'In the last 15 years there has been considerable work done on global weather patterns but we are still a very long way from understanding the mindboggling complexity of these systems. Even so, there appears to be enough science to make some reasonable calls based on probability.'

Malcolm, you've an open mind, let's discuss this.

I think here is a considerable body of work that has assessed global weather patterns over at least the last 600 years.
It is the work undertaken by RN personal from around the time of Francis Drake and probably includes the knowledge of even earlier, notably, Venetian and Portugese Mariners.
For a grasp of the mechanics of weather and climate a reading of a few books on the topic of Meteorology by former RN Officers is enlightening.

One thing is inescapable: RN officers always define weather and climate. That is something no climate change advocate, to my knowledge ever states. That's fundamental in any science.

It always surprises me that there are two topics that are always covered in great depth in RN sources, but do not seem to have similar emphasis in any analysis of changing weather patterns and climate by climate change advocates.

They are ocean currents and clouds.

While often reference is made to the Southern Oscellation in regard to weather, there is little emphasis on the currents and attendant currents affecting that particular weather pattern or the other thousands of ocean currents throughout the world. Some act independantly and some act in unison, for a varietly of reasons. All affect the weather and climate. All have exhibited changes over many centuries.

The only relatively recent and independant research on clouds and the sun's cosmic rays effect on cloud formation, that I am aware of, is from Henrik Svensmark et al. from the 1990's. Their theories contradict man made climate change and haven't been included anywhere in the warmists climate change oththodoxy. Their work is complex, involved and difficult to follow.

Cheers
(Yep I'm an ocean solo sailor)

Yup, Z+ Y will always = X, given no variables!
In this case, that of an earlier extinction event, Z was Tons of carbon in the atmosphere, y was the warming it produced, and the X was the annihilation event, the formula precipitated.
However, it was not the carbon per se that created the problem, but rather the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect promotes very vigorous plant life, almost if carbon was a super fertilizer, which in turn adds more moisture to the atmosphere, which acts like a thermal blanket.
[An acre of trees will add 2.5 times the evaporate, of an acre of open ponded water, to the atmosphere.]
If the air is dry, particularly during winter, we get frosts, whereas if there's a cloudy night, we get none!
Therefore, cloud or atmospheric vapour traps heat, the foregoing example, irrefutable evidence.
Further, in a series of endlessly repeatable experiments, one can take a cubic metre of air and remove all the Co2, [carbon,] from it, the measurable drop in temperature will invariably be 0.03C.
Demonstrating by endlessly repeatable science, that carbon on its own, traps very little radiant heat, or is a very poor insulator.
Whereas, if one removes all the water vapour, the temperature drop is always 30C, proving that water vapour, a terrific insulator, is the real culprit in global warming.
This is exacerbated by the ice melt, which seems to be an exponentially increasing effect, well beyond climate science, worst case scenario predictions?
As the ice melts, less of it reflects less radiant heat back into space, whereas the increased expanse of water, actually stores more heat, exacerbating warming outcomes.
Even if one disbelieves the science, the years of comparable satellite imagery, demonstrates a very marked reduction in Arctic ice, or the rapidly retreating glaciers, the world over.
Therefore one contends, one can and should observe the precautionary principle.
The changes advocated, will boost economic outcomes, and wealth creation opportunities, and indeed, provide sustainable profit producing alternatives, which will still continue to serve mankind, well beyond the end of oil.
Rhrosty

In 10 days it'll be the New Equinox. It'll be the Equinox 4,821,428,572. Yahooo, Pop, pop, bang, whizzz, Yippie! After 10226990 days, in 10 days it'll be the New Equinox. Whoo Hoo. I guess we'll all be out banging s & Pans & marching up & down the street like we did for New Year when we were kids.

Nice article, it sounds good that there are some one who can think for these type of topics.

Rhrosty,

This experiment you refer to about extraction of CO2 and water vapour, would you be so kind as to perhaps provide me with a link, an online reference, if one exists? You've mentioned this before and I'm interested to investigate the parameters used. I'm also interested to know what method they used to separate out the individual constituents.

And Jayb,

I can read that you're very excited (or cynical) about an imminent equinox. Look, I don't want to burst your bubble or anything but we're not due for an equinox for another 6 months or so. But hey, what the heck, go celebrate anyway.

Cheers.

>>Look, I don't want to burst your bubble or anything but we're not due for an equinox for another 6 months or so.<<

3 months. The southern hemisphere will have its autumnal equinox on March 20th next year. In 6 months we get our winter solstice on June 21st but before both of those we have our summer solstice on December 21st. Hippies and pagans and new age nutjobs usually like to celebrate the solstice but since they all believe this Mayan prophecy nonsense they'll probably be cowering in their bomb shelters.

Cheers,

Tony