From some of the posts it is revealed that some people are starting to think laterally , this is a big advance it has revealed a more Honest approach to the type of science required to tackle what is really just the evolution of climate and the accelerating requirement of more Humans requiring more Water .

This means that Humans have simply overtaxed nature or natural Systems that have provided us with free water .

This is not in any way to deny CO2 might contribute , we all remember the dead Forrest's in Germany back in the 60's , CO2 is an acidic Gas produced by many things , it was this gas that came from Industrial Processes that formed the Acid Rain that killed the Forrest's in Germany . But to attribute our Weather Problems exclusively to CO2 we would need to have sore eyes and a lot more dead trees .

My view is that if we were to help the Natural System , perhaps by providing Lake Eyre with sea water from Adelaide , then pump the salt water into what would be the Worlds largest Spray Irrigation Scheme , for those that don't know the water losses from Agricultural Spray irrigation is significant and more so at places like Lake Eyre due to the high ambient Temp . However this would work anywhere for example over the coastal sea front north of Perth , over the Salt Marches in Victoria etc. Who cares where the evaporated water goes to that doesn't matter it's helping the ecology of somewhere and as a bonus it's mopping up CO2 .

examinator, you said <<As I have said before the precision to gain a the accuracy you are assuming is only now coming on line.>> Did you just say what I think you said?

That the information needed by the IPCC was NOT previously available but is “only now coming on line”?

I guess this means that all the “stuff” you have presented and the assessments by the IPCC were based upon input NOT “precise enough to gain the accuracy needed, but good input is only now coming on line!”

That we have mistakenly “assumed” a level of accuracy from the IPCC in the past?

Did you just imply that what the IPCC has been caught doing is indefensible, so let’s not focus on it, just look instead at the “new” stuff coming on line?

What an astonishing set of admissions. Well I guess you really are done here.

I agree with you, you should indeed head for the pavilion and take your wickets with you

This post refers to my Post preceding .

A study some years back was done to find out what rain might result if Lake Eyre was flooded with Sea Water .
I can't remember the details as I am approaching Living Fossil recognition . I am fairly certain it was a Uni Study and it was reported in the old "Au Dept; of Ag" Magazine and concluded that any rain resulting would fall within 30 or 40 miles of Lake Eyre and that was a failure because they would have then been looking for Catchment Area Results , I have no idea how to research this History , perhaps you can help ?

The other Question is : The parcel of Humid Air created over L/E by the sea water Spray Irrigation evaporation would be cooled by the evaporation process and would be heaver than the surrounding air however it would rapidly respond to solar heating because of it's density as it expanded it would again loose density to a point where it would be less dense than the surrounding air subsequently it would begin to rise above the denser surrounding air ; could some genius please explain this process more succinctly and maybe explain any SALR anomalies that may apply .
Thanks for reading my post .

rpg: "I don't know about dramatically we have no measurements before 200 years ago and recently after the change to the measurement basis, the two systems have never been resolved against each other."

On the contrary, as you might expect given its importance huge efforts have gone into calibrating the various ways we have of measuring CO2 in the atmosphere. See references here: http://rm.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png

rpg: "Did you mean to put in somewhere that CO2 rise = temperature rise? An unproven hypothesis."

Certainly unproven, as all hypothesis's. But it is accepted by just about everyone. What you perhaps meant to say is the way water vapour amplifies the temperature rise isn't as well accepted. Even that is a stretch. It is accepted by vast majority of scientists that investigate climate.

rpg: "Many scientists have tried to prove this, the best they can do is model, but their models are not accurate enough and discard factors they do not understand or make them linear, like clouds"

No, they haven't tried to prove it, as it can't be proved from first principles. This is in contrast to say the temperature rise from CO2, which can be derived from basic physics.

As you say, they do model it using finite state analysis. There is nothing new in that. Scientists and engineers use models whenever deriving things from first principles gets too hard. How an well aircraft flies is but one example - all modern aircraft made their first slights as a computer model.

Your are also wrong when you say the models don't include cloud cover. Clouds change the planets albedo (reflectivity) considerably, obviously enough, and equally obviously the models must account for it.

And finally you are wrong in saying the models don't emulate the climate. The models successfully emulate what the climate did in the last million years, where minor changes in the energy received by earth due to orbit changes triggered large changes in temperature giving us periodic ice ages. What is happening is much the same, except the trigger for the minor change is CO2 levels, not orbit changes.

rstuart

point 1, wiki, oh please, I got flamed severely for quoting wiki in this forum, by AGW believers, so as they all said, "what rubbish!", "internet graffiti!"

point 2, Consensus is not science, it's a hypothesis at best, you believe science is democratic, I do not. We should not be betting the world's future on unproven science, if you want to continue to call it a science.

point 3, basic physics does not apply to large chaotic systems, obviously or there would be a proof that additional warming is caused by man's CO2.

"Your are also wrong when you say the models don't include cloud cover", that's not what I said, but I expect to be quoted out of context. I said the models consider them linear, which they are not, but that's one of the many fudges.

"And finally you are wrong in saying the models don't emulate the climate.", that's not what I said, I said "The bottom line is mankind does not understand climate well enough to forecast anything better than a random coin throw would"

You show the normal AGW believer penchant to skew what people say and misquote them.

Thanks you just underlined the behavior of the CRU folks, like them, most AGW believers feel the need to tweak things to suit their own narrative, don't they?

Shazbaz001,

I'm probably even more fossilised than you are, but I recall that acid rain was a consequence of too much SO2 and SO3 (sulphur dioxide and trioxide) being pumped into the atmosphere, as a product of the burning of coal with high sulphur content. Not CO2, SO2 and SO3, which combine with water vapour to form sulphurous and sulphuric acid. Some half-wit has even proposed pumping vast amounts of SO2 into the atmosphere, god knows why, perhaps to seed clouds, or some other suitably grand engineering feat.

And maybe spraying saltwater from Lake Eyre might add to the salt content of the soil ? Maybe just pump the water and leave it in the Lake to evaporate and increase rainfall across NSW ? That would be great if it worked - NSW wouldn't need to thieve SA's water to the same degree.

rstuart,
I was intrigued about a throwaway line about one graph in the Wiki that you recommended:

"Please note: the graph shows the historical level of carbon dioxide which is averaged by diffusion of gasses in the ice core and sampled once per approx. 1,000 years, compared to the current level of carbon dioxide which is sampled yearly. If for a proper comparison, the latter would have been treated like the historical data, the graph would look quite different."

In what way, I wonder ?

Joe