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.