Would any climate change guru please provide links / details of a model that can generate accurate and reliable predictions of how climate in Australia ONLY will change over specified periods, if Australia ONLY were to reduce CO2 emissions by specified amounts?

i.e. a model to predict local impacts for given local changes in CO2 emissions.

Pericles: "Arjay is asking a ... question ... It is not up to him .. to do the research."

I disagree, Pericles. That particular question has been answered many times over, here on OLO and elsewhere. I don't think it is unreasonable to expect Arjay to make least a token effort to look up the answer. It would of taken less time than it did to post the question here, and the answers he got would of been a dammed site better than of us can fit into 350 words. At the very least he could of just read the wikipedia entry on global warming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

If Arjay was really interested in the answer, then after reading the Wikipedia entry he would of browsed the references at the bottom. It has links from both sides of the divide. Most of here have done that. Why should Arjay be an exception? As it stands it looks to me like his question was purely rhetorical.

Yes, Sams reply was less than helpful. If he was going to take the effort to reply, he might at least of answered the question or posted a link. But the tone of his reply is understandable - it matched the tone of Arjay's question.

The most interesting part of your response rstuart is that you, too, carefully avoid answering the question.

>>It would of [sic] taken less time than it did to post the question here, and the answers he got would of [sic] been a dammed [sic] site [sic] better than of us [sic] can fit into 350 words.<<

This indicates to me that you, too, cannot understand the "answers" that you believe are out there somewhere. Simply accepting that because some scientist with letters after his name uses long words that you don't understand, he must by definition be right, is not a particularly convincing position.

Let me put it another way.

If you cannot understand the argument, to the point where you are unable to describe why you believe it to be right, how come you are so convinced that it is right?

And if the scientists involved cannot provide a simple answer to a simple question (such as yes, we considered that, but believe it is less likely than this, for this reason), they should not be surprised when folk continue to ask questions.

Given the severity of the measures that unfettered fear of climate change will bring to bear on our economy, you will one day be extremely grateful that some of us continue to ask questions.

And we will continue to be dissatisfied with the response, "because".

Here here or is it hear hear, Pericles.

I once asked a question here and Q&A did his best to answer me but it
finally to me did not get to the crux of the matter.
My question was;

Given that the radiation transmission of CO2 in air is logarithmic in
proportion to the ppm of CO2 in air it therefore follows a curve.
Can anyone point me to a graph that shows the attenuation vs co2 ppm ?
I know this has been discussed scientifically and may have been resolved.

The implication being that there is part of the curve where an increase
in co2 has little effect on global warming and would be no longer
almost linear.

Yes I have looked in various places pointed to by google but to no avail.

Sam's response to Arjay was uncalled for and it surprises me that he did
not accuse Ajay of being in the employ of the oil companies.
Isn't that the response these days of the pro AGW'ers ?
That attitude which is becoming more prevalent suggests perhaps a
weakening conviction ?

Pericles: "This indicates to me that you, too, cannot understand ..."

You nailed it, Pericles - I failed English in high school. I only got into Uni because of my maths, physics and chemistry scores.

Pericles: "If you cannot understand the argument, ..."

So because the grammar is so bad, you think I can't understand those big scientific words. Your line of reasoning provoked a myriad of thoughts, but I won't mention them as none were very polite. However I do have a suggestion. The next time you feel the impulse to make such a logical leap, try checking to see if the evidence backs it up. It would not of been hard in this case. Just click on the little man icon that appears below every comment I make. That will take you to my comment history. Look it up. See if it is indicative of a person who has trouble understanding science.

Pericles: "And if the scientists involved cannot provide a simple answer to a simple question"

Well, the answer to Arjay's question is on Wikipedia, and it is put fairly simple terms. For what its worth, I did look at Arjay's comment history before I posted my comment, and decided he would have no trouble scanning the material there for the relevant bits, nor would he have any problems understanding it. Why do you suggest it might be otherwise? If you have trouble understanding it I'll have a go in putting it in very simple terms, if you like.

Pericles: "you will one day be extremely grateful that some of us continue to ask questions"

I doubt it. Frankly, we don't have the stomach or political will to voluntarily inflict too much pain upon ourselves. Anything like China's one child policy would be completely out of the question. The world is about to hit a wall of pain because of our exponential growth is hitting resource limits. That pain won't be caused by us doing something about it, but rather the reverse.

Ye gods Bazz, look at the first hit: http://www.google.com/search?q=co2+logarithmic

Sams also indulged in a big porky.He said that co2 emitions have remained constant since 1980.We have the expodental growth of China and India.China puts a coal powered station into production every month! CO2 output has accelerated at a time when world temps in both the oceans and atmosphere have fallen! Where is the credibility of the AGW Cult?