lilsam and Ritchie10,

There's a more basic aspect here. Chaotic systems (like the weather) fluctuate erratically in the short term and their detailed behaviour is hard to predict. Nevertheless the fluctuations tend to be around a mean that is stable or changes only slowly. That is why climate (long-term trend) is more predictable in principle even while weather (daily and weekly fluctuations) remains unpredictable more than a week or so ahead.

This may be surprising but it is well-established by studies of many kinds of complex or chaotic systems, not just weather and climate.

Lilsam, I appreciate that you actually asked a question rather than doing what so many do in the blog-comment-osphere, which is in effect "I don't understand it so it must be WRONG!"

Good article: Facts are so annoying to some!
For those who wonder how predictions for the next 10 years can be at all trusted, ask yourselves this:
If I asked you if it would be hotter or colder in 6 months time in the middle of winter...would you have trouble with this "prediction"? Just as seasons can override daily variability, so "climate" can override "weather". Similar things for predicting individuals (hard) as against crowds (easy).
As the faux-sceptics like to bag the modellers (but not reveal their own infallible source of wisdom) I think it is important to understand that they are *not* air-headed twats with no common sense! Rather a lot of thought has gone down and only an egotist would assume they are as short-sighted and naive as some faux-sceptics seem to believe.
Note also that temperature is not the main measure of heat in system, just the one that a high school science brain will understand. Many other indicators have and are being studied, and they are *all* in agreement...
Melting ice, sea level rise, climate zone migration, desertification, species migration/obliteration and acidification...to name a few
Manorina: Nuclear power needs to be costed honestly first. Without black military funding it is likely to be *way* too expensive. Current tech is looking very promising, but Solar, Geo, Wind, wave and tidal are worthwhile now at reasonable cost.
rpg. This is not some natural event we are talking: it is a man-made extreme event. Some of us do not feel OK with trashing our environment for all future humans and other animals. Some of us believe that ethical behaviour is Good. (I notice the Right is still just "me me me! as usual.)

Ozandy,
Spot on.

I am constantly bemused how these faux sceptics bang on about 'show me the hard science process to levels of unknowable precision'. This is because it might have negative impact on a highly interpretive soft discipline (economics) that is based on a common-sense fantasy 'the magic pudding principle' i.e. endless growth in a finite world.

But saddest of all the topic of AGW is conducted on such a simplistic superficial level for such a complex web of issues is mind numbing.

We all(well most of us) agree that the incredibly complex and infinitely connected web of life exists. Yet they some how think/feel it doesn't happen when it comes to something as complex as weather(millions of possible contributors). e.g. it focuses on the fallibility of modelling yet ignore the ever increasing pile of hard scientific facts.
They could be likened to a person viewing the Great pyramid of Giza and declaring that they refuse to acknowledge its existence because they don't believe its process of construction.

How many of these armchair scientists have relevant qualifications or knowledge to be able to understand the complexity, the science or in fact the topic save the equally unreliable popular press. Yet they refuse to educate themselves and decry those who do or are qualified.

Clearly as in the pyramid not every element is observable or observed.

Finally, the argument about resilience. All aspects of climate operate within tolerance which are in turn effected by different aspects. It is impossible to measure all of them at once.
Think of it as giant bucket being filled by 7 billion different sources the capacity of each one is unknown. Relying on the unused capacity would be unwise at the extreme.
However the reality of the water being nearly full in the bucket (at the limits of it resilience) is pitifully obvious.

Given this analogy current technology clearly sees EXCESS C02 as a major contributive factors but not the only one. At this stage who knows if the other factors will come back and bight us. Logic dictates we engage a new paradigm.

Gee, the anti-populationist, chaos theory, great pyramid, we're all rooned people, are still at it.

How dare you use terms such as Logic and Facts. You haven't earned the right. You are anti-logic, anti-maths, anti-people. Your time has come and gone.

The problem isn't global warming, the problem is global bulls..t that's being spun by arrogant gnomes who've just finished reading the 1970s bio primer the 'Web of Life'.

Give us a break and follow your Heaven's Gate cult leader. Your spaceship is leaving now.

Nice argument Cheryl.
Got any more gems of wisdom?

Sure have Ozandy.

The Federal Greens come over all touchy feely and Democrat when it comes to boat people.

Yet the loony tunes here who also call themselves greens, not only want a ZPG Australia, but want to send the boat people back. They're gung ho fortress Australia. They've got more in common with Alexander Downer than they know.

So the anti-pops, global tree huggers, 'we're all doomed' people have created a fantastic wedge issue to split the Federal Greens at the next election.

I want more boat people here. They're hard workers, unlike these academic bearded gnomes.