McReal,

Were those AGW activists claims made about conditions expected now in 2011, or at some stage in the future if temperatures reach a specific point?

Plimer made many a lot of claims, many of which were proven to be incorrect or conflicting.

In Qld's north climate change is just about back to normal. We've had a couple of cyclones & its February already & hardly any rain yet. In comparison to 35 years ago this is a rather dry & windless wet. Yes there appears to have been a climate change but things are getting back to normal.

You blokes are really struggling to make any argument about it all. Rely on science to tell you everything that you want to hear. [selectively ]
Someone said scientists are only human. You have been told that there is more co2 in the upper atmosphere, and yet you want more info on what that means. What it means was stated in the 1800 s. How often do you want something repeated. Move on and your knowledge base may increase.
The more condensation in the atmosphere means more snow and rain. Perth has lost 40 houses from wild fire, and in a state of drought. Yet you can,t see the forest because there are to many trees in the way. Look beyond your backyard and you may see something.

"Were those AGW activists claims made about conditions expected now in 2011, or at some stage in the future if temperatures reach a specific point?"

Posted by wobbles, Monday, 7 February 2011 1:08:32 AM

There have been lots of claims by lots of people, and lots of projections.

I have taken global warming to mean more evaporation everywhere, especially when locally warm, and more precipitation overall, some in heavy downpours.

I reckon a597 is right, there are too many trees in the way.

Chop those damn things down, & you have at least cured the bushfire problem. Would also increase runoff, & stop the cities going dry too.

Then give thanks for the occasional flood. Without them places like Brisbane can't exist.

Despite all the cr4p Beattie went on with about drought, Brisbane was going dry, with normal/average rainfall. It may be cruel, but unless some areas are flooded occasionally, the area can not support the existing huge population, & growth would have to stop. Normal rainfall does not give enough runoff to keep the dams supplied. So come on e597, give us some more of your post event predictions, & rationalising, we need a laugh.

Meanwhile, how about a levy on water supply, with the money going to buy & demolish/remove, the effected homes of those who want to get off the flood plain, but can't manage it financially.

Mark Lawson here -

The CSIRO brochure refered to by other posters is a case in point of just how clueless the official climate establishment is about rainfall. CSIRO was talking about seasonal changes in rainfall and how that might be affected by temperatures. But overall the organisation expected the continent to be dryer.

In fact the floods we just got may well have been due to a major climate cycle - the PDO - and that same cycle means that we will get significantly more rainfall on the east coast for decades, and never mind the seasonal changes. In other words the CSIRO had no real clue at the time about what was going on. Perhaps they still don't.

But to claim, as some posters have, that the CSIRO forecasts are accurate, is absurd.