These are all important points to remember in this discussion.

A small clarification: the IPCC AR4 included the melting of ice sheets, but not "dynamical ice flow". Imagine a large pile of ice cubes sitting on a slightly angled table at room temperature. The volume of the ice will be declining as the cubes slowly melt (and this is relatively easy to calculate), but due to the incline, some of the cubes may start to slide off the table. This is more difficult to model.

John

The 5-6mm/year from 1993 to 2011 comes from satellite altimeter data and also from the National Tidal Centre's set of high quality baseline tide gauge stations. I can't find the figure I was looking for online, but the table on page 5 of this report: http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60201/IDO60201.201105.pdf (or <a href="http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO60201/IDO60201.201105.pdf">this report from the NTC</a> - sorry, I'm new here and am not sure how they handle links) gives an idea - high trends (up to ~9mm/year in the north of the country, and progressively lower as you go further south. Ignore Hillarys (northern suburbs of Perth) as that is on land that is sinking. Fremantle, Sydney and Newcastle are not here, but there are stations nearby.

The satellite altimeter data and the tide gauge data basically agree.

If you look at the global map of satellite altimeter trends at: http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html (or <a href="http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html">this</a>; and scroll down to the map showing regional trends from 1993 to 2010 you get a better picture of what is happening.

If nothing else, a quick look at the table in the NTC report or the map of trends from satellite altimeter data shows how teacherous it is to draw conclusions from a couple of records - there is a lot of time- and space-variability and two or three records (no matter how good or how long) don't give the "big picture".

Neil White

Pawel - sorry about the delayed response. I do actually agree that no experiment in a box simulates the atmosphere, which is why the IPCC should have ignored the theory about CO2 based on experiments in such boxes over 100 years ago. The atmosphere does not obey the Second Law of Thermodynamics - because uniform pressure is not a possible result over a significant altitude differential. Hence "warm air" does not fall back to earth. So we only need to consider radiation. But there aren't as yet any experiments that have been done in the atmosphere that prove warming at ground level is due to radiation captured by CO2. Total radiation out keeps on being pretty similar to total radiation in. And the oceans at least have not been accumulating any heat since 2003: http://earth-climate.com/2003-2011.jpg

Indeed, the current CLOUD experiment may show that climate change is simply due to natural variations in cloud cover which correlate with solar winds that are thought to blow away the cosmic rays that help form clouds. This theory seems to be supported by the long-term correlation of low sunspot activity with low temperatures on Earth. And guess where we are heading - to the lowest maximum of sunspot activity (in June 2013) since 1907. http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/predict.shtml

That "majority of scientists" had better stand back from their doors when the CLOUD results blow in.

Regarding the core and crust heat, the temperature gradient in Germany is from about 300 deg.C at 10,000 metre depth to about 10 deg.C at the surface in this http://earth-climate.com/crust-temp.jpg and the net heat flow is outwards. If there had never been any heat in the core there would be a steeply declining gradient from the surface down, and it is highly unlikely that the surface temperature would have been raised by solar insolation alone from 0 deg.K to over 280 deg.K as it is now - especially when much of that heat would then be directed inwards by conduction. And of course we would never see 300 deg.C just 10,000 metres down. Elementary my dear Pawel.

Still waiting for any valid criticism of my (revised) site. Before you say the energy from 2,000 nuclear tests is insignificant, please note that, being underground, it is something that can build up over months or years before escaping through the surface. In contrast, use of fuels above ground, in the air or wherever creates relatively temporary heat, like solar insolation itself. Furthermore, underground explosions could very well lead to air or water filling a cavity where there was once solid rock. This would give heat from the core a "short circuit" jump towards the surface where it could easily end up a few degrees more in hot spots which may be on the ocean floor - particularly in oceanic crests. The temperature gradient from the liquid core at around 5400 deg.C down to a "break out" temperature of about 9 deg.C on average at the surface is a very precise gradient which, if altered by a very small percentage, could lead to large variations in that "break out" temperature which is the base upon which solar insolation adds a mean of about 12 degrees on a temporary, usually daily basis. We only need to explain about 0.1 degrees extra anthropogenic warming above the cyclic trends in 1978 to 1999 by my calculations. It could have been caused by the same phenonemon that, at its climax, produced the large El Nino, or it could have been a result of the nuclear testing. There is not much else that has gone away this century apart from these two things. So how else can you explain what is definitely a significant change in temperature gradient between, say 1978-1998 and then 2003-2011? I don't know how many more years of slight decline like this you need to see before being convinced, but you will see such until for at least another 15 or 16 years. And you certainly won't see more than a degree (maybe only half a degree) above present temperatures if you look down (or perhaps up) in 2060 or 2100.

That Media Watch piece is well worth viewing - thanks for sharing it!

As best I am aware, any errors or doubtful claims on http://climate-change-theory.com have been corrected or removed, so let's just talk about what is left.

There IS quantification of (1) the core to surface temperature gradient, eg 300 deg.C at 10,000 m down to about 10 deg.C at surface - in Germany anyway, (2) the "break out" temperature - with a mean of about 9 degrees C. (3) the temporary mean warming by solar insolation of about 12 degrees during the day (3) the relative acceleration due to gravity of moon : earth = 1 : 0.46. (4) The anthropogenic warming (above the near-sinusoidal cyclic trends) at the end of last century, namely about 0.1 degree. (5) The next maximum in sunspot activity in June 2013, (6) The magnitude of this maximum being the lowest since 1907. (7) the length of the cycles (based on orbital data) 59.6 years and 934 years (8) the expected duration of the current decline - until 2027 (9) the time and magnitude of the next maximum - 2059 about 0.5 to (at most) 1.0 degree higher than at present, this being the last such 60-year maximum in this 934 year cycle, (10) the approximate date for the next "Little Ice Age" - the year 2,500. (11) the ratio of CO2 molecules to other ~ 1 : 2,500 (12) the proportion of photons from all air and GH molecules returning the Earth - just under 50%.

I will try to ignore future posts which Michael and others will no doubt make laced with all kinds of generalisations and no specific criticism of any detail. But I will look into any constructive criticism with a view to correcting anything that may be inaccurate in the site. I do this purely in the interests of accuracy because I am conscious of the increasing hit rate (over 12,000 in 7 weeks) as those who presumably agree are recommending it to others. If we have a common interest in not misleading the public, then let us all be cooperative, because this site (and its duplicate http://earth-climate.com ) are going to be around for decades. My climate predictions have now been archived on the copies of the current home page onto http://earth-climate.com/home.html which reads "archived copy" in the lower right corner and will not be altered from now on.

Finally, please note that I acknowledge not being able to quantify nor "prove" the various hypotheses that may or may not be the explanation for the observed correlation of climate cycles with planetary orbits, in particular with the scalar angular momentum of the sun and nine planets. It simply cannot be mere coincidence that both the 934 year cycle and the 60 year cycles appear quite clearly in the calculated plot of the above angular momentum - and these cycles correlate well in time. The statistical probability of a correlation is thus near certainty, well above 99%. Hence there MUST be a physical reason which could very well be one of the processes suggested in the footnotes - or a combination. (My argument does not fall apart if some of these hypotheses are proven incorrect - I acknowledge they are nothing more than hypotheses.)

In addition to the cycles, I acknowledge that there was additional warming between 1978 and 1999 being up to 0.1 degree above the near sinusoidal cyclic trends mentioned above. This period corresponded with the majority of the underground nuclear testing and there would not appear to be any other major anthropogenic activity which has stopped at about the same time that the temperature gradient reduced significantly after the large El Nino. But it all could have been just a build up the El Nino - or a combination. But my argument is that it was definitely not due to carbon dioxide being a forcing factor. You will have to read with an open mind (and make an effort to understand) what I have written on the site to comprehend my logic.