[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by Renato1

Wow - you said I spoke rubbish. You said 2GB spoke rubbish.

True..and I'm still of the same opinion on this matter...and the sun being boring. (life on earth would get pretty exciting, albeit for a short time, without it )

Originally Posted by Renato1

You said the IPCC said no such a thing about "The Hiatus". You cited some wild warming figure which turned out to bear no basis to current reality. And in a post to another member you deride me for not going to the raw source

I didn't deride you. But it helps if we are all looking at the same original source document.

Page 162 in the Executive Summary:"The total
increase between the average of the 1850–1900 period and the 2003–
2012 period is 0.78 [0.72 to 0.85] °C and the total increase between
the average of the 1850–1900 period and the reference period for projections,
1986−2005, is 0.61 [0.55 to 0.67] °C, based on the single
longest dataset available"

....no basis to reality? really? which bit did I make up??

Originally Posted by Renato1

So I do the work for you

You didn't, I read the IPCC report long before your post, about the sun being boring, apparently based on a sample of one (probably dodgy copy of) a PST.

Originally Posted by Renato1

a. it is actually you who was totally unaware of what the world's temperature has been doing since 1998, and
b. that the IPCC has indeed acknowledged the "Hiatus" (Dr. Pauchuri apparently slipped up in Melbourne last year and called it a Pause, which was reported in The Australian), and
c. that a temperature increase of 0.72C over nine years would indeed be worrying, except that the rate is 0.04C per decade by Hadcrut4 (the measure they use the most). If you look at the graph below, you'll see that by cherry picking you can get something like 0.7C warming around that period. But that is as relevant as my saying that from that graph from 2006 to 2008, there was a 0.65C cooling (which there was).

The 0.04C per decade figure is so small, that even scientists who are proponents of AGW acknowledge that it is statistically insignificant.

Climate change looks at long term trends, not short term variability.

To quote the IPCC introduction on page 164:
"the climate comprises a variety of space- and timescales: from the diurnal cycle, to interannual variability such as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), to multi- decadal variations. ‘Climate change’ refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identified by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties and that persists for an extended period of time"

Reduced to its absurd conclusion, your argument would suggest the Australian climate is getting colder ( despite the fact we are running into winter).

Originally Posted by Renato1

But you respond by dismissing my links from the exact same site without any reason, and instead choose to cite their speculations about future falls in aerosols and higher solar forcings.

You are cherry picking the document in a manner that totally ignores its overall conclusion.

If pressed for time, I invite all to read the executive summary.

It overwhelmingly states greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing, warming is occurring, and even with the current "slow down" (even you admit the figure is not negative) the deep oceans are getting warmer.

Originally Posted by Renato1

........... citing several years as among the hottest on record is irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with the trend.
Regards,
Renato

It has everything to do with the long term trend....the longest of which, since instrumental records were kept, is undeniably up.

Are you seriously suggesting greenhouse is not a real physical process?

Despite Mercury getting 4x the solar flux from the Sun as Venus, the latter
is 40 degrees hotter thanks to greenhouse.

Humans activities emit about 10 billion tons of CO2 per year to the atmosphere every year...and the number is rising.

I do however recall the tobacco industry also saying in a similar manner 20 smokes a day couldn't possibly hurt anyone.....

P.S.
If you don't believe a species can change a planetary atmosphere.... might be a good to time
to regard plants with some awe... the 21% of oxygen in the air we breathe, is due their discovery of photosynthesis some 3.5 billion years ago.