The type of storms now circumnavigation the globe can be explained. What is causing the situation that needs to be explained.
Storms are set to become more severe and more frequent. Wether it be floods or drought we are in trouble.
Both polar ice caps are in demise, and increasing in thaw.
I can't understand someone that says nothing has changed, change has been increasing since the early 70's. The sun is more intense, skin cancer is rampant. Biggest fires ever, gigantic storms and weather all around the world.

BEWARE, THE LABYRINTH OF CLIMATE CHANGE SEMANTICS

Yikes!

Rich2, I feel your pain. Another poor soul lost in the labryinth of climate change semantics.

Folk once called phenomena of this type an act of God or bad weather; today alarmists describe it as an "extreme weather event" (EWE), and so on.

If, as you conclude, EWEs are indeed multi-causal, and caused by (i) (unspecified) "natural factors" - let's say "natural variability"; AND (ii) anthropogenic factors; then perhaps you can provide precise criteria that will enable us to identify what EWEs are due to each of your alleged "causes"; or at least what contribution each "cause" makes to the creation of an EWE?

If you can, Rich2, here's a (non-climate) prediction that will make you even richer. It is more likely than anything produced by a climate General Circulation Model (GCM): A Nobel awaits you, sir/madam.

Incidentally, if your "mix" is "unknown", on what basis are you advising the Queensland Premier to refer to what would normally be called a natural disaster as "partially manmade disaster"?

Perhaps I missed something in your argument? It does have some neat Carrollian twists and turns in it, like so much of today's CC discourse.

Attributing causality is a very tricky business, especially in a complex system like the Earth's climate - or the universe. That's why some folk a while back took the easy way out and invented "GOD" and "SATAN".

Is Nature - and climate - not in a constant state of change? Do descriptions of these processes of change (produced by experts in learned journals) really reveal anything infallible about its ultimate cause, or causes? If so, where are their Laws of Climate Change?

Alice (in Warmerland)

EQ
Your table is poorly set out and doesn't explain anything.
As for draining the oceans I ask where to? There is sufficient ocean water to cover the present land mass to a depth of 12km. Spread over the whole surface of the earth rather than just the present 70% the water would still be about 3km deep.

Rich2, did you actually READ the article you claim to be commenting on?

Ignoring the recent flood in Brisbane, there had been TEN other major floods in the Brisbane River since 1840. Read the graph. Of those, NINE were prior to 1920 tenth was in 1974. Please explain how that demonstrates any connection whatsoever with human emissions of carbon dioxide, most of which have occurred since the 1960s. And the floods of 1840 and 1893 were far more severe than the floods of 1974 or 2011.

Carbon dioxide is less than 0.04 per cent of the atmosphere by volume, with far lower global warming potential than water vapour at four per cent. Water vapour accounts for almost all of the so-called "greenhouse" effect.

Human emissions of carbon dioxide, after assuming about half is absorbed naturally, total about 1.5 per cent of atmospheric carbon dioxide by volume. That is, 1.5 per cent of 0.04 per cent. And Australia accounts for about 1.5 per cent of that 1.5 per cent. Do your own calculations. Then ask yourself whether the sun or human produced carbon dioxide is more likely to affect climate. Keep in mind that we wouldn't actually have a climate without the sun.

Oh, and temperature rises have historically PRECEDED increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Hey, you got one thing right, it really is simple.

Popnperish, you obviously did not read Steketee’s non demolition of Monckton.

Steketee’s answer was to deny that he said any such thing. He further said, “I quoted Professor Nicholls as saying: “The reality is that we don’t know if there is a climate change component in it.”” .

Cliff Ollier has cleared that up. We do know that there is no “climate change” component in it, and Professor Nicholls is playing puerile games, as you are, popnperish.

There is no scientific evidence that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. If you have a reference to any such science, pnp, the IPCC would love to have it. Their pathetic assertion at the moment is that it is “very likely”, based on their wishful thinking and on no scientific fact.

We are realists, not deniers, and it is about time you faced up to reality and stopped talking unsubstantiated AGW nonsense.

Rich2, you are about pnp’s standard of inability to comprehend that there is science which supplies answers and the answer is that there is nothing to support the AGW myth.

Foyle, it is a non solution to a non problem. Draining the oceans is as stupid a suggestion as the AGW assertion.

popnperish: "Why higher ocean temperatures? Global warming"

Higher ocean temperatures haven't occurred since the commencement of the Argos programme in 2003. But then there's been no atmospheric warming trend since 2003 either.

I think you'll find that any data showing higher sea surface temperatures in the Pacific are the result of the El Nino Southern Oscillation.