@mhaze: "What did happen is that I used AR5_WG1 to show that there is little evidence that extreme weather events are increasing globally."

Well you're wrong again, going off half-baked because one must also include both Sept 2013 http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ and the content of AR5_WG2 as well http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg2/ in 2014 at the very least.

It would help to know the contents of the SREX too ie Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation.
2011 http://ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/IPCC_SREX_fact_sheet.pdf
2012 http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/special-reports/srex/SREX_FD_SPM_final.pdf
2012 SREX Full Report http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/

There's many reasons why qualified climate scientists and not misc. posters to internet forums do climate science.

I'll assume mhaze that you are licensed to drive a car. There's good reasons why you've never been in Formula One. :-)

Follow that analogy down into the rabbit hole or not. It is what it is.

mahze: "...I accepted the IPCC's global data and, without rejecting the regional data, drew attention to its shortfalls"

No, you didn't. You cannot accept IPCC data or criticize it before reading it first.

mahze: "peer-review and all so it must be true!" That is not what peer-review means, nor how any scientists treat it. Educate yourself better?

Nature paper looks interesting. Let us know when Abbot/Marohasy get a paper published in Nature or PNAS.

mahaze re: "It means that our vastly wealthier great-grandkids are going to have to walk an extra few metres to get to the water's edge when they go to the beach in 2100 ..."

False, it doesn't mean that at all. More proof how totally lacking in basic skills you are. The Paper never suggests anything remotely close.

mhaze re: "blah blah blah"
Sigh - "It's better to remain silent and perhaps thought a fool, only to open one's mouth to remove all doubt." :-)
That's a 'joke' btw.

Try harder.

Live and Learn without a Thermometer in your Pocket by relying on only one of your senses - eyesight.

@ 14th August
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/08/Figure1-1-350x417.png

A widdle satelite gif image to 26th Aug
http://neven1.typepad.com/.a/6a0133f03a1e37970b01bb0930d921970d-800wi

@ August 31st
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_daily_extent_dthumb.png

Maybe your eyes are seeing things or the satellite broken or NASA is lying again.

refs http://neven1.typepad.com and http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews

UAH (satellite homogenization calcs) has posted the August global temperature anomaly for its TLTv6.0(beta5) at +0.44ºC, the second warmest August (after 1998) and the 20th warmest of all monthly anomalies.

It represents a small rise on July’s anomaly. The year-to-date average stands at +0.567ºC, To achieve the ‘warmest calendar year on record’ (which remains 1998 at +0.484ºC) the remainder of 2016 would have to average in excess of +0.32ºC [which is all but guaranteed.]

……….1997/99 Avg Anomaly
Sep … +0.441ºC
Oct … +0.403ºC
Nov … +0.123ºC
Dec … +0.246ºC

The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value.

Global Surface Temperature Anomalies: FAQ | Monitoring References ...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

Clearly it can't be 'warming' and yet it is. Highest global temp so far was recorded in 2016 @ 1.38C above pre-industrial. Land clearing impacts, Ocean acidity, and CO2e emissions continue to increase globally.

Still waiting for the Abbot/Marohasy Show to deliver on proof of their claims and their promises. I can see a future where Marohasy is teaching STEM subjects to the girls at Brisbane Girls Grammar School, the best girls private school in Brisbane, to earn a living.

On being left behind by anti-science and anti-Australian-Business-Economy Luddites being elected to Parliament in 2016

China, the Green Energy Superpower
http://www.china-brain.com/Resources/China–the-Green-Energy-Superpower/229.html

http://www.technologyreview.com/s/600757/china-could-have-a-meltdown-proof-nuclear-reactor-next-year/

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/generation-iv-nuclear-reactors-safer2c-more-efficient2c-with-/6384118

http://www.datenna.com/industry/china-to-develop-gen-iv-supercritical-water-cooled-reactor/

According to a well-known expression, Rome's emperor at the time, the decadent and unpopular Nero, “fiddled while Rome burned.”

The expression has a double meaning: Not only did Nero play music while his people suffered, but he was an ineffectual leader in a time of crisis.

Happy Daze All

mhaze

Lake Mead is n the state it is in due to drought over a number of years.
The Aral sea drainimg was created by the Soviet Union through diverting water.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37187100

Max Green,

Clearly I'm going to have to stop doing ironic - it just goes over the head of so many.

"You'd have us believe that the world is generally creating
The extra land is a tragedy, not a good thing!"

When I said it was a disaster, surely it was clear that I was joking given that one of the disasters I mentioned was that nice Mr Gore's house would no longer be waterfront. I was sending up the reflex alarmist reaction to anything that smacks of change as a disaster. Seriously, how could you not get that?

Elsewhere Max opines (or just hopes) that the increase in coastal landmass that I mentioned was due to construction of artificial islands!! The global increase was 33000 sq km. The Dubai islands (for example) added less than 100 sq km. Anyone a problem with Max's 'theory'?

The authors of the report said that " the coasts are growing all over the world". But if you don't want that to be true, then it isn't - that's irony again Max.

As to AR5, to make things easier for you, just take one of the quotes I gave you earlier :"In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”. The is from AR5_WG1. Were the authors of that report right or wrong? Was the conclusion based on data or fantasy? Will you now exit the thread (like before) or attempt and answer?

Note that I'm not saying that that was their only point. Yes they commented on other things. But my original point was about global data and this is what they said about global data. So were they wrong?

re Thomas O'Reilly,

Its the nature of sites such as this, particular one as lighted moderated as this (kudos GrahamY), that you occasionally get people like Mr O'Reilly popping in. These are people who claim or imply a special understanding of this or that subject while disdaining to actually demonstrate such special knowledge. The MO is to just assert that others are wrong and supporting that claim by referencing a multitude of vaguely relevant URL without delineating how those references prove their point. The attitude is that they really are above the mundane to-and-fro of proving their point and those lesser unknowing souls ought to just accept what their (claimed) betters know.

So Mr O'Reilly swamps his posts with masses of links which, if followed, are either utterly irrelevant to the point at hand or only tangentially relevant. But no matter...so many links must mean he's right, right?

For example O'Reilly asserts I'm "wrong again" about what AR5_WG1 says about global climate extremes because of what other AR5 papers say. Obviously the implication is that the authors of WG1 were also wrong since I was merely quoting them but Tom won't go there. He, as is his want, then offers a bunch of links that purport to make his point - without making his point! One is WG2 - yes the same WG2 that in AR4 gave us the 2035 Himalayan fiasco. But it is only tangentially relevant since it is mainly concerned about what to do if extremes do indeed turn out to be a problem. Even so this report is far less bullish on the certitude of data than the disastrous AR4 report.

He also links to SREX, again without any advice as to why its relevant. And what does SREX say about global trends? :
"There is low confidence in any observed long-term... increases in tropical cyclone activity"
" There is low confidence in observed trends in...tornadoes and hail"
On floods "there is..low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes"

/cont

/cont

" low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences"
"There is low confidence in projections of changes in large-scale patterns of natural climate variability".

and so on, and on and on. Go to the SREX and search "low". There is a large amount of "low confidence".

But none of this matters to the likes of Tom. He gave the link, implied it was conclusive and that's the extent of his understanding. Oh dear.

There's much more of the utter gumph from Tom but 350 words makes a full expose difficult. He, for example, falls for the line that the IPCC reviewers are doing it pro bono. He falls for the line that China is going all renewable when they are instead building coal plants like they're going outta style.

My favourite is his Nero segue which again seems to lack any attempt at relevance. He tells us that " Not only did Nero play music [fiddled] while his people suffered [during the great fire of Rome], but he was an ineffectual leader in a time of crisis."

The fiddle was invented 1500 years AFTER the fire. And a full understanding of the fire would show that Nero played a very effective role in fighting and recovering from the fire.

Elsewhere Tom tells us he " extensively studied history". Perhaps 'extensive' has a different meaning where he comes from.