The third relates to attribution.

Let me say at the outset that Roger Pielke Snr is not a reliable source.

Reams have been written about temperature measurement, but the bottom line is that there is good agreement between the main groups working on this and good agreement between the land station and satellite records where they overlap. Ross Garnaut (see Box 4.1 of his final report) had a couple of experts in the statistical analysis of time series look at temperatures for the last century. They concluded that there was a warming trend and that there was no break in the warming trend from the 1990s on.

I would agree that the ocean heat content is basic and a more significant indicator of global warming from decade to decade that surface temperature. I’ve seen two graphs which show clear warming since 2003. But I understand that it’s still early days in measuring this phenomenon. So I’d be cautious in jumping to any conclusions if the graph didn’t track expectations.

On the third, I don’t have time to unpick that bunch of stuff. Sufficient to say there is nothing new there.

There is also a question of attribution. First, it needs to be better recognized that global warming (i.e., climate system heat changes) is only a subset of climate change. Humans are altering the climate in diverse ways, a variety of human climate forcings are significant, and the effects of these forcings need to be responded to, even if the climate did not warm.”

The whole issue is too important to be based on temperature “estimates” that include near ground measurement.

As I said a Copenhagen two degree aim is not a valid aim or proxy for global heat content.

I’m not sure why you think the estimates of global temperature are totally dependent on near-ground thermometers. It was my understanding that it was calculated from ground-level, atmospheric and oceanic temperature readings, combined with satellite measurements of upper atmosphere temperatures.

The important measurements (for which average planet temperature is a proxy) concern how much total heat is sloshing around the system, as this is what drives extreme weather (like we’ve just experienced two extremes of in Adelaide) and general temperature rise and increasing dryness in southern Australia.

Or have I missed something?

Land use change is far more significant than the IPCC would have anyone believe.

Obviously the IPCC neglected a large body of published work. Would you be so kind as to quote me a source? Google has been no help at all.

land use change is almost completely ignored in the “equation”

For meanings of ‘almost completely ignored’ that approximate to ’studied in detail’. See Section 2.5.2 and 2.5.3, and table 2.8 of the fourth assessment report..

Why do skeptics think they can just make stuff up? Do they think no-one has read the reports?

However rather than sign over our soveriegnty to the UN , it would be good if Australia could think for itself and address the real issues.

You may have observed a small debate taking place in the Australian parliament according to Australian law.

Unfortunately for him, and for the credibility of any of the members of the NZ Climate “Science” Coalition, Treadgold’s approach to the issue is ignorant, his results meaningless, and he can have no excuse for not knowing he was wrong.

Par for the course. Ho hum!!

And to add insult to injury it appears New Zealand temperatures have been massaged as well. Ho Hum!!

*yawn* Another lie.

I’ve had a Google for your near-buried Antarctic Communication towers and nothing comes up. Got a link for it ?

Give it a few more decades.