You’ll find yourself increasingly without support, despite your improving Google skills. I note that kiwiblog’s most vociferous supporters of CAGW have quietly stepped back from this debate. That’s probably wise as the growing set empirical evidence does not support runaway AGW, and the evidence of scientific fraud both in construction of the theory, and in the assembly of data inputs starts to mount.

If believing the CAGW lie helps you get through your day then fair enough. But do keep posting. You’re doing more to dissuade the fence-sitters than rational debate, which you seem impervious to, will ever do.

1) the climate is NOT warming as much as was projected by the ‘consensus’ scientists despite our continued emissions
2) nothing about recent climate is unprecedented

http://laptop.deh.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/drs/pubs/334/lnd/ld_24_climate_change_impacts_on_fire_weather.pdf

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

A key finding of this study is that an increase in fire-weather risk is likely at most sites in 2020 and
2050, including the average number of days when the FFDI rating is very high or extreme. The
combined frequencies of days with very high and extreme FFDI ratings are likely to increase 4-25%
by 2020 and 15-70% by 2050. For example, the FFDI results indicate that Canberra is likely to have
an annual average of 25.6-28.6 very high or extreme fire danger days by 2020 and 27.9-38.3 days
by 2050, compared to a present average of 23.1 days. The increase in fire-weather risk is generally
largest inland. Tasmania is likely to be relatively unaffected.

just a example of the ease these climate denial nutters blog deceive fucknuckle stupid sheep one of you links starts rabbiting on the snow cover in Greenland is going up this means that the ice is not melting
http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/07/greenland-snow-cover-has-expanded-by-1000-manhattans-since-1974-clear-rising-trend/

snow cover is the area covered in snow
ice melt is the volume of ice melting

Did you learn the difference between volume and area at school ? kindy even how about snow and ice do you know they are not identical in reference to conditions on Greenland

Greenland is melting
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Greenland/greenland5.php
Today, Velicogna’s new calculations adding data for 2005 and 2006 to her previous estimates show ice loss at just over 210 gigatons per year. When Luthcke and his colleagues updated their calculations with GRACE data collected through June 2006, they calculated a loss of 161 gigatons per year.

At the journal Earth System Dynamics, M. Beenstock, Y. Reingewertz, and N. Paldor have published a paper titled “Polynomial cointegration tests of anthropogenic impact on global warming”. The authors conducted an exhaustive statistical analysis of data from 1850 through 2007, applying the technique of cointegration, which the authors describe as follows:

Cointegration theory is based on the simple notion that time series might be highly correlated even though there is no causal relation between them. For the relation to be genuine, the residuals from a regression between these time series must be stationary, in which case the time series are “cointegrated”. Since stationary residuals mean-revert to zero, there must be a genuine long-term relationship between the series, which move together over time because they share a common trend. If on the other hand, the residuals are nonstationary, the residuals do not mean-revert to zero, the time series do not share a common trend, and the relationship between them is spurious because the time series are not cointegrated.

You can follow the link http://www.earth-syst-dynam-discuss.net/3/561/2012/esdd-3-561-2012.html for the statistical details, but here is the authors’ conclusion:

We have shown that anthropogenic forcings do not polynomially cointegrate with global temperature and solar irradiance. Therefore, data for 1880–2007 do not support the anthropogenic interpretation of global warming during this period. This key result is shown graphically in Fig. 3 where the vertical axis measures the component of global temperature that is unexplained by solar irradiance according to our estimates. In panel a the horizontal axis measures the anomaly in the anthropogenic trend when the latter is derived from forcings of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. In panel b the horizontal axis measures this anthropogenic anomaly when apart from these greenhouse gas forcings, it includes tropospheric aerosols and black carbon. Panels a and b both show that there is no relationship between temperature and the anthropogenic anomaly, once the warming effect of solar irradiance is taken into consideration.

Interestingly, the authors also conclude that the data admit the possibility that CO2 and other “greenhouse gases” could contribute to to a temporary increase in global temperatures:

However, we find that greenhouse gas forcings might have a temporary effect on global temperature. This result is illustrated in panel c of Fig. 3 in which the horizontal axis measures the change in the estimated anthropogenic trend. Panel c clearly shows that there is a positive relationship between temperature and the change in the anthropogenic anomaly once the warming effect of solar irradiance is taken into consideration.

Other scientists will weigh in on these findings, as the debate over climate continues to rage. Still, it is increasingly clear that the most reliable and sophisticated scientific work tends to show that the ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING HYPOTHESIS is WRONG. In that sense, it is fair to say that a consensus is emerging.

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/weather/temperatures-off-the-charts-as-australia-turns-deep-purple-20130108-2ce33.html

Meanwhile elsewhere around the cold cold world

http://notrickszone.com/2013/01/07/greenland-snow-cover-has-expanded-by-1000-manhattans-since-1974-clear-rising-trend/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/05/china-weather-idUSL4N0AA0D820130105

http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress.com/2013/01/04/new-delhi-suffers-though-its-coldest-day-in-44-years/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2256188/What-global-warming-Alaska-headed-ice-age-scientists-report-states-steady-temperature-decline.html

You mean like the IPCC first assessment report that ‘predicted’ between .2 and .5 deg C warming since 1990, but the actual warming was (at most) .18 deg C?

“recent Aussie high temps as your big convincing argument”
No global changes in climate now becoming apparent as predicted by the climate scientists is the big fucken proof. record warmth for both the USA and aussie record wet for England, record melt for the arctic. In the past scientist have been very conservative in attributing climate events to global warming: there is no need of such caution now the evidence has become overwhelming.

Often the nutters start up with the catastrophic global warming meme I simply pointed out some catastrophic effects of global warming at least on the personal level in our nearest neighbor.

There will be more and more such posts in the coming months as more and more undeniable evidence that we are changing the climate emerges.
That or dpf will ban me

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=80696&i=7301

Just like you don’t know with 100% certainty if it will rain or not on 26 June this year.

I know there’s a lot of politicking in ‘climate change’ science. I know not all science is good science.

I know it took a long time before all reputable scientists would accept the existence of tectonic plates. And a very small minority held out for a long time after most others had accepted the theory.

And I know that I just just want to know either way. I’m not fixed to any one idea and having to defend it like it was an absolute truth that others were trying to refute. It’s not a conclusively proven idea.

I don’t really care which one it is griff. No-one gets off this rock alive one way or another. Everything has a lifespan. Life on earth. Earth itself. The sun. What difference is fucking man made climate change going to make to that even in a worst case scenario? Human race is wiped out? That just means it will be sooner rather than later. All species come and go. That’s nature. That’s natural. There’s been mass extinctions. There’s been historical geological events that have wiped out far more than anything man made climate change will ever do.

And using the recent Aussie high temps as your big convincing argument? That just makes you come off as a fucking moron mate. I wouldn’t even want you arguing with Fletch with you taking the ‘evolution’ position against a creationist… you’d fuck that up royally. The way you argue a point doesn’t help your cause man.

Two thirds of the observed increase of global heat content has occurred in the upper 700 m

Griff, do you know the average ocean depth is 4 km ?

How about the remaining 3300 m ?

Figure 1 shows that the heat content of the World Ocean has increased since around 1970. The linear trend over the whole time series 1955–2010 of the uppermost 700 m and 2 000 m layer was 0.27 Wm-2 and 0.39 Wm-2 (per unit area of the World Ocean), respectively. Two thirds of the observed increase of global heat content has occurred in the upper 700 m of the ocean, with increases in the layers below 700 m depth accounting for the remaining one third [ii]. Heat content has increased in all major sea basins of the World Ocean, in particular in the Atlantic Ocean.

Several global ocean data assimilation products are available to compare observation-based estimates with independent reanalysis data. Global and basin-scale heat content warming trends in the upper 700 m of the ocean computed from a set of global ocean reanalyses fall within the range of the most recent observation-based estimates derived using different methods [iii].

all fixed if we tell the aluminum smelter to fuck off

No need, if fucking hypocrites stop using their product.

Problems in are future will include water supplies on the east coasts leading to changes in land use or the abandonment of farming in some regions
Impacts on our hydro generation
all fixed if we tell the aluminum smelter to fuck off and stop asking for the rest of the country to subsidize them

Still fucking up GD day after day is annoying to this blogs readership.
The baying of the nutters was to strong this morning for me to resist a good old nut job kicking