and THE "Answer" to a Non-existent Problem !
Interesting reading : Interin IPCC FAQs Report on GlobalWarming
www.chromtech.net.au/pdf2/IPCC_Climate Change 2013_WG1AR5_FAQbrochure_FINAL._CT2017.pdf
But much more readable in flipPAGE http://flip.chromalytic.net.au/books/lugn/
A virtual downgrading of the "hype" of the original "scare-monguring" campaign promoted by Al Gore and likes of Tim Flannery presented by the IPCC ~2015 to "policy makers", vested interests, politicians and ~2015, do-gooders like the "Greenies" but more -so the Energy moguls on the hidden agenda of banning coal and gas exploration in Australia in favor of heavily sponspored "renewable Energy Solar and Wind still nonviable in 2017 without adequate backup battery" technology
Understanable in 2016 and in hindsight Trump has completely renegged on Climate Change and the "farce" has been uncovered . . . now just waiting for Australia to "wake-up"
IPCC has ameliorated the impact of Global Warming /Climate Change and further obfuscated the real cause and the premature cause of "Anthropogenic CO2 being the main cause of Global increase in temperatures"
where is the "smoking gun"
There is still simple NO CORRELATION between CO2 and global temperature either short term OR historically
CO2 concentration is miniscule at 0.03% compared toe moistrer at 10%. . . but then IPCC has admitted that has been too difficult to model in their initial "prophesies"
In any event increasing CO2 levels are arguably beneficial to plant growth and any increase on balance has more positives than ANY hypothetical negatives
Both sea and land /atmospheric increase is marginal at ~1.3degC per 100 years altho' arguably in last 18 years it has in fact stopped or is insignificant.
Sea level rise of ~2-4mm per annum is hardly significant at least compared to more natural occurances like tidal ( average 1 to 2 metre any coastal city but up to 8m Broome/WA). These measures and projected changes get lost in the "noise" of data collection, errors and even the lack of "common sense" in even trying to define an "average global temperature" or average sea level (devoid of any recognised natural factors).
All readers of this "blog" are recommended to read this Interim IPCC Report and make more sensible conclusions rather than listen to the ongoing hyperbolae of politicians, the media and pseudo scientists
Thankfully "the deniers" have once again demonstrated the merit of "Cause and Effect" of the principles of "true science"
Unbelievably it's only under pressure have "the establishment" conceded the uncertainties of computer modelling and the general lack of understanding of the "details of natural climate causes".
The BofM concedes at best even with the largest computers their Climate projection are no better than short term, 7 days at best let alone decades of a 100 years.
In fact no better than trying to pick the winner of a horse race from past records AND also without more ("inside") data for example . . . re drugs and fixing of races by criminals etc, government sponsored gambling . . . all aimed at the "mug punter" and tax revenue raising
With ALL due respect THERE NOW SEEMS TO BE MORE THOUGHT AND SCIENTIFIC EFFORT BEING PUT INTO issues of Climate Change . . . CSIRO included . . . reluctantly it seems !
. . . perhaps ?
Rather the rehash the "sceptics" analysis . . . I recommend a counter argument summary by Roy W Spencer
"The Great Global Warming Blunder - How Mother Nature Fooled The Worlds Top Climate Scientists" a thorough convincing explanation debunking Anthrpogenic CO2 being a main cause of global warming
Like many/most Natural events the real cause is still open to speculation but recent times the CO2 global Ocean "sink" of CO2 is drastically effected by El Nino/La Nina and in particular PDO (Pacific Decadal Oscillation) and similar natural events are in "perfect"sync"
NOT So conventional IPCC theory . . . "Increase in CO2 does NOT correlate with Global Temperature at All !"
Natural variation in Cloud Cover accounts for 75% of Global Warming over last 100years
Increase in cloud cover > increase in atmospheric CO2 levels
Cause & Effect increase in cloud cover causes sea warming OR Increase in sea warming causes increase in cloud cover ???
"The jury is still out !" . . . science is NOT about consensus but fact to prove/disprove ANY hypothesis rather than circular arguments based on false assumptions preconceived AND promulgated misconceptions
R&D needed ! but still being downplayed compared to the "scaremongering" of global warming "experts" and "trillions of $$$s" hastily and wastefully spent on yet to be proven marginally economic Solar and Wing Power "Alternative Energy" sources
As of 2016+ it is NOW completely understandable President Trump has reneged on anything to do with CC unchecked the consequences are projected to be 100 Trillion Dollars to the World "economy" over the next 100 years . . .
carbon pollution, banning of coal ( and then Gas) power generation; dubious alternative Energy and associated "ponzi schemes"
CO2 is argually beneficial to plant growth AND any warming is actually economically benefisial to World economies despite the extremism associated with hypothetical catastrophies promilgated by Al Gore and the IPCC.
Governments are well aware of all this but it is NOT IN THEIR National Interest either
IF CO2 IS the issue then longer term the answers to alternative Energy are also there ( after some more R&D ?) . . . AND the French, Indians and Chinese are already doing this !). . . cost ? maybe no more than "the Space Program" . . . several billions of $$$s Worldwide , maybe several decades R&D as a concerted "fair dinkum effort" but requiring a paradigm shift on the part of "head in the sand" scientists, politicians leading to re-education of the populace in new technology / training /creating if jobs
The reality of Fusion Nuclear Energy(LFTR) has been "proto-proven" way back in the '50/60's+.
As an extreme' example this was demonstrated . . .
in the form of a refrigerator size 4.6Megawatt reactor to propel an aeroplane (bomber) was actually built concept proven 100 hours flight ( 60MegaWatt then proposed but "prematurely" cancelled.
Also a land-based successful similar power source ran for ~5 years unfettered before being closed down due to the political agenda at the time)
see history > " energyfromthorium.com/2006/04/22/a-brief-history-of-the-liquid-fluoride-reactor"
and more generalised
. . . a fascinating "read" on the foibles of science and vested interest short term gains vs overwhelming benefits to mankind . . . not necessarily to Petroleum Companies and "bean counters" in general
If only 1% of the funds were diverted from the overall Warming "Hoax", LTFR would have been resumed now be well under way . . . IT IS COMING !
Our "Western economies" simply don't seem to have the "balls" or insight to pursue "the obvious" against the prejudices of vested interest, egos of The Establishment etc
Long(er) term It would negate Coal Global Warming "conspiracies" were they ever to be really proven ! . . . and in principle provide low cost, relatively safe power with immense advantages compared to more conventional "Fission" Nuclear.
In the extreme, low cost energy opens up the possibility/viability of chemically utilising CO2 industrially . . . that's if it ever proves to be really necessary !
. . . timewise it appropriately fits in with projected 100 year scars campaigns of Gore/Flannery and Co but far beyond the limited scope and brain power of he t4 years(or less) agendas of politicians
. . . but generally . . . and in particular Australia; . . . technologically we have
"lost the plot" completely . . . on all this!
To paraphrase Sorenson . . . if you are a middle age scientist . . . go! you R really are BYUseByD ! ; 15 to 20years age . . . the World is wide open . . . with imagination >
only at the "mercy of the establishment"
. . . 20 to 30 years old > go back to school if you haven't been "dumbed down" too much ! . . . by the education system, politics and "the media" in general