Replying to Alan B
You shout: THE REST IS DOWN TO MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE!

In your wisdom you do not elaborate all of the natural phenomena affecting climate (and weather) including the ‘poorly understood’ natural phenomena* such as clouds, and even NOAA admit that ENSO is ‘poorly understood’ (= unpredictable, as was ‘The Blob’ in the North Atlantic affecting the USA).

Yes, GHG’s do slow the escape of heat from the surface but the net effects of positive and negative feedbacks are ‘poorly understood’. Did you know that Kevin Trenberth has his Earth’s Energy Budget Diagram adopted by the IPCC and that it estimates that the greatest heat loss from the surface as via evapotranspiration? (evaporative cooling….latent heat transfer) That is a huge pool for negative feedback which reduces any warming effect from GHG’s. Simple physics!

The rest is due to man-made climate change? The rest of what pray? There are no empirical determinations, only models….models with man-made inputs.

* That’s a technical term used by the IPCC etcetera

What a nasty discussion. Suggest that if you want to discuss the article you discuss the article rather than abusing the author. I've yet to see where anyone has made a substantive point against Jennifer's article.

I think her argument about space time makes little difference,and Cox was wrong on the history, but pretty right on the effect. But the homogenisation practices of the BOM as well as other meteorological organisations in the world is a major issue, and none of you has been prepared to tackle what Jennifer has written.

You seem to be adopting the technique of ad hominem that Cox used against Roberts, accusing him of believing that NASA faked the moon landings. That was inexcusable, but unfortunately is based on a piece of academic work by Stephan Lewandowsky which was so incompetent it should never have got through peer review.

Of the 10 respondents who thought NASA faked the moon landing, 70% accepted AGW. From what we know of the percentage of the community who believe in AGW, that would suggest that they are slightly more likely to accept conspiracy theories than the general populace, but the sample size is so small that any conclusion of any sort is ridiculous.

Again, none of you has engaged with her criticism on this ground at all.

Replying to Tombee,

You say you regularly visit Roy Spencer’s site! Can you not see the vast difference in profile between the UAH data and GisTemp, especially after their adoption of the highly controversial Karl et al 2015 “pause buster” paper?

I pointed out that Gistemp global has disappeared the 1998 El Nino which inconveniently remains, standing out likes dog’s balls in both UAH and RSS.

I'm puzzled why you do not admit that there is a contradiction there

Graham,

Glad to see your comment, instead of the blue pencil. It seems to me that people who have to criticise the messenger rather than the message itself have no real arguments to defend their own position.

Here's a really well written article on how AUSTRALIA WON-LOST THE VIETNAM WAR

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/remembering-long-tan-australian-army-operations-south-vietnam-1966-1971/

Mr O'Reilly opines that the article is " very trashy, disjointed, false, fraudulent and manipulative piece of work" and then proceeds to provide not a skerrick of an attempt to validate any of those claims. A devotee of scientific discussion is Mr O'Reilly.

But being a devotee of RealClimate he has absorbed (regurgitated?) the Dunning–Kruger offence which is a device used by those who haven't a clue how to discredit a view to seem that they are using 'science' to do so. Basically it says that, since your wrong you must suffer Dunning–Kruger and this proves your wrong. Science is ain't.

For those who doubt Marohasy's credibility on issue of the environment, perhaps they could do some research (sorry to use terms you don't understand Mr O) on the salinity issue in the early noughties (2000s). Doing so would show Marohasy was on the right side of the data when establishment scientists were blindly pushing yet another we're-all-gunna-die scare. Marohasy and a few others, looking to the data and past the spin saved this nation mega-bucks in wasted government spending on a problem that wasn't. The nation will be eternally in her debt.

So when a scientist with runs on the board says something, it behoves us lesser mortals to listen and ponder rather than run to the RealClimate play-book.

BTW using RealClimate to prove matters climate is like using the Koran to prove Allah.

Finally, the issues around temperature manipulation (or not) are not, strictly a climate problem but more of a statistical issue. Anyone reasonable numerate (sorry to leave you behind Mr O) can follow the issues and make valid judgements.