From the IPCC AR5, WG1 report;

“There is limited evidence of changes in extremes associated with other climate variables since the mid-20th century”

“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”

“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”

“In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms because of historical data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems”

“In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century due to lack of direct observations, geographical inconsistencies in the trends, and dependencies of inferred trends on the index choice. Based on updated studies, AR4 conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since the 1970s were probably overstated. However, it is likely that the frequency and intensity of drought has increased in the Mediterranean and West Africa and decreased in central North America and north-west Australia since 1950”

“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”

Hasbeen, you are such a predictably pathetic chump.

I haven't ever claimed bushfires or hurricanes are caused by global warming. That is a just a pathetic straw man argument on your part.

My argument has always been of the following form:

1. Carbon dioxide is a known greenhouse gas http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf

2. Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is increasing http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

3. The increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has an isotope signal that indicates it is the result of burning fossil fuels by humans http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JD089iD07p11731/abstract

4. The Earth's surface has warmed by about 1 C in the last century http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A2.gif

Therefore, there is a high probability that the burning of fossil fuels by humans has resulted in a warmer Earth and continued burning of fossil fuels will warm the Earth even more.

Agro,

1. Agreed
2. Well, has increased in the last 18 years but no warming has been produced for 18 years so no link with human emitted CO2 which in any event is only a tiny fraction of natural CO2.
3. How can you suggest that a CO2 isotope as a signal represents only human emissions?
4. With the exception of the last 18 years!

Therefore there cannot be a high probability of anything. Unless you wish to be considered a pathetic chump.

Agro,

At what rate did the earths temperature increase in the previous century old mate. Just a little more than that I think you'll find, but that must have all those SUVs & coal fired power houses mustn't it? It surely couldn't have been the response to the end of the little ice age.

You know that strange time, when they has fairs on the iced over Thames. Some silly people said that was due to a lack of sunspots, just like is developing now, but we know it was lack of CO2 don't we? Just as well we humans are here to free a bit of the stuff, from where the planet has been locking it away for eons, or all the flora would die off. I expected an agronomist to know about these things.

So sorry mate, there is just too much evidence for any thinking person to still believe in the fraud, unless they have a strong reason to avert their eyes & attention from that evidence.

“Agro,

At what rate did the earths temperature increase in the previous century old mate. Just a little more than that I think you'll find, but that must have all those SUVs & coal fired power houses mustn't it? It surely couldn't have been the response to the end of the little ice age.”

Well Hasbeen, Roy Spencer’s reconstruction has a difference between 1800 and 1900 of about 0.0 C +/- 0.1 C. http://www.odt.co.nz/files/story/2009/12/the_case_for_global_warming_is_in_serious_doubt_6102000384.gif

I guess in the Hasbeen universe, 0 is more than 1. Who would have guessed?

In contrast, I see spindoc goes for the argument from ignorance.

Surface temperatures have increased over the last 18 years, just not by as much as the previous 18 years. http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996.5/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1996.5/trend

It is quite simple to determine the source of additional CO2 in the atmosphere. The isotopic make up of carbon in coal is different to carbon in the biosphere, atmosphere or oceans. This is the result of one isotope of carbon being radioactive (amongst other differences).

Agro,

It's great to see you argue with a railway engineer at the IPCC! Next you will be telling us that the pause in global warming is somehow equivalent to the increase in CO2 emissions increase? So temperatures have increased? But by less than CO2 emissions, go figure.

If your science had any merit the IPCC would agree with you, unfortunately they do not, so where does that leave you?

If the isotope that identifies human emissions was relevant it would reflect the proportional increase in warming but, oops, it doesn't. So no link between CO2 increases and warming. I'm sure you will have lots of exotic links to explain this?

Deep oceanic storeage of the missing heat perhaps? Penguins extra body heat, dead polar bear rotting carcasses, rising sea levels inundating warm sandy beaches, 84,000 sq kms of extra arctic ice eating your missing heat?

Hey ho, your explanation much anticipated.