The Next ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ book — Towards a new theory of climate

174084165By Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD

Senior Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs

Founder, Climate Lab Pty Ltd

Visit the Blog www.jennifermarohasy.com

As the editor of the last book, and the next book, in the Institute of Public Affairs’ Climate Change: The Facts series I spend a lot of time pondering the nature of ‘facts’.

A fact is something that has become known as true.  A fact may be dependent on accumulated knowledge.  Facts are considered superior to an opinion or an interpretation.   But sometimes the facts change.

There is the famous quote variously attributed to John Maynard Keynes, and sometimes Winston Churchill: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”

Right up until the city of Brisbane in my home state of Queensland was flooded back in January 2011 — flooded following the emergency release of water from the overflowing Wivenhoe Dam — the considered opinion from Australian experts was that the dams would never fill again. This was accepted by many as a ‘fact’.

After that exceptionally wet summer, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology continued to forecast below average rainfall even for Australia’s Murray Darling Basin through the exceptionally wet spring of 2016.    Now there is drought again across much of eastern and southern Australia, and what farmers really need to know is: “When will it rain again?”

Of course, droughts in Australia always break, and with flooding rains.  But there is no indication from the Bureau when we can expect this break.

Many claim such flood events are unpredictable. In which case, we arguably don’t have a scientific theory of climate.  A scientific theory is something substantiated: a body of facts that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation and that can be confirmed through accurate prediction.

There is no doubt that the Western World is currently being significantly affected by climate change activism.  But, the more rational amongst us — who are not necessarily those with a more formal education — can perhaps already see that very little of what is currently being articulated by this populist movement resembles fact.

Currently what we see from activists is more prophecy than numerically verifiable prediction— certainly no testing of falsifiable theory through what might be considered the scientific method.

Indeed, the leaders of the current populist movement against climate change seem unaware of the history of science or the history of climate change embedded in the geological record.

And while obsessed with climate, they seem unable to make a practical forecast for next week or next year when it comes to issues such as when the drought here in Australia might break.

This is a long introduction to the next book in the IPA’s Climate Change: The Facts series, which will be available for sale early next year.

It will be a book by dissidents, obsessed with facts, who understand that the climate is always changing.

As Editor, I get to choose chapter authors.   The four most important chapters will be on ‘water’ and it is my intention that they will move us towards a new theory of climate.

The four chapters are variously about cosmic rays, cloud cover, tropical convection and water vapour.  Indeed, water — in its many forms rather than carbon dioxide — will be dominant in the new emerging theory of climate.

This theory perhaps has its origins in a little noted paper written by Richard Lindzen, Ming- Dah Chou and Arthur Hou back in 2001.  It got physicists like Peter Ridd thinking.

Dr Ridd is contributing one of the four seminal water chapters in the next book.  He will explain how deep convection, which can be thought of as a huge heat engine — is an alternative pathway for the upward transfer of energy from greenhouse gases.  The other important chapters in this section on water are by Henrik Svensmark, Geoffrey Duffy and the great Richard Lindzen.

I am seeking your support for the book’s publication.

The IPA has a dedicated appeal page at www.ipa.org.au/cctf2020.

If you can spare more than A$400, you have the option of your name being printed in the book. I am proud that will be my own name will on the front cover of the book alongside Duffy, Svensmark, Ridd, Lindzen and other fine scientists.

The last book in the ‘Climate change the facts’ series sold more than 30,000 copies.  It has made a difference, in a small way.

My hypothesis is that this next book will sell three times as many copies, and eventually be recognised as articulating the beginning of a new theory of climate, with Peter Ridd’s contribution significantly building on the earlier work of Richard Lindzen.

But these four water chapters will be controversial, with technically complex elements, but the book will also include chapters that are easier to digest, and a few that are more philosophical.

One of the most popular chapters in the last book (our 2017 edition) — and the least technical, and most literary chapter — was by legendary poet and writer, Clive James, which

was an amusing poke at ‘climate change’ and catastrophism as popular culture.

My colleague at the IPA, Scott Hargreaves has already written something literary for the next edition (CCTF2020) and he has drawn on Clive’s James’ translation of Dante’s Inferno to help describe the nine circles of ‘climate skepticism’.  This will perhaps be the last chapter in this next 2020 edition.  What Scott has written is so insightful and also fun.

There will be about 20 chapters in total in the next book, including several chapters on Antarctica.  So of course, there is a chapter on penguins, and perhaps two on volcanoes.

Antarctica is twice the size of Australia, and has a complex climate that is central to understanding global atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns — including drought and flood cycles in Australia.

The history of science suggests that paradigms are never disproven until they are replaced. So, now more than ever, it is important that you back this book that will challenge the current consensus, which is the current dominant paradigm.

Physicist and philosopher, the late Thomas Kuhn, explained that competition within segments of the scientific community is the only process that historically has ever actually results in the replacement and then eventual rejection of one previously accepted paradigm or theory.   It is so important that alternative voices are heard, that there is opportunity for a new theory of climate to emerge.

If you are at all skeptical of the catastrophist’s claims that the current drought in Australia is the very worst on record, sea levels at record highs, and the planet about to melt — and most importantly, if you would like to contribute in a practical way to a fact-based new theory of climate change — then make a financial contribution to the IPA’s next book in the ‘Climate Change the Facts’ series via the dedicated appeal page at:  www.ipa.org.au/cctf2020

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Ends.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

133 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Stephen Wilde
October 6, 2019 2:11 pm

Could be out of date already:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/06/27/return-to-earth/

from the conclusion:

“We are able to quantify the degree of adiabatic lit surface energy partition in favour of the air by using the process of inverse modelling, a standard geoscience mathematical technique. The issue of atmospheric opacity then becomes a passive process, and the purported atmospheric action of greenhouse heating by back-radiation can be discounted. We believe that our modelling work presented here should lead to a fundamental reassessment of the atmospheric processes relating to energy partition, retention and flow within the Earth’s climate system.”

The so called greenhouse effect is shown to be a consequence not of back radiation from radiatively active atmospheric components but rather of atmospheric mass being convected up and down within a gravity field.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 6, 2019 3:16 pm

I don’t see anything about water, so I’m still looking forward to the new book. Why? Water is the most potent greenhouse gas, true, but the greenhouse gas theory in general misses the boat. All the GCMs, IMHO, calculate heat loss as if the atmosphere is a static system. There are clues here and there, “…well-mixed in the atmosphere…” etc., that give it away without having to dig into the code line by line. But the real 500 lb gorilla is the phase change of water. In fact, water is the only atmospheric component that can exist in all 3 states (liquid, solid, gas) in the atmosphere under normal conditions. And that alone blows a hole, literally, in the GHG theory.

Water changes phases by the addition or giving off of heat, that phase change changes the density of the air which causes that air to rise or fall, where it then changes temperature which causes the phase change back again with the heat moving the other way. It’s a conveyor belt, and when a thunderstorm forms, it transports huge amounts of heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere where it can give off the heat to space, blowing a hole right through the atmosphere and all its Long Wave Infrared “back radiation” (a mythical concept if there ever was one).

I arrived at that theory based on what I have read here at WUWT, many thanks to Willis Eschenbach and all the others who have contributed pieces to this idea. Ms. Marohasy, how much does the theory of climate change in this book line up with this idea?

I do know something about heat transfer, I have a B. S. Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M University and I’m a registered engineer in two states, as well as a Certified Energy Manager by the Association of Energy Engineers. I can’t give my real name because I work for a contractor whose sole client(s) is(are) part of the United States government or military (multiple contracts with different branches), and I’m afraid there are people in said government/military who could cause problems for me or my employer if I get out of line on CAGW.

commieBob
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 6, 2019 4:53 pm

1 – The alarmists seem to dismiss water by considering only non-condensing greenhouse gasses.

2 – The standard heat budget gives a relatively tiny role to convection and latent heat. link On the other hand, the amount of heat moved around, from lower atmosphere to upper atmosphere, and from the equator toward the poles is huge.

This article explains the counter-intuitive fact that the equator is cooler than the tropics, due to convection and latent heat.

IMHO, you can’t understand the Earth’s energy budget without understanding the role of latent heat and convection. The standard energy budget seems to give them short shrift.

Greg
Reply to  commieBob
October 6, 2019 5:16 pm

Evaporation and condensation are what is supposed to create the missing upper tropo hot-spot. The fact that this hot-spot is barely detectable in observations ( ie much weaker than in models ) indicates that the heat never gets into the lower climate in the first place, rather than it being evacuated by “an alternative pathway for the upward transfer of energy “.

That also is consistent with Trenberth’s “missing heat” problem. The excess heat is missing because it is corrected by natural feedbacks reducing incoming energy.

This is essentially what Lindzen’s poorly named “iris hypothesis” is saying.

commieBob
Reply to  Greg
October 7, 2019 5:01 am

I have to go out and really have to check this when I get back but …

Based on 2500 cm of rain per year and 4 kwh of sunlight striking the surface, nearly all the solar energy striking the equator goes to evaporating water.

commieBob
Reply to  Greg
October 7, 2019 7:07 am

Based on 2500 cm mm of rain per year …

nw sage
Reply to  Greg
October 8, 2019 6:50 pm

Don’t worry about mm vs cm, a factor of 10 is NOTHING when talking about weather!

Greg
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 6, 2019 5:05 pm

Water is what determines Earth’s climate. GCMs do not model the water cycle from “basic physics” because we do not have sufficient understanding to write it down as mathematical equations and models do not have the spacial resolution do it even if we did have the equations.

This means that models are useless for extrapolation into the future, and of very limited use for anything else since they simply embody guesses and assumptions, not known physics.

Lindzen’s “iris effect” is at least a credible alternative but the metaphor is poorly chosen and confuses more than it explains about what his hypothesis is.

Good to see Ridd getting a chapter. It will be interesting to see what he can contribute to the physics.

MarkW
Reply to  Greg
October 7, 2019 7:24 am

Even if we did have the equations, we don’t have the computing power to run those equations at any meaningful level of resolution.

Prjindigo
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 6, 2019 6:28 pm

Stop calling things “greenhouse gas” for a beginning move. Call them re-emissive gasses. Then qualify them as “like-emissive” and “unlike-emissive” to indicate whether they can absorb their own emission or not.

So water is the most prevalent like-emissive VAPOR in the atmosphere (gasses don’t condense out of atmosphere, prfs same bailiwick) but it is not the most unlike-emissive gas in the atmosphere as that is Ozone. Ozone is the most powerful unlike-emissive atmospheric gas. Methane is a geophysical gas not atmospheric and it does something weird… instead of being unlike-emissive it is unlike-combustive… it generates heat energy that it doesn’t absorb and in so doing it turns into a gas that also doesn’t absorb that frequency.

So, in my example above I perfuse the *exact* inverse of the method by which the warmists try to spread their scare. I dissemble the “colloquial ignorance” out into precise separate definitions which have specific and unreversible meanings.

We are NOT in a “greenhouse” nor do greenhouses operate due to any gasses. <– try saying that to people who are dumb enough to say "greenhouse gas" and make sure those around you hear it clearly. Idiotic ignorance should be slapped out of society on the spot, that's how we got to HVAC and fire-proof construction methods.

Even using the term supports ignorant warmisim.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 7, 2019 12:33 am

The point of our work is that by completing the up and down adiabatic loop (instead of ignoring the downward section as per Trenberth et al) you get an enhanced surface temperature for a planet with no GHGs at all so water vapour is as irrelevant as CO2.
That is why one sees a similar temperature at the same atmospheric pressure on multiple planets after adjusting only for distance from the sun.
The radiative theory cannot account for that observation whereas ours does.

Steve Z
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 7, 2019 9:17 am

Kudos to Red94Viper for pointing out the huge role of the latent heat of phase changes of water in the climate.

Some climate modelers like to assume constant “relative humidity” in their climate models, so that (according to them) a slight rise in the air temperature due to IR absorption by additional CO2 will result in a higher water vapor concentration, which would amplify the IR absorption effect.

The problem with this theory is that the additional water vapor must come from somewhere, such as a body of liquid water in contact with the atmosphere. In order to evaporate the water, heat must be transferred into the liquid water.

If a cubic meter of air originally at 70 F (21.1 C) at 80% relative humidity was heated to 72 F (22.2 C), about 324 calories of heat would be required, presumably from IR absorption by CO2. But to maintain the air at 80% relative humidity, about 1.04 grams of water would have to be evaporated, which would consume about 608 calories of heat. At constant relative humidity, the 324 calories absorbed by the air, after being dissipated to evaporate water, would only warm the air to about 70.7 F, or about 34% of the initial predicted temperature rise, resulting in a negative feedback of 66%, or -0.66.

So that climate models that assume constant relative humidity are over-predicting temperature rises by about a factor of 3, by neglecting the heat of vaporization of the water required to maintain constant relative humidity.

The other major error that climate alarmists make is to assume that a slight rise in the air temperature over Greenland and/or Antarctica will cause major melting of the ice caps. At 0 C or 273 K, a cubic meter air can be warmed by 1 degree C by about 312 calories of heat. But to melt a cubic meter of ice, about 73 MILLION calories of heat are required.

The total mass of the atmosphere over 1 square meter of the earth’s surface is equivalent to about an 8,000 meter column of air at 273 K and sea-level pressure. To heat this column of air by 1 C would require 8,000 * 312 = 2.5 million calories. If this heat were used to melt ice, it could melt about 0.034 cubic meters of ice, or about a depth of 3.4 cm = 1.35 inches.

The actual sea level rise due to such a warming of the atmosphere would be much less than 3.4 cm, because (1) the melting can only occur in summer, when temperatures may rise above 0 C, (2) most of the warmed air is not in contact with ice (in temperate and tropical areas), and (3) some areas of central Antarctica and central Greenland never reach an air temperature of 0 C, even in summer.

The large latent heat requirements for melting of ice or vaporization of liquid water turn the oceans and ice caps into gigantic heat sinks, which dampen out any minor heating effect of increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. There simply isn’t enough additional heat absorbed to melt much ice.

Alan McIntire
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 6, 2019 3:28 pm

Without radiation from the upper atmosphere to space, your model would quickly come to a standstill.

Kevin kilty
Reply to  Alan McIntire
October 6, 2019 7:05 pm

Isn’t it true! One can convect and advect all they want, but eventually there has to be radiation from somewhere — high troposphere, tops of thunderstorms, polar regions, high plateaus and mountains, or dry deserts, in order to maintain energy balance without excessive surface temperature.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Alan McIntire
October 7, 2019 1:28 am

No standstill is possible for convection and advection because of uneven surface heating leading to unavoidable temperature and density variations across the surface.
For a radiatively transparent atmosphere all radiation to space goes from the surface at whatever height the surface might be where there are peaks and troughs.
The reason the term ‘greenhouse effect’ was originally used was because descending air prevents convection as does a greenhouse roof and it also dissipates clouds to allow radiation in just like a greenhouse roof. That old knowledge was lost when the radiative theorists took over in the 1980s because they knew nothing about non radiative energy transfers as described in basic meteorology.

Catherine Forsayeth
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 6, 2019 3:29 pm

Makes a lot of sense. Good!

Leonard Weinstein
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 6, 2019 3:36 pm

NO. The lapse rate is due to the gravity caused convection, not the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect is due to partially trapped energy from back radiation from aerosols and optically absorbing gases. They do not increase the energy, they just initially slow the energy transfer until a higher altitude is reached, and this combined with the lapse rate result in a hotter surface necessary to eliminate the surface energy to maintain equilibrium with solar energy.

ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
October 6, 2019 3:51 pm

That sounds good to me. I like it. Thanks Leonard.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  ЯΞ√ΩLUT↑☼N
October 6, 2019 4:07 pm

It’s just standard science, since Arrhenius and before.

Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
October 6, 2019 4:19 pm

What happens if you heat a gas – any gas – in an open system? It expands. No one has yet been able to tell me why heating the atmosphere, regardless of it’s composition, will simply increase it’s volume and increase the rate of radiation to space without changing it’s equilibrium temperature (governed by gravity) is wrong. In other words the only way to increase the equilibrium temp is to do extra work on it like if we were closer to the sun for example…
(I’m no physicist)

donb
Reply to  Leonard Weinstein
October 6, 2019 4:25 pm

Movement of heat within the atmosphere is not the greenhouse effect, including back radiation to the surface (which can be measured), but rather an energy loop that simply moves heat around. Earth loses energy gained from the Sun in one way, by slowing the rate of IR radiation loss to space. One effective way to accomplish that is by increasing the atmospheric height at which that final IR emission occurs into a region that is colder (T^4 effect). Increasing concentration of non-condensable gases do that. Water is more complicated.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  donb
October 8, 2019 12:07 pm

…including back radiation to the surface…”

You did pretty good except for that use of the despicable term “…back radiation…” Ain’t no such thing. What you do have is an insulating effect of air which “…slow[s] the rate of IR radiation loss to space…”, and does that pretty well in a static system, which is what I said above. Air is a pretty good insulator if you can keep it from moving, that’s why your wall is full of that yellow or pink stuff, to keep the air from moving around (or at least slow it down). Except the atmosphere has no such yellow or pink stuff, the air does move around, and in fact becomes a heat transporter (and for there to be heat transport there has to be a heat source, that being the Sun).

The addition of water vapor, which has a much greater heat capacity/mass than dry air to begin with, combined with the heat required to make that water change phase, multiplies the heat transport capacity 100-fold, maybe even 1,000-fold (some other commenter posted the actual numbers, in SI units where I would have used BTU but still a good exercise, so I’m not going to go look them up just to repeat the exercise in English units), there is your positive feedback!!!

So I repeat, latent heat and convection (not just the circulation of the air but also the circulation of the oceans) are what determine our climate, completely overwhelming any puny effect of CO;#8322. Any variations must arise from as yet undetermined (not completely, but mostly) largely cyclical variations in the Sun’s output, water vapor and (atmospheric and ocean) circulation.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 8, 2019 12:10 pm

Oops… …CO₂. I misremembered it.

George Steele
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 8, 2019 2:12 pm

Only hydrogen gas and helium gas have a greater specific heat than water.
Water checks in at about 4 (in Joules per gram times the size of a C degree)
Ice is interesting. At exactly freezing, to raise it to not freezing takes about 2. Then it’s water (see above). And water takes that same -2 to turn to ice.
Air is about 1.
Hot air rises.
If it is that simple, what is the IPCC doing? If it is that simple why are they not shut down?

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  George Steele
October 10, 2019 5:40 am

Good question.

Prjindigo
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 6, 2019 6:20 pm

I still prefer the old “The evaporation tanks disagree with your unproven theory, get off my land” approach.

Mark Broderick
October 6, 2019 2:12 pm

Jennifer Marohas

“And while obsessed with climate, they seem unable to make a practical forecast for next week or next year when it comes to issues such as when the drought here in Australia might

break.

This is a long introduction to the next book in the IPA’s Climate Change: The Facts series,

which will be available for sale early next year.”

Just a heads up…funky “breaks : )

Mark Broderick
October 6, 2019 2:17 pm

Jennifer Marohasy

“I am proud that will be my own name will on the front cover of the book alongside Duffy, Svensmark, Ridd, Lindzen and other fine scientists.”

I have no idea how to correct that !

Mark Broderick
October 6, 2019 2:33 pm

Jennifer Marohasy

“One of the most popular chapters in the last book (our 2017 edition) — and the least technical, and most literary chapter — was by legendary poet and writer, Clive James, which

was an amusing poke at ‘climate change’ and catastrophism as popular culture.”

The book sounds great….

Mark Broderick
October 6, 2019 2:41 pm

“Physicist and philosopher, the late Thomas Kuhn, explained that competition within segments of the scientific community is the only process that historically has ever actually results resulted in the replacement and then eventual rejection of one previously accepted paradigm or theory. “

October 6, 2019 2:47 pm

I made predictions on this blog back in 2013 that El Nino conditions would increase a year or so after solar 24 maximum, and drive increased drought in Southern Australia and Northern India. On the 650 comment marathon of me versus Leif, Pamela, and Willis, over my solar based forecast for a very cold Jan-Feb 2014.

ray boorman
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
October 6, 2019 10:33 pm

Good on you, Ulric, but, (like this comment), what does it add to the conversation?

Dennis J. Feindel
Reply to  Ulric Lyons
October 7, 2019 9:55 am

And it was Ilric here in the MidWest of the U.S.!

October 6, 2019 3:03 pm

Regarding the present drought in parts of Australia, I
thought that the 1898 to 1903 , also known a the
Federation drought, was the worst one.

But in the climate game historical facts are not to be
used.

MJE VK5 LL

Bindidon
Reply to  Michael
October 6, 2019 3:15 pm

Michael

“… I thought…”

Why don’t you simply bring facts around helping us to accurately compare the two periods?

Hasbeen
Reply to  Michael
October 7, 2019 12:29 am

In my area, eastern Queensland, south of Brisbane this year is the driest for the year to date since 1893, when full records started here. 1893 still holds the record for the wettest year, & 2017 was the highest flood in living memory, by about 3 meters.

The period 1898 to 1903 was not particularly dry here in total, but 1902 is the driest full year on record. It was only a little drier than 1993 & 94 which have the lowest total for consecutive years.

Other very dry years were, 1914, 1924,1960 & 93 &4 already mentioned.

It is totally impossible to read ant trend into this 125 year record in any way. Hope this is of interest.

leitmotif
October 6, 2019 3:14 pm

The Next ‘Climate Change: The Facts’ book — Towards a new theory of climate

Unless this information is on CNN, Sky News, BBC, ABC etc etc then nothing will change. Currently this wishful thinking amounts to something indistinguishable from zero.

Greta and XR get more coverage in one small TV slot than all the AGW sceptical scientific papers and newspapers and blogs and videos and internet discussions and podcasts put together.

Solution? Dunno. Maybe it has to come from the world’s most influential governments. Trump started it, Bolsonaro ran with it ……

October 6, 2019 3:22 pm

”But sometimes the facts change.”
No.

George Steele
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2019 5:08 pm

Sometimes the facts I thought I knew turn out to not be the case and I therefor change my mind.
Or, briefly, “Sometimes the facts change.”

ianl
Reply to  George Steele
October 6, 2019 5:48 pm

> “Or, briefly, “Sometimes the facts change.””

Then they weren’t facts to begin with.

Glib language trickies such as you’ve demonstrated here are the very core of propaganda.

George Steele
Reply to  ianl
October 6, 2019 6:41 pm

Hi ianl, I will demonstrate a case. There was an idea floating around in my youth (lo these many years ago, sigh) of a clockwork universe. If you knew the position and momentum of every particle you could predict the entire future. It was an accepted fact that Newton’s Theory worked, period. They believed in this fact so well they called them Laws. Laws of nature. You do know the rest of the story I’m quite sure. Facts change.
I don’t quite know how to react to being called glib. It may be a first. And, being good at propaganda is being good at persuasion. I like being thought good at persuasion.
Of course, you are technically correct. “Then they weren’t facts to begin with.” is a true statement. Under that assumption, though, the sentence “Sometimes facts change” is self contradictory with “facts” being inherently unchanging and all. Under the assumption that the utterance makes sense to the original speaker, then [reread this post].

Reply to  George Steele
October 7, 2019 4:00 pm

So some facts can change and others cannot? The word then loses it’s meaning.
Nonsense.

MarkW
Reply to  ianl
October 7, 2019 7:27 am

ianl, in that case there are no facts, ever. Because we never know when our knowledge will improve to the point where what we once thought to be facts, turn out not to be.

Bob Smith
Reply to  MarkW
October 8, 2019 8:28 am

You have arrived at a true understanding of science. Be civil but always be ready to challenge the “accepted facts”.

Greg
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2019 5:27 pm

In the context of that quotation, it means “the known facts change”, it can also mean that facts about the current state of affairs changes through time. “Facts” also relates to our accepted perception of what the facts are. That can also change.

Churchill was a politician, he was not making a statement about the ideal gas laws.

Curious George
October 6, 2019 3:44 pm

The title is similar to a BBC program “Climate change – the facts”, passionately known as “climate – change the facts”.

Stephan
Reply to  Curious George
October 8, 2019 4:38 pm

Wonderful ++++

October 6, 2019 4:03 pm

”who understand that the climate is always changing.”

I have serious reservations about this often repeated meme.

climate …………

n.
The meteorological conditions, including temperature, precipitation, and wind, that characteristically prevail in a particular region.
n.
A region of the earth having particular meteorological conditions.

Where on this planet have these prevailing meteorological conditions changed?

Neither of these two true definitions are acknowledged in the current discussion. Eg; the ”prevailing meteorological conditions” in my area are….dry summer, occasional rainfall, warm to hot temperatures, wet winter, cool to cold temps, light occasional frost. An average minimum of about 7C and an average maximum of around 27C. None of these CLIMATIC conditions have changed as long as I have lived and probably for several hundred thousand years. What does change is the weather. We have drought years, ( for example when I first moved here my neighbour told me he had never seen such a dry year for 50 years – since then it has been ”normal”) floods, great heat waves, occasional snow flurries, very low humidity, very high humidity etc, etc, sometimes long lasting sometimes not. For the BOM to tell me this is the warmest month for 20 years or the coldest day for 30 years or the driest year for 15 years and so on may be of passing interest but is completely meaningless when it comes to our prevailing climate which – barring some astronomical influence, will not change. Warming temperatures over 50 years is NOT evidence of climate change given that it is not unprecedented. How can it possibly be? So to me, it is far more accurate to say the weather always changes, not the climate.
If the tropics miss their monsoon for a couple of years, is that climate change? If it rains in the Sahara for 3 years in a row, is that climate change? Was the MWP climate change? IMO – no.
So, whenever someone cries ”climate change” it should be their responsibility to prove that. This is where the ridiculous definition of climate being the average of 30 years’ weather should be seen for what it is – a definition which at the moment serves a political purpose but in reality is meaningless. Lets reject the new definition for the old one. ie one of the two at the top of this post.

Dave
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2019 5:08 pm

Mike – That’s “climate,” though you should add that terms need an operational definition. Same with “change.”

Reply to  Dave
October 6, 2019 5:42 pm

Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get….

Reply to  Dave
October 8, 2019 5:43 am

The operational definition of climate is the 30 year average of the weather conditions in a particular location.
Climate change is when the 30 year average changes.
Which happens to some degree all the time, although the changes are typically small and often represent fluctuations in somewhat longer term cyclical phenomenon relating to ocean currents and wind patterns.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 8, 2019 12:16 pm

We already know there is a 30-year cycle in the PDO, meaning 30 years warmer and 30 years of colder, which actually yields 60 years for a complete cycle. If we wanted a definition that didn’t have to change every year (or at least changed less) we would insist on defining climate as a 60 year average. The problem being, most places on earth lack a 60 year continuous record to be able to average. More data collection. Which is all I have ever wanted with climate research.

George Steele
Reply to  Red94ViperRT10
October 8, 2019 2:22 pm

Proposed definition:
Climate Change is an abrupt change in the weighted 60 year moving average.

Greg
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2019 5:40 pm

” An average minimum of about 7C and an average maximum of around 27C. ”

As long as you add the key word “about” to allow an unspecified amount of change you can claim anything is unchanging ( while it changes ).

The common language definitions are the origin of the expectation that climate never changes and thus any change must be abnormal. Yet the tiny changes like 0.7 deg in a century do not go against the idea that the tropics still have a different climate from temperate regions, despite all our emissions ( and all the propaganda ) central Europe has not become even subtropical so far !

Reply to  Greg
October 6, 2019 7:23 pm

” Yet the tiny changes like 0.7 deg in a century ”

But even that is not a change if it is part of a cycle, frequency, wave, phase or whatever you’d like to call it. You can look at it as measuring part of the amplitude of decades long waves as apart of measuring the peak or trough. The fact that humans have trouble looking much further than their noses doesn’t help. I think half the trouble comes from the fact that we can now measure what was probably always there.

Sunny
October 6, 2019 4:14 pm

Leitmotif

Exactly, I would absolutely love this information to be known by the general public, across all media channels and not just “the AGW sceptical scientific papers and newspapers and blogs and videos and internet discussions” I find peace on this site, but I still avoid the news channels and newpapers as the lies about climate change are constant. We need a group of at least 3/4 people who are very well spoken and loud and very knowledgeable about the facts and science on the weather. We need to force ourselves on to tv shows, news channels, it time we challenged the climate liers!!

Editor
October 6, 2019 4:16 pm

Dr Ridd is contributing one of the four seminal water chapters in the next book. He will explain how deep convection, which can be thought of as a huge heat engine — is an alternative pathway for the upward transfer of energy from greenhouse gases.

You sneaky woman! It occurred to me a few years ago that a big gap in lab tests with CO2 is that they can’t reasonably contain atmospheric-sized convection. If convection can move a lot of heat (I don’t know enough to come up with numbers, but hey, start by looking at a cloud) then increasing greenhouse effect that traps warmth near the surface should forced increased convection. Hmm, we do have a decent idea of how much heat is in a pyrocumulus cloud.

I saw something a while back the suggested the energy transfer isn’t adequate for a significant effect, but it wasn’t really looking at that. I’d love to see a good analysis of the effect.

It certainly sounds like I have no choice but to donate to the project. I don’t know about A$400, I was going to give more to Peter Ridd’s legal fund, but we’ll see.

Greg
Reply to  Ric Werme
October 6, 2019 5:43 pm

I would think defending Ridd was more of a priority and probably of more impact politically.

John of Cairns
October 6, 2019 4:20 pm

Jennifer,if Bob Tisdale is correct in saying that the Southern Ocean is cooling according to raw argo buoy data,it follows that there will be less ocean evaporation and thus less water vapor ,less rain. The australian drought may well be the kind of costly climate change nobody is prepared for. The kind that has been happening every 200 years or so.

Reply to  John of Cairns
October 7, 2019 7:53 am

Evaporation depends on many factors, and the only place on the water column that the water temp matters is an the surface.
ARGO buoys measuring deep water are irrelevant.
What matters is the surface temperature of the water.
And other factors can easily outweigh small changes in SST.
Factors like wind, waviness, humidity of the air at the sea surface, sunshine.
And like politics, all evaporation is local.
It is easily possible for the average sea surface temp of the whole ocean to decrease, but overall evaporation to increase.

Javert Chip
October 6, 2019 4:23 pm

Both parties engaged in this fantasy come off looking like 12th century primitives; the witch-doctors pretending to communicate with the gods, the stupid bumpkins begging witch-doctors to save them from the flood or draught (take your pick).

The so-called scientists abused their supposed position of knowledge for their own professional and financial gain.

The uneducated fools who pay for (as taxpayers) and accept these pronouncements are simply willfully suspending whatever embryonic critical thinking capacity they may possess. Most of this crowd has difficulty balancing their checkbook.

Loydo
October 6, 2019 4:32 pm

“they will move us towards a new theory of climate”

Jennifer Marohasy, the IPA and their paymaster – one of the world’s richest women from her inherited coal and iron ore interests – Gina Rhinehart, need to be treated with extreme skepticism when it comes to “facts”.

More likely “they will continue the disinform, muddy the waters, monger doubt and generally push a do-nothing, BAU, nothing to see, move along line. Shame.

Gary Mount
Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 5:03 pm

10 years ago, when I first sought climate science material to study, the first thing I had to look up was what “ad hominem” meant.

Loydo
Reply to  Gary Mount
October 6, 2019 7:57 pm

So as you read the thousands of posts personally attacking Greta Thunberg, Al Gore, Michael Mann, and dozens of other “alarmists” you what – just hold your nose, necessary evvil all in a good cause?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 8:56 pm

What are their scientific qualifications and credentials in a climate science related subject?

Gary Mount
Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 10:19 pm

I could tell you my tale of discovery, my transformation from being a person having no interest in reading any “environmental” news whatsoever when ever it showed up in my daily newspapers, to my shock, horror and dismay at what I discovered about the state of climate science once I started to take a look.
I have a background in computer science, software engineering, electrical engineering and mathematics prior to my start at looking into climate science.
I have become an expert at what constitutes the politics of climate science. I sought the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth on climate science and I don’t consider most of the alarmists, especially the one you just mentioned to be scientists.
The thousands of comments disparaging alarmists are warranted in my opinion. By the way, that isn’t what ad hominem means.

I am embarking on a climate modeling project as well as developing an extensive software project all about climate science, code named “Project Wattson”. I spend too many hours a day thinking about the climate alarmism that I decided I might as well dedicate the year of 2020 working on the projects I just mentioned and hopefully help kill off this beast sooner rather than later.
I also really enjoy reading the posts by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. That reminds me, one piece of knowledge i am missing is on the mechanism of feedbacks in general. I will be studying the electronics form over the upcoming holiday season.

Reply to  Gary Mount
October 7, 2019 1:38 pm

Gary Mount,
In order to understand the climate science that underpins all of this, I recommend that you start with the series of essays that we published here on WUWT:
1. Calibrating the CERES Image of the Earth’s Radiant Emission to Space
2. An Analysis of the Earth’s Energy Budget
3. Modelling the Climate of Noonworld: A New Look at Venus
4. Return to Earth: A New Predictive Model of the Earth’s Climate
5. Using an Iterative Adiabatic Model to study the Climate of Titan

The key part of the story is the misapplication of the Vacuum Planet equation, derived from astronomy, to planetary climate. The Vacuum Planet equation is designed to calculate the output radiative power intensity flux to space from a solar illuminated planet. We fully acknowledge the utility of this equation and its role in astronomy, but climate is a planetary surface meteorological process that takes place under atmospheric load.
Our new climate model starts with a full mathematical replication of the Vacuum Planet equation using the indisputable fact that all planets are only ever lit on one hemisphere. The equivalence of these two modelling approaches shows that back-radiation from greenhouse gases is not required. The Vacuum Planet equation by its very form has no atmospheric component. Our diabatic model is created by using a fully transparent nitrogen atmosphere with all absorption and radiative emission taking place at the base of the atmosphere. The role of turbulence is missing from the diabatic model, only when convection under surface solar forcing is added to create an adiabatic model is the mystery of the enhanced planetary surface temperature solved.

In addition to explaining the enhanced surface temperature of a planet, our adiabatic model also explains “The mystery of the missing heat” (Chahine, 1992 p.378)

Present estimates of heat transport by the oceans are deficient in other ways — The oceans and the atmosphere together transport 3.7 pW northwards, far less than the 5.3 pW required to balance the Earth radiation budget according to satellite data.

Here is a clear example of the role of invisible potential energy transport by the Hadley cell. We now have here a value for this global heat transport mechanism, it is 1.6pW. Note how the balance of energy transport is therefore 1.6/5.3 = 30% of the total system budget as adiabatic auto-compression. The remaining 70% is sensible heat and latent heat fluxes.
Reference
Chahine, M.T. 1992 The hydrological cycle and its influence on climate.

Stephen Wilde
Reply to  Philip Mulholland
October 7, 2019 2:01 pm

Thanks, Philip.
It really is time that people started taking our work seriously. The potential for catastrophe from accepting the false radiative theory is becoming widely clear from the dangerous antics of the Extinction Rebellion crowd.
It cannot be allowed to continue.

Stephan
Reply to  Gary Mount
October 8, 2019 4:48 pm

Philip: the Venus adiabatic climate model was an eye opener!! Thanks!!

Gary Mount
Reply to  Gary Mount
October 8, 2019 5:30 pm

Thanks Philip for the links and information. I have previously read at least some of the articles already.
I have about 5000 pages of study material already lined up to read. This includes however foundational topics such as general physics (a university physics book from my early 1980s university courses), a newly acquired book about how satellites are used for atmospheric data, which I put aside to study up on quantum mechanics as a prerequisite. I need to review a lot of calculus.
I spent 15 years studying the finite element method, so the numerical computation part of my climate model studies is well grounded knowledge for me.

Reply to  Gary Mount
October 9, 2019 1:13 am

Stephan,
You’re welcome.

We believe that our climate model contains the components that permit the proper integration of the atmospheric radiation and mass movement fluxes which explain the so-called greenhouse effect.
Our work has been refused publication because it sits outside the parameters of the current climate paradigm of radiative feedback. This is in spite of our analysis being fully grounded in meteorology, and is predictive of the height of the radiative emission zones of Venus, Earth and Titan.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2019 7:32 am

Poor Loydo, she actually thinks that refuting someone constitutes an attack on them.

Old England
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2019 12:54 pm

@Loydo Should people keep quiet because your heroes are either being manipulated (some psychologists suggest abused) or are manipulating carpetbaggers?

Mr.
Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 5:09 pm

Loydo, if the new book only serves to highlight to the great unwashed the abyss of scientific knowledge about how / why / when / where clouds form and affect climate(s), it will be a very worthwhile contribution.

Only a 4% change in global cloudiness will negate/overwhelm any claimed effects of manmade CO2 on climate.

Seems to me that “the science” should be addressing itself to the overwhelming major dominant variables before they start splitting the atoms of manmade CO2 conjecture.

leitmotif
Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 5:15 pm

Loydo

CO2 does not drive the climate. No evidence.

That’s it, I guess.

TonyL
Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 5:23 pm

Uh-oh, looks like somebody got triggered.
“inherited coal and iron ore interests” Look at that, the old “In the pay of Big Coal” smear.
Loydo – I have to tell you, that one is just too old. It got used up a long time ago. You need new material.
But I want to be constructive.
Climate Change: The Facts series are not political or ideological tomes, like some other works in the field. You can challenge the theory and even the data set out in these works.
Get one of these books, dig into it. Tell us specifically where a chapter author is wrong, and why. The one great thing about science is that it does not change according to who pays for it. The facts remain the facts. Now do not get me wrong, I know money has a huge influence. For instance, Big Government finances a set of studies which promote Global Warming Alarmism, people say money changes the science.
I say NO, money created a political movement, it did not chance the actual science. Perhaps that movement dresses up as science, but that does make it so.
As an aside:
Big Government money created the US GCRP, the US Global Change Research Program. That group releases the NCA, the National Climate Assessment periodically. It looks like science, it is not.
On Halloween, my neighbors dress up their dog in a tiger costume. It looks like a tiger, but it is really still a dog.

So, Loydo, look at the science, argue the facts, argue the theory.

Loydo
Reply to  TonyL
October 6, 2019 7:45 pm

If Marohassy wants to comment on her area of expertise: weed management and environmental management then I might be *slightly* less skeptical. You cannot ignore the uber-vested interest leaning over her shoulder just by designating it a “smear”. Are you saying you don’t believe there are any vested interests? Do you really think multi-billionaire Gina Rhinehart gives a flying #$% about the “facts”?

“I have never met a geologist or leading scientist who believes adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will have any significant effect on climate change…” She can afford to buy her own facts and so she does.

From the book’s webpage at the IPA

“It’s an unfortunate truth that our public institutions are becoming intolerant of debate on climate change. That is why it is more important than ever to have the discussion.”

Let me decode that for you:
Let’s continue to insinuate there is not broad, global agreement that modern warming has been caused by human activity – in “fact” it would be even warmer had the sun not been going through a quieter period and aerosols were not masking some it. So it’s an unfortunate truth that we need to keep dragging it backwards into the weeds from where we can sow enough doubt to paralyse policy.

It is important to continue reincarnating every zombie myth, every red herring, to exaggerate every doubt and downplay every climate extreme so that “discussion” never ends and mitigation policies are never implemented.

Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 8:16 pm

“discussion” never ends and mitigation policies are never implemented.”

So you think it’s ok to implement destructive and unworkable policies based on an hypothesis?

Loydo
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2019 8:39 pm

That’s exactly what Gina would say.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mike
October 7, 2019 2:13 am

“Loydo October 6, 2019 at 8:39 pm

That’s exactly what Gina would say.”

That is remarkable! You can read minds?

MarkW
Reply to  Mike
October 7, 2019 7:36 am

Notice how Loydo avoids answering a direct question and instead redirects it into yet another attack on those who disagree with it.

John Doe
Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 10:44 pm

They can’t get any peer-reviewed papers published, so they resort to writing fiction novels.

Old England
Reply to  John Doe
October 7, 2019 1:18 pm

doe …. a rather silly comment which only demonstrates extreme ignorance (or worse). I know that Facts are mainly a stranger to climate alarmists but you don’t have to highlight that here, keep it for alarmist echo chambers and the gullible .

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2019 7:34 am

“If Marohassy wants to comment on her area of expertise:”

This from the person defending Al Gore ant Greta???

If Loydo didn’t have double standards, she would have no standards at all.

I see Loydo is still trying to pretend that those scientists, who’s jobs would disappear altogether if it were to be proven that CO2 wasn’t a problem, don’t have vested interests in protecting the scam.

Old England
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2019 1:08 pm

Loydo, you clearly seem to have the marxist-socialist playbook by your side or at least studied it closely.

Does it tell you how to maintain XR propaganda in the face of Facts? I’m interested because much of their claims are in total contradiction to IPCC orthodoxy. I’m assuming you treat IPCC as gospel – many of us don’t see the IPCC that way because of multiple inconsistencies ……..

Reply to  TonyL
October 7, 2019 9:52 am

TonyL says:
Uh-oh, looks like somebody got triggered.
“inherited coal and iron ore interests” Look at that, the old “In the pay of Big Coal” smear.

Yeah, I agree, that one is SO old & worn out. Because even if it were true, the amount of money “available” from such interests is chicken-scratchings compared to what’s backing, every day, the climate-change industrial complex.

Loydo: “Hey, look at the squirrel!!!!!”, while behind is the stampeding herd of elephants. So clueless……..

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 5:43 pm

Al Gore never made any money from tobacco, oil and coal interests…oh wait!

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Loydo
October 6, 2019 7:09 pm

As usual, same no sense from Loydo.

MarkW
Reply to  Gerald Machnee
October 7, 2019 7:37 am

Loydo is doing what it is paid to do. Sow confusion and dissent.

yarpos
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2019 2:49 am

Funny how alarmists equate the realist position as one of do nothing. They want to take the moronic flaying about approach purely for the sake of “doing something” or really being seen to be doing something e.g. wind power. Realists prefer a) do the right things b) do things right.

Just more label and spraying insults when the have nothing of substance to offer.

MarkW
Reply to  Loydo
October 7, 2019 7:31 am

Typical Loydo, when you can’t refute the facts, attack the person.

Funny thing, huge amounts of government money absolutely never corrupt scientists.
At least that’s what those who get their paychecks from government keep telling us.

JPMSF
October 6, 2019 5:01 pm

Many of those who accept CAGW do not have trouble balancing their checkbooks. I lived in Silicon Valley and most of my friends had advanced degrees in science, many in physics, and they swallowed the idea hook, line, and sinker. After all, 97% of scientists, world-class climate models, etc., etc. they simply aren’t willing (they are surely able) to put a critical eye on the issue. It’s a bigger dynamic in that many want government to be our mechanism for management of moral behavior. And “protecting the environment” is a very moral thing to do.

Red94ViperRT10
Reply to  JPMSF
October 8, 2019 12:47 pm

It’s called “hubris”. They think that because the got an advanced degree, that either proves they are, or makes them, smarter than anyone else. At the opposite end of the scale, let me tell you of a humbling experience… About 13 years ago I moved from a suburb of Houston to west Louisiana, and I lived there 3 years. I bought a house off the foreclosure list, the water came from a well and although there remained the hole in the ground, the motivator had been stolen. I called a guy who provided a compressed air motivator, and he eventually got it working just fine. Then I needed my car aligned, someone directed me to a guy down some country road, and when I got there, it was the same guy. I think I found out he had several other businesses.

I came to the conclusion he may have been smarter than me, and he was most certainly more ambitious than me, he just never had the opportunity to go to college like I had. Getting a college degree doesn’t make you smart.

Terry Bixler
October 6, 2019 5:08 pm

Donation $400 complete. Thank you

Ian Ward
October 6, 2019 5:26 pm

Who are the book’s reviewers ?.

Patrick MJD
October 6, 2019 5:41 pm

“Right up until the city of Brisbane in my home state of Queensland was flooded back in January 2011 — flooded following the emergency release of water from the overflowing Wivenhoe Dam — the considered opinion from Australian experts was that the dams would never fill again. This was accepted by many as a ‘fact’.”

Flannery should be held accountable for his predictions that led to deaths.

Peter Ridd
October 6, 2019 6:49 pm

Although I can think of another equally good cause to donate to, the IPA series of Climate Change the Facts books is one of the few compilations of information that mounts a challenge to the conventional wisdom on climate. It is well worth supporting, as is Anthony’s blog. The rivers of money from big oil are an illusion, but the rivers of government cash from Big University and Big Scientific Organisation to the climate alarmists is real.

We should not forget how effective blogs like this or the CCTF series have been in raising awareness of the deficiencies in conventional climate theory. A little cash goes a very long way.

Neville
October 6, 2019 6:54 pm

Flannery and others were completely wrong about Aussie rainfall since 1900. Actually from 1895 because of FED drought.
Here’s the BOM’s annual rainfall data since 1900 to 2018. The trend since 1973 is much higher as can be seen using a moving average line on this anomaly graph.

http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rranom&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=6

Another Ian
Reply to  Neville
October 6, 2019 9:53 pm

Check out these posters

https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/rainfall-poster/

Particularly “Australia’s variable rainfall poster”

October 6, 2019 7:16 pm

Droughts and floods are weather, not climate.
No theory of climate will ever be able to predict local weather on short time scales, such as when a certain drought in a certain place will end.
Of course, this person is not a climatologist, or any other sort of atmospheric scientist, so it hardly seems surprising that she is unable to understand any of this.
But she is a scientist, and as such ought to be able to do the small amount of research necessary to find the error in her reasoning.
That she cannot says more about her and the ruination of proper scientific thinking among these policy analyst class, than it says about anything having to do with the atmosphere.
While she does seem to be properly skeptical, she has become lost in confusion due to buying into the idea that weather events are synonymous with “climate change”.
Weather is not synonymous with climate change, weather events are not climate events, and climate change does not mean adverse weather.
If she understood this, she would not be making the inferences she is making.
In fact, arid climates can expect to have periods of drought and periods of heavy rain, forever.
In fact, just about every type of climate zone can expect this on various time scales.
This is exactly why we have separate words for weather and climate.
A drought in a moist climate does not mean the climate has changed.
It means that weather is highly variable, on every time scale, even with no change in climate.

Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
October 7, 2019 6:31 am

Not sure what you read but Jennifer Marohasy is a firm follower of the scientific method and has caught out the BOM fiddling the Australian temperature record on a few occasions .

Reply to  Steve Richards
October 7, 2019 7:26 am

Not sure what you read but I am a firm follower of getting things right.
She asserts that a proper “theory of climate” ought to be able to predict weather.
Does having “caught out” a few occasions of the ongoing fraud negate her misapprehensions, in your estimation?

Other than that, I can tell you what I read: I read the article posted at the top of this page.
Did you read my comment?
I said nothing about whether or not she was aware of data adjustment fraud.

Reply to  Steve Richards
October 7, 2019 7:35 am

“Many claim such flood events are unpredictable. In which case, we arguably don’t have a scientific theory of climate.”
Now, what part of the words “scientific theory” or “climate” would lead one to believe that having an omniscient knowledge of future weather events, and the timing thereof, is even possible, outside short term local forecasts of a few days?
Even those, while better than in past times, are still problematic and only sometimes accurate.
Precipitation is far more difficult to predict even a day or two in advance than such things as temperature.
No one who is trained or experienced in weather forecasting or the science of meteorology thinks that we have the technology or the knowledge to say when a regional drought event will end, except in very limited circumstances, such as when a large wet weather system is moving into an area undergoing a drought.
And even in that case, it can be shown that weather systems often collapse when moving into a dry zone.
She does not know the difference between climate and weather, and if you did not understand the point I was making, perhaps you could use some boning up on the old textbooks as well.

October 6, 2019 7:16 pm

How will these Names be presented/highlighted in the book – at the beginning or at the end?
If I would contribute $405 USD?
Just wondering…..
I have a very limited income … but I would like to contribute.

-JPP

October 6, 2019 7:29 pm

”Flannery and others were completely wrong about Aussie rainfall since 1900.”
Not surprising given that 95% of what comes out of his mouth is pure drivel.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mike
October 6, 2019 8:53 pm

Don’t be too hard on him, he recently admitted his 20 years of “climate activism” has been a colossal failure and, unlike Greta, wasn’t nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for that activism.