly, enough education to enable them to prove themselves wrong would cost them about $1000, non-refundable.

Rusty.catheter

Is there any particular reason to display your ignorance, Rusty, or you just cannot apply yourself to any useful activity?
You are obviously unaware that that the question of climate science is political, and has little to do with science. For instance, the means used to have Exxon Mobil defect from supporting the real science to supporting the climate fraud, has little to do with science, and everything to do with the dishonesty of the climate fraud supporters.
The question which you need to answer, is to what science do you refer us to show to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate?
If there is no such science, then your support of the climate fraud is dishonest.
By what means did you delude yourself into believing that any comment you offer has any validity, much less any value?

Leo,

Ant has already told you, and told you, and told you.

Extra Carbon dioxide traps long-wavelength radiation that would otherwise leave. That is "heat" that remains in the atmosphere. It is measurable. High-schoolers arrive having done so with a couple of carboys, some black paint and some beer gas.

Further, since the observations regarding conservation of energy have not been in any way nudged by anything that you have so far referred to, means that retained "heat" goes somewhere. Since *you* assert that there is no temperature change, where is that heat going? It doesn't just go away. Conductive heat loss requires a temperature change that *you* assert hasn't been measured (go read a text on heat transfer, a little harder than anything you've ever done I'd guess), radiative changes require a change in the black body temperature, which *you* assert doesn't exist. Therefore heat is accumulating in the system. Nothing political about it.

There are numerous ways "heat" can accumulate in a multiphase system with minimal temperature change. Go read up and come back with a couple. You've pretty much failed a major component of thermo if you cannot.

I am not interested in "debating" an idiot unless there is a qualified umpire.

If you want the benefit of my views, come to UQ next year, enrol in chemistry, pay your fees, and I'll help you learn, and I will do you the favour of marking you wrong when you are.

Further private tutoring will cost you $50/hr.

Cheers.

Rusty.

Leo

After what you have stated previously, this statement is astounding, you have undermined your own credibility:

"You are obviously unaware that that the question of climate science is political, and has little to do with science. For instance, the means used to have Exxon Mobil defect from supporting the real science to supporting the climate fraud, has little to do with science, and everything to do with the dishonesty of the climate fraud supporters."

Previously you have stated:

"After the rubbish that the flea has posted about Exxon Mobil, it is worth noting a few facts, particularly as there is no allegation of the breaking of any law, just investigation to try to find a breach."

All references to ExxonMobil state that their scientists believe in anthropogenic climate change confirmed by Ken Cowen a Vice President of the company. ExxonMobil scientists were involved with the IPCC, defection?
The Attorney General of New York has stated why they are investigating ExxonMobil, preliminary investigation happened prior to a subpoena being delivered according to ICN.

In a Court setting I suppose you would be seen to be an unreliable witness.

From:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17835&page=18

You say your a lawyer, not a scientist, your comments about what comprises science are sheer rubbish.
You have managed to undermine mhaze who stated that he had conferred with a person from Watts Up With That, about ExxonMobil.

In a reference provided previously, a statement Watts has made shows how he said that he is worried about government intervention...a political reason for trying to undermine science.
Projection doesn't work, Leo.