The only mathematical modelling illusions are those used by the author/Coal-fired advocate? Who goes to considerable lengths to obfuscate or misrepresent the facts?

Simply put, 2017 was one of the hottest years on record and during a La Nina weather cycle!

Furthermore, our sun which controls all our climate has been in a waning (cooling) phase since the midseventies, (NASA) which as part of normal cyclical events should have ushered in a mini ice age.

Not a planet ravaged by unprecedented extreme weather events record floods, enduring drought some claim the worst in living memory. Ditto, granny killing heat waves and firestorms erupting all over the world, Marked by advancing desertification that has by and large made over 50 million, displaced by drought, homeless and a crisis of proportions never equalled in two world wars,

As always with climate change deniers, the head is buried somewhere warm and comfortable. Moreover, they never ever allow the fact to get in the way of their subjectively assembled opinions, but rather select those which supports an obvious, as the nose on your face, confirmation bias!?
Alan B.

we use to call it withcraft or soothsaying. What an insult to true science are these pathetically failed models.

And any fool knows that Climate Change causes Earthquakes and therefore Tsunamis, don't they?

Here's PROOF: http://www.axa-research.org/en/project/rebekka-steffen

"Climate change is responsible for many transformations taking place on earth, including, potentially, more earthquakes.

As the load of ice decreases, it changes the stress present in the earth’s crust. These forces could activate formerly quiet seismic faults and generate powerful earthquakes. Researchers know that such glacially induced earthquakes occurred in [Greenland] 10,000 years ago."

AND THINK OF THE EFFECT ON ANTARCTICA! In spitting distance of our beloved Oz.

Just ask Dr. Rebekka Steffen, a geoscientist studying the impact of melting ice sheets on seismic activity.

Please rush Rebekka a $900,000 research grant, via my bank account, today.

:-)

Please rush Rebekka a $900,000 research grant, via my bank account, today.
plantagenet,
A whack over the head would be cheaper & probably more effective as it could possibly knock an ounce of sense into this "Doctor".

What on earth is all this illusion about climate change?
Since when has our climate been permanent?

1. "Since when has our climate been permanent?" Very true Ponder.

But to admit that won't score scientists and academics research grants.

Research Grants desperately sought. Subject?:

"The Last Ice Age Was Caveman Caused".

2. I've read somewhere that the Climate Change Orthodoxy is:

If each country trashes its standard of living and spends $Trillions to actually lower overall Greenhouse Gas Totals this will cause:

- a 2 degree C drop in global temperatures

- but that is over a period of 200 years

- because its now too late to reverse Climate Change in a human lifetime

Meaning there'll be no observable change from trashing your standard of living

in even 50 or 100 years.

All is unverifiable so why bother!?

The whole global warming hysteria is ultimately based on mathematical models.

Create a series of equations and algorithms that you think is a reasonable representation of the global climate system, and then see what happens when you increase the level of CO2 in your model. If it shows catastrophe, publish and await the accolades. If it doesn't...well no one cares. You definitely won't be published.

The same process is used for the economy for a very long time, but remains profoundly inaccurate despite a century's refinement.

The problems for both is that these are unbelievable complex systems that cannot be reduced to a few equations or even a few thousand equations.

Additionally, the climate is only vaguely understood and therefore the equations used to represent some aspect of the climate might be spectacularly wrong. (Vaguely understood?. Only this week it was realised that the deep Pacific Ocean is very much colder than thought and getting colder, caused, it seems, by the slow reaction to the Little Ice age 400 years ago).

I think the most important take is that, as climate models have become more sophisticated and better represent the real climate system, the forecast temperature rises have become less scary. There was a time when models didn't and couldn't represent clouds in their calculations. Criticism forced a major effort to better model clouds and the result was that predictions of the future temperature increases fell.

There is a very important number in climate science called ECS: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. That is the amount of expected change in temperatures for a doubling of CO2, all else being held constant. Its the starting point for all predictions and all modellers have to tell their systems what ECS to use. As the science has improved, the value of the ECS has declined. Each new discovery has caused a decline in this core number. Each new discovery WILL caused a decline in this core number.

As the science improves, the scare recedes. Not that you'd know that from the headlines

Another illusion is we need to trash the economy to address manmade climate change. The answer has always been carbon-free, cheaper than coal energy.

Albeit, we could still do it with coal by #1 eliminating most of the current transmission and distribution losses. And consequently, reduce emissions per KwH by 75%.

#2 the way to do that is, first wash, then cook the coal, to extract the methane. Then pipe it underground to the end users. Where ceramic fuel cells will convert it to electricity and free hot water.

Because the conversion is a chemical process not combustion per se, The exhaust product is mostly pristine water vapour.

Nowhere in this system are vulnerable transmission towers or expensive transformers. and possibly harmful magnetic feilds. And given the capacity to compress and store, no blackouts.

Moreover given the elimination of transmission and distribution losses, prices a quarter of what we pay today, given we pay for those same losses with each power bill!

The waste product of the cooking, possibly a useful source of carbon to support a highly profitable manmade graphene industry.
Alan B.

This excellent article reminds us, and verifies that the climate fraud is baseless.
The fraud promoter, Allan B, reminds us of his baseless support for the fraud, and even has the gall to use the term “denier”, when he is well aware, as the article confirms, that there is no science to deny. There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate, is there, Alan?
Is your support for the fraud based on ignorance or dishonesty, Allan

Leo lane, are you still beating your wife, is a question that assumes one of two outcomes, #1 you still beat your wife. #2 you once beat your wife. It's a verbal, as is your question, which quite knowingly and deliberately, impugns my integrity.

Climate change is real and just as real as the unprecedented enduring droughts that have beset the Australian landscape along with heatwaves and firestorms incomparable in living memory. When unable to deny the science. Which includes for the first time in living memory an ice-free summer coastline of Alaska and a navigable northwest passage, extreme weather events and ice melts, all occurring during a waning phase of the sun.

Leo and co just shoot the messenger. Even as I offer a solution that still, includes their beloved coal! And a consequently massively improved economy.

I remember the seventies and driving long distance in non-air-conditioned cars or living in non-air-conditioned houses.

Today more and more nations are finding, that surviving in the 21st century, includes mandatory air conditioning in homes, offices, shops, schools and factories, and where some occupations will need to be conducted under light and spray fans at night!

That more and more will be displaced by encroaching desertification. Fortunately, all occurring during a waning phase of the sun! Imagine how much worse it will be when it returns to a waxing phase and the joint really begins to heat up!?

Hope you and yours are still around when that occurs as part of natural cyclical events Leo. And as you and your's scream, why didn't somebody tell us!?
Alan B.

Hi, Allan B, thanks for your reminder that there is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
You have a solution to a problem which the article has shown does not exist.
You have no science to support your fraud, do you Allan?Apparently it is supported by dishonesty, since you have no science,other than the article, which you fail to comprehend.

The whole basis of this article is wrong. It ignores the most important facts;
• The observed temperature has risen and is still rising
• Greenhouse gases (those which absorb and reradiate infra red) warm the planet
• Atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have risen due to human activity
• A breakdown of the long established relationship between temperature and solar activity has been observed.

From the above we can tell that anthropogenic climate change is real. And we can see that it is a problem because:
• Humans (as well as ecosystems) have adapted to existing climates. Changing climates will inevitably overwhelm infrastructure not designed for the new conditions.
• The hotter conditions will cause sea levels to rise.
• There's a danger of some parts of the world becoming uninhabitable.
It is these qualitative effects, not the modelling, that the need for action is based on.

Mathematical modelling is useful because it enables us to quantify the effects. It gives us some idea of how serious the problems are and how we should prioritise responses. The models are improving, and although they're still far from perfect, they're far from useless either.

Imagine the money spent on this fraud was spent to clean up the environment. Humans, animals and plants would all be much better off.

Aidan, I did not think you would fall for the fraud.
Nothing has changed since Bob Carter wrote the following:"The question in context, therefore, is not ‘do humans have an effect on global climate’, but rather ‘what is the sign and magnitude of the net global human effect on climate, and can it be measured’. Remarkably, given the expenditure and effort spent looking for it since 1990, no summed human effect on global temperature has ever been identified or measured. Therefore, the human signal most probably lies buried in the variability and noise of the natural climate system. This is so to a degree that as a statement of fact we cannot even be certain whether the net human signal is one of warming or cooling4. Though it is true that many scientists anticipate on theoretical grounds that net warming is the more likely, no strong evidence exists that any such warming would ipso facto be dangerous. III.
https://friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/CarterSept2008.pdf

There is no science to show any measurable human effect on climate

Leo Lane,
>Aidan, I did not think you would fall for the fraud.

Yes you did! You've fallen so deeply for the fraud that you think everyone who doesn't share your idiotic opinion has fallen for the fraud. You're so convinced of it that you ignore genuine evidence and instead rely on decade old opinion pieces to make your case. After all, climatologists (except maybe those funded by the Kochs), meteorologists, oceanographers, NASA etc are all in on it, but you can trust bloggers – or at least you could a decade ago, before it became crystal clear that the warming hasn't stopped.

>no summed human effect on global temperature has ever been identified or measured.

It's true that attribution of the cause of warming is not part of the measurement process, and we don't have the ability to compare our planet with an otherwise identical one devoid of human activity. However, if we plot our planets temperatures against time, we find that we're quite rapidly warming even though we should (if past trends had continued) have entered a cooling phase.

But of course you think that proves nothing. However hot it gets, you prefer to think that human activity might not be responsible for any of it - as if some unknown unknown was stopping human activity having a warming effect, and a second unknown unknown was simultaneously causing the warming effect that human activity could be expected to have.

Tell me, have you ever heard of Bayesian probability?

Will this increase in heat cause increasing evaporation & cause more precipitation ?

>Will this increase in heat cause increasing evaporation & cause more precipitation ?
Yes it will. But precipitation only occurs when there's uplift.

On average, the world will get wetter. But some parts of the world, including southern Australia, will get drier. And in much of the world, rainfall will e more erratic.

Aidan,
If southern Australia is predicted to become drier then would evaporation from a fully flooded Lake Eyre help towards more rain in the area ?

individual,
Not significantly. To create rain you not only need water vapour in the air, but also uplift to cool it and condense it out of the air.

A full Lake Eyre would increase the amount of water vapour in the air. But despite the increased heating that would bring o the surrounding area (water vapour's a greenhouse gas) it wouldn't have much effect on uplift - the air around there's descending most of the time, whether Lake Eyre's full or empty.

However, we can expect Lake Eyre to fill more frequently, as there'll be more rain in northern Australia venturing further south more often.

Lake Eyre to fill more frequently, as there'll be more rain in northern Australia venturing further south more often.
Aidan,
ok, so then this frequency & more rain gradually move south, a changing weather pattern is more likely than not to occur. I can only imagine that a wetter weather pattern hovering above the Great Artesian basin more frequently & longer, the re-filling of the basin will result.
All that's needed is to help it along with some freshwater channelled into the area.

The southern section of the GAB is likely to remain as dry as before, if not dryer. But there may be an increase of water entering the GAB in Queensland and the NT.

Please also keep in mind that most of the GAB is covered by impervious rocks, so will not be refilled by the rain falling on it.

"On average, the world will get wetter. But some parts of the world, including southern Australia, will get drier. And in much of the world, rainfall will e more erratic."

It works like this:

If you want your region to be wetter...it'll get dryer
If you want your region to be dryer...it'll get wetter
If you want your region to be warmer...it'll get colder
If you want your region to be colder...it'll get warmer
If you want your region to get more snow...you'll get less
If you want your region to be less snow...you'll get more

No matter where you live, what you want, how you hope it'll turn out, its gunna get worse for you. So pay up and shut up.

"A breakdown of the long established relationship between temperature and solar activity has been observed."

Well maybe by you but not by science.

"After all, climatologists (except maybe those funded by the Kochs), meteorologists, oceanographers, NASA etc are all in on it,"

That's very true, so long as you ignore all the science that isn't Kock funded and doesn't buy the scare. But ignoring what you don't want to be true is a pre-requisite for believing the AGW story.

As an example...
Smirnov, 2018 : "The contribution to the global temperature change due to anthropogenic injection of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, i.e. resulted from combustion of fossil fuels, is approximately 0.02 K now." http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6463/aabac6/meta

Bear in that this is just one of literally 100s of papers over the past year or so that doesn't buy the so-called consensus. And I'm reasonably sure the authors aren't Koch lackeys.

If, as we know, temperatures over the past 12000 years were higher than now for 25% of the time. However did the flora, fauna and natives survive when we, with all our technology, are, we are confidently informed, going to fail?

Please also keep in mind that most of the GAB is covered by impervious rocks, so will not be refilled by the rain falling on it.
Aidan,
if the rock is impervious then any seawater intrusion should lift the freshwater level. iI there is no seawater ingress then the GAB will eventually fill up as it is contained under the continent with nowhere else to go but up.. The quicker the GAB can be refilled the better for the australian environment.

mhaze,
>No matter where you live, what you want, how you hope it'll turn out, its gunna get worse for you.
That's not quite true, as there are parts of the dry tropics where the extra rain will be welcome. However it's a surprisingly good rule of thumb, as we can no longer rely on conditions being as they have been for centuries.

>"A breakdown of the long established relationship between temperature and solar activity has been observed."
>Well maybe by you but not by science.
Other way round! 'Twas meteorologists, climatologists and astronomers who noticed it, not I.

>But ignoring what you don't want to be true is a pre-requisite for believing the AGW story.
Again it's the other way round - ignoring what you don't want to be true is a prerequisite for disbelieving the AGW story. I for one don't want the planet to warm.

Your example is paywalled. Have you read the full article? If so:
• Am I right in deducing from the abstract that the modelling only considered the primary effect of CO2, not the water vapour feedback which increases the effect by an order of magnitude?
• Can you confirm the 0.02K figure is not a typo? If so, why is this figure only a twentieth of that paper's estimate of the effect of doubling CO2 when the combustion of fossil fuels has already resulted in atmospheric CO2 levels rising by a third?

>If, as we know, temperatures over the past 12000 years were higher than now for 25% of the time. However did the
>flora, fauna and natives survive when we, with all our technology, are, we are confidently informed, going to fail?

Firstly, where did you get that "25% of the time" figure?
Secondly, we're not going to fail. Who's confidently informing you otherwise?
Thirdly, the main barrier to adaptation is usually the speed of the change rather than the change itself. However the change itself could still make some areas uninhabitable.

flora, fauna and natives survive when we, with all our technology, are, we are confidently informed, going to fail?
Aidan,
Flora, Fauna & natives have the advantage that they're not plagued with academic experts.

Aidan,

" 'Twas meteorologists, climatologists and astronomers"

For example?

"I for one don't want the planet to warm."

Yes but you do want the alarmists to be shown to be right and the sceptics wrong.

"Your example is paywalled. Have you read the full article? If so:"

1. Yes I've read it.

2. Yes the paper has the number as 0.2K.

3. I wasn't offering the paper as a proof of anything other than that there a enormous numbers of papers out there that are not Koch funded by do reject the so-called consensus, contra your claims.

"..the water vapour feedback which increases the effect by an order of magnitude?"

Order of magnitude?? Even the IPCC thinks the water feedback increases the CO2 effect by 2 to 3 times. And they acknowledge, in their more honest moments that they really aren't sure about that or even that the feedback is positive.

"Firstly, where did you get that "25% of the time" figure?"

There are, again, many temperature reconstructions that show this. Somewhere on these pages I once listed 10 or so such reconstructions.
The best, or my favourite, is Marcott et al 2013.

http://content.csbs.utah.edu/~mli/Economics%207004/Marcott_Global%20Temperature%20Reconstructed.pdf

Now since I've been down this road many times on this and other groups, I'll try to forestall some of your arguments trying to reconcile this paper with alarmism.

1 Marcott is very much in the alarmist camp.
2. The uptick at the end of his graphs and paper are not data but items added after the data collection. Subsequent to the paper's release Marcott admitted as much and agreed that it should not be used to draw any conclusion about the data.
3. In a Q&A after the paper's release, Marcott agreed that the data resolution was at best 120 years and around 300 years for most of the period in question. He agreed therefore that there is no way to know or even suppose that the current speed of warming is unusual.

What is it with people that makes them put so much effort into the past & future but none in the present ?
Whatever you neglect today will be history tomorrow. Where's the benefit for the day after ?

Next door neighbor told me just now that he'd seen an old Eskiomo chap interviewed by some GW proponent. He pointed out to the GW Bandwagon desciple that he remembered when he was a little kid, his mob used to have a garden in the early 1910's-20's in a spot that is now covered by ice. The GW desiple apparently tried every trick to put a different slant on the old chappie's comments but failed. What surprised my neighbor that the footage was even shown on TV.