Belly have a read of "Water into Gold" written in the 1960's. That describes Australian extreme weather events for the first half of the 20th century. You will see plenty of events that today the ABC would hype to the heavens.This is not extreme, it is how it has always been and will remain.
I thought even the IPCC had admitted no warming for many years? These people are earning far more money than the average man to ferment a danger to enrich themselves.
As for sharks I have been fishing for over 50 years and honestly they get every where. I was born in England and there were sharks all around the coast. Sharks are adaptable creatures mainly because it is a case for all living things to either adapt of die out.

Poirot wrote:"Check out the animated graph here for a demonstration of filtering the signal from the noise - it's not rocket science (but it is climate science:)"

Errr, yes but that is entirely beside the point. I wasn't asking qanda how to separate noise and signal, I was asking him to justify his suggestion that an analysis of a 30yr trend was better for this purpose than a 50yr trend or a 100yr trend. (Although in reality he wasn't even doing that but instead just throwing out entirely unconnected assertions to try to make his post seem learned).

Poirot, you do this so often (misunderstanding the simple written word) that I wonder if English is perhaps not your native language in which case I should cut you some slack. Otherwise........

mhaze,

You're rather fond of casting aspersions on poster's intellectual and/or linguistic capacities - as one of your strategies. I suppose it makes up for the flaws in your argument.

(never mind - I'm cutting you some slack:)

As I said, it's the "skeptics" who revel in the short-term cherry-pick. Qanda was referring to the satellite data available on Arctic ice loss....(although, nice pedantic cherry-pick to try and punch a hole in his argument).

Here's what you normally get from climate scientists regarding long-term trends and changes.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

Belly,
I did read the story about the Mandarin Dogfish and noted they also inhabit waters around Japan and New Zealand, neither of which you could class as tropical. The article did not say they were newcomers to these countries either, so maybe they have always been in some Aussie waters too.

Don't forget that a few years ago the science was predicting 'permanent' drought and even if it did rain there would not be enough to fill dams. Most capital cities were going to run out of water. Now the government is flowting the idea of increasing the capacity of Warragamba dam which was one that was going to run out.A dramatic change from when all state Labor governments were spending billions on desalination plants.

For all the "skeptics" - a comprehensive (yet easily digestible) run down of the state of the climate:

http://theconversation.edu.au/hot-summer-yes-the-hottest-12505

Errr, no mhaze.

‘Sceptics’ have recently been ranting like a raving banshee about periods of the last 17, 18, 19 or 23 years (take your pick) claiming that scientific establishments (and real scientists) have said there has been no global warming.

All I did was show the generally accepted statistical time series of 30 years to be of substantive significance (which coincides almost to the beginning of satellite temperature monitoring).

Go back 50, 500, 5000, 50000,500000 years if you want to. Point is, there is a marked trend since about the 1850’s and more so since the latter 1900’s.

.

Poirot,

I was linking to the 5 best known ‘satellite’ temperature monitoring data sets, not arctic sea ice loss (although that is significant)

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/5temp.jpg

Plotting the 5 series on the one graph helps put 'sceptic' shill claims in perspective.

: ) thanks for your link to the article by the BoM authors.