Fester,

It is easy to see from your comments above that you do not understand the mechanics of the greenhouse gas effect, which explains why you belong in the AGW denialist camp.

If you think that there is no such thing as AGW then you have nothing to worry about.

Unless of course you believe that the planet is actually warming but that the causes are outside of the burning of fossil fuels. If this is the case then I assume you believe along with your other AGW denialists that these causes are things like sun spots, volcanoes and Milankovitch cycles.

What is it that you believe Fester?

Hi Mr O,

I see from your comments that you have little understanding of weather. On the matter of warming influencing Enso there is little consensus:

https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2016/02/02/el-nino-and-global-warming-whats-the-connection/

I am not in any camp. I am interested in a good standard of reasoning. As a global warming enthusiast you demand urgent action. What action? How long will it take to be effective? By what mechanism will such action change Australia's weather patterns? One action taken was to re-vegetate Australia, a geoengineering exercise that went horribly wrong when the extra vegetation caught fire, yet Morrison gets the blame. How so? Then there is the widespread opposition by global warming enthusiasts to nuclear power and geoengineering (other than tree planting), both rejected for ideological reasons, yet they are perhaps the most effective tools available.

The basis for the hysteria? 0.8 +/- 0.4 degrees Centigrade of atmospheric warming and 0.3 degrees Centigrade of ocean surface warming in 170 years, and the belief that current computer models can accurately predict the climate decades hence.

With such an abysmal standard of reasoning my enthusiasm is considerably dampened.

Cheers

Steel Redux, don’t flatter yourself I have been insulted by professionals, compared to them, you are at amoeba level.

But seriously, your question is pointless for three reasons.

First, you don’t need to ask it twice.

Second, the article was about how to get a balanced answer re the cause of the fires, I think.

Third, re your obsession with “facts, Stats and References”. any stat on current temps etc are just that. Climate is used to be defined as a 100-year window, but now seems to be 30 years (or less) to suit CCCers and their GCM gods. Max, Min, Median (and their associated probabilities) temps may rise, but that’s just a sign of a warming cycle, not a proof of Co2, Ch4, NO ozone impacts.

Non-scientists (and weak scientists at that), believe statistics are the “proof of integrity”. As the old saying goes, “there are lies, damned lies and statistics”. Statistics are not a divine arbitrator of truth. They are a tool for looking at complex noisy data, when your data does not show a clear fundamental relationship. The authors of basic physical. electrical, chemical laws don't need statistics. They are fundamental relationships.

As a CCCer, I am sure you love the “Hockey Stick Graph” promoted by Al Gore, but contrived by a politically motivated scientist. That scientist had to splice incompatible data sets and process the data by using a statistical technique that I am very familiar with, known as PCA. Simply put, this takes multi-dimensional data sets and removes the main trends to leave behind “hidden signals”. That’s statistics for you. They are a great invention, but when used by charlatans, their akin to nuclear fission, they can be used for good, or mass destruction!

Ps, steelredux. I know you don’t read responses, but guess what, its not all about you. But thank you for your comments, as it allows the rest of us to clarify dubious issues/furphies you raise. Life would be so dull without innocent CCCers like you.

Dear Allison Jane,

My apologies, I didn't think I was insulting you at all rather I was putting a rational observation based on the objective evidence.

You say I don't need to ask the question twice, well it appears I do as you have studiously deflected in order to avoid answering it. Also it was independent of the article so we can park that lame excuse as well.

I will try again; “Just a quick question if I may. What would it take for you to accept that the predictions are valid? 50% more days over 35C? 100%? 150%? 200%. Are you able to put any kind of figure on it. It doesn't even have to be around temperature, just something that would tip the scales for you.”

Since you suddenly seem averse to statistics you don't even have to frame your answer this way. Come on, it can't be that hard.

Finally don't be getting your nose out of joint by the term denier, after all you continue to bandy around CCCer. All is fair...

Fester, you don’t need to be a scientist (in fact it may help not to be) to engage with the climate debate. What you need is what you have got, namely logical thinking. CCCers themselves can’t explain how their much worshipped global models work. They just know that they can be made to tell the story they want. Unfortunately, their story has so many logical and scientific holes, the swiss could sue them for breach of favourite cheese trademark!

Clean logical thinking is what works, and even the most intense scientists eventually come back to Occams Razor, where (to paraphrase) ‘the simplest, least complex solution most likely the best’.

The article on El Nino is a good summary of a complex phenomenon. And others should read it. I can’t help point out how the authors concern on how AGW scientist try to use GCMs to model El Nina/La Nina behaviour and their “results are all over the place”.

Not surprising as the water/energy involved in El Nino most likely swamps their atmosphere CO2 driven models. If we spent less on GCM/AGW research and more on ocean research, we might benefit a lot more not just re climate, but ocean dynamics and resources.

Thank you Alison Jane. The oceans are a huge energy store, so if you want to cool the planet you need to increase evaporation and dissipate the heat in the atmosphere. There is a research paper suggesting that ocean fertilisation (OF) could delay global warming by fifty years from sulphate aerosols produced by the algae.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4543957/

The author used a similar computer model for the simulation as used by the IPCC to make its dire predictions. Interestingly, the objection of global warming enthusiasts is that OF may have adverse and unforeseen outcomes if tested in the real world, so even they sometimes doubt the predictive accuracy of the modelling, albeit for ideological reasons.

My ambition for OF is far more limited. I would like to see it tested for its ability to mitigate or reverse a positive IOD event. I suspect that a phytoplankton bloom may also trap more heat in the ocean surface, further enhancing evaporation.

Cheers