This site provides an excellent resource on climate change.  It includes scenarios and impacts and how they translate to different regions of Australia.

http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/

It's quite comprehensive.

Did you know the really scary stories are based on RCP 8.5? 1370 ppm? How delusional is that?

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 2:01pm:

Did you know the really scary stories are based on RCP 8.5? 1370 ppm? How delusional is that?

If you're an extremist anything makes sense!

Can I have some more boring blue-coloured crack please????????????????????????????????????????????????

::)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 2:06pm:

If you're an extremist anything makes sense!

Then it makes sense to you. :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 3:15pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 2:06pm: If you're an extremist anything makes sense! Then it makes sense to you. :D :D :D :D

lee must be right: otherwise he'll stick an uzi through the internet and make you plead for mercy  ;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 2:01pm:

Did you know the really scary stories are based on RCP 8.5? 1370 ppm? How delusional is that?

How many Donald Trump clones would it take to stuff up the planet that badly?

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 6:01pm:

How many Donald Trump clones would it take to stuff up the planet that badly?

Probably too numerous to calculate. And don't forget they're (climatechange) citing CMIP5 models, which are still running too hot. Even with El Nino.

El Nino is an effect rather than a cause.

There are a lot of feedbacks that we haven't seen yet. We're only at +.87 degrees. Even +2 Degrees is a different ballgame, and we're talking more than that  with RCP 8.5.

With the last two years added to the equation, I don't think AR5 is overestimating global warming. It's well within the error bars for the current emission levels, but it's  too early to say at this stage.  AR5 was the most conservative assessment report of the lot.

We have to work with the best resources available.

Have you heard of Admiral James Stockdale? He was the most senior US Officer to be captured by the Viet Cong, and went on to be the US Vice Admiral and later ran as Vice Presidential candidate to  Ross Perot. A lot of what he said applies here.


Quote:

Face the most brutal facts of your current reality and retain faith that you will prevail in the endgame

Optimism is fatal.


Quote:

What the optimists failed to do was confront the reality of their situation. They preferred the ostrich approach, sticking their heads in the sand and hoping for the difficulties to go away. That self-delusion might have made it easier on them in the short-term, but when they were eventually forced to face reality, it had become too much and they couldn’t handle it.

http://www.ndoherty.com/stockdale-paradox/

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:36pm:

There are a lot of feedbacks that we haven't seen yet. We're only at +.87 degrees. Even +2 Degrees is a different ballgame, and we're talking more than that  with RCP 8.5.

And that +0.87 is with the multi-adjusted datasets.


Just think of those poor buggers struggling in the tropics. Bugger that's not right, it is going to be the mid to high latitudes.

1370 ppm about 2.2 degrees from now.

lee wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 8:46pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 7:36pm: There are a lot of feedbacks that we haven't seen yet. We're only at +.87 degrees. Even +2 Degrees is a different ballgame, and we're talking more than that  with RCP 8.5. And that +0.87 is with the multi-adjusted datasets.

You don't seem to grasp the fact that unless you correct data for non climate related effects, the data will be meaningless. Of course your preference is to make it meaningless. To play everything down, normalise everything and bury your head in the sand.

I am in the tropics.

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 7:36pm:

El Nino is an effect rather than a cause.

true John. If you trace El Nino related "events" back you eventually arrive at warmer sea surface temperatures in the central and eastern tropical Pacific Ocean. This is what causes a shift in atmospheric circulation.

What is concerning is the high variability in the El Nino periodic cycles. Introducing anthropogenic warming drivers into these natural cycles like wreckless deranged baboons in a nut shop is totally nuts

lee needs to apologise for being so morally irresponsible and directing his political ideology towards the health and well being of the children of the world.

despicable

utterly despicable

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:21pm:

You don't seem to grasp the fact that unless you correct data for non climate related effects, the data will be meaningless.

If you make corrections to the data - it is no longer data.  You can make notes of what you suspect caused non-climate changes, the estimate you would apply to those suspected non-climate changes. But it is just that - estimates.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:28am:

What is concerning is the high variability in the El Nino periodic cycles. Introducing anthropogenic warming drivers into these natural cycles like wreckless deranged baboons in a nut shop is totally nuts

You mean, once upon a twice, before post-modern science, the El Nino cycles were regular and non-variable? ;)

lee wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:45am:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:21pm: You don't seem to grasp the fact that unless you correct data for non climate related effects, the data will be meaningless. If you make corrections to the data - it is no longer data.  You can make notes of what you suspect caused non-climate changes, the estimate you would apply to those suspected non-climate changes. But it is just that - estimates.

Tell that to the BoM. While you're at it, tell every university in Australia. They might find your interpretation amusing.

I just found this Wikipedia article for you. It has some good references. It's not bad at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homogenization_%28climate%29

It explains the reasons behind homogenisation, and includes the Urban Heat Island effect, changes in measurement methods etc.

It's quite an easy introduction for you.   


Quote:

To reliably study the real development of the climate, non-climatic changes have to be removed. The date of the change is often documented (called meta data: data about data), but not always. Meta data is often only available in the local language. In the best case, there are parallel measurements with the original and the new set-up for several years.[11] This is a WMO (World Meteorological Organisation) guideline, but parallel measurements are unfortunately not very often performed, if only because the reason for stopping the original measurement is not known in advance, but probably more often to save money. By making parallel measurement with replicas of historical instruments, screens, etc. some of these inhomogeneities can still be studied today.

lee wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:48am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 12:28am: What is concerning is the high variability in the El Nino periodic cycles. Introducing anthropogenic warming drivers into these natural cycles like wreckless deranged baboons in a nut shop is totally nuts You mean, once upon a twice, before post-modern science, the El Nino cycles were regular and non-variable? ;)

That is nor the "point" of the comment I made

Again you grossly fail to see and understand rudimentary elements of polemical discussions

well done lee

well done mate

congratulations on that front mate

Now apologise and self ban so people in here can gather their thoughts and recover from the deceptional discourse that you regularly defecate in this room.

8-)

Lee,

If you have any concept of how increasing global temperatures will affect El Nino cycles, maybe you could publish a paper on it.  ;D

There is some ongoing research on that subject.

lee wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 11:45am:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:21pm: You don't seem to grasp the fact that unless you correct data for non climate related effects, the data will be meaningless. If you make corrections to the data - it is no longer data.  You can make notes of what you suspect caused non-climate changes, the estimate you would apply to those suspected non-climate changes. But it is just that - estimates.

You don't understand method!

You don't understand why trying to simplify complexity in a purposeful manner is methodical.

You're just a fascist saying the status quo should be maintained or else the ghost of daddykins might jump through the internet with his machineguns and come get us in our sleep!

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/files/2016/04/Fig8.png



Figure 8. These graphs show Arctic sea ice age from March 4 to 10, 2016. The top graph shows ice age distribution for that week alone and the bottom graph shows ice age distribution for that week from 1985 to 2016.

Credit: NSIDC courtesy University of Colorado Boulder, M. Tschudi, C. Fowler, J. Maslanik, R. Stewart, W. Meier.



https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 3:36pm:

If you have any concept of how increasing global temperatures will affect El Nino cycles, maybe you could publish a paper on it.

It's Chimp's concept; ask him. I'm told it tastes like Nutella.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 12:28am:

Introducing anthropogenic warming drivers into these natural cycles like wreckless deranged baboons in a nut shop is totally nuts

You mean that?  Can you name all the anthropogenic warming drivers? All the natural warming drivers? How they interact? And then all the anthro cooling drivers, all the natural cooling drivers?

lee wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 8:44pm:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 12:28am: Introducing anthropogenic warming drivers into these natural cycles like wreckless deranged baboons in a nut shop is totally nuts You mean that?  Can you name all the anthropogenic warming drivers? All the natural warming drivers? How they interact? And then all the anthro cooling drivers, all the natural cooling drivers?

and would anthropogenic warming drivers interest you lee?

It would be like me asking you to give a donation to the world children's fund

apologise and self ban

8-)

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 12:56am:

and would anthropogenic warming drivers interest you lee?

So you can't name them or anthro cooling drivers. Or quantify them. Just as I suspected.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 7^th, 2016 at 6:06pm:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

How did they actually measure that? Send teams out to bore holes? A computer algorithm? How about ice greater than 5 years old? Is it all gone? How would that happen without the Arctic going ice free?

lee wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 11:37am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 7th, 2016 at 6:06pm: https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ How did they actually measure that? Send teams out to bore holes? A computer algorithm? How about ice greater than 5 years old? Is it all gone? How would that happen without the Arctic going ice free?

I'm not paid to educate you!

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 2:19pm:

I'm not paid to educate you!

You're paid not to do anything.

CIRES University of Colorado doesn't explain how they arrive at their figures. Funny eh?

lee wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 11:34am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Apr 8th, 2016 at 12:56am: and would anthropogenic warming drivers interest you lee? So you can't name them or anthro cooling drivers. Or quantify them. Just as I suspected.

You are in no moral or intellectual position to ask anyone anything at all in this forum thread.

You are still reeling with the simple challenge of citing one climate model that predicts static or declining global temperatures as atmospheric CO2 levels increase.

And you gallop around in this place demanding answers?

Well done lee

The more you post, the more deranged and hate filled you expose yourself to be.

No apology, written or otherwise, can absolve you of that criminal and immoral intent.

http://rs905.pbsrc.com/albums/ac252/free-hugs/SmokingMonkey.gif

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6^th, 2016 at 10:23am:

This site provides an excellent resource on climate change.  It includes scenarios and impacts and how they translate to different regions of Australia. http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/ It's quite comprehensive.

They can't predict the weather a few days in advance how on Earth can they tell us the impacts of this warming when they have never experienced it before.

Oh I know its those computer models again.

Well you know what they say about those, sh!t in.........LOL

http://www.trillionthtonne.org/

lee wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 2:37pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 8th, 2016 at 2:19pm: I'm not paid to educate you! You're paid not to do anything. CIRES University of Colorado doesn't explain how they arrive at their figures. Funny eh?

You don't know what I do   ;)

..but I know what you do!!

Ajax wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

John_Taverner wrote on Apr 6th, 2016 at 10:23am: This site provides an excellent resource on climate change.  It includes scenarios and impacts and how they translate to different regions of Australia. http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/en/ It's quite comprehensive. They can't predict the weather a few days in advance how on Earth can they tell us the impacts of this warming when they have never experienced it before. Oh I know its those computer models again. Well you know what they say about those, sh!t in.........LOL

How did they know how to get to the moon when they had never done it before?

::) ::)

How did the Americans know a billion people were going to be affected by Hiroshima and Nagasaki when they had never dropped weapons of mass destruction over millions of people before??

:-? :-?

How did your Daddy know you were going to vote for the foreign vested interests party when he'd never had an ass-licking yes-kid like you before???

:-[ :-[ :-[

Ajax wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 4:37pm:

They can't predict the weather a few days in advance how on Earth can they tell us the impacts of this warming when they have never experienced it before.

LOL!

Clear winner of the "Stupid Comment of the Week" award.

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 4:56pm:

Ajax wrote on Apr 8th, 2016 at 4:37pm: They can't predict the weather a few days in advance how on Earth can they tell us the impacts of this warming when they have never experienced it before. LOL! Clear winner of the "Stupid Comment of the Week" award.

History shows us that there is nothing unusual about global warming and global cooling.

It also shows us that CO2 has never correlated with the warming events.

http://i67.tinypic.com/zml3cl.gif

Ajax wrote on Apr 8^th, 2016 at 5:04pm:

rabbitoh08 wrote on Apr 8th, 2016 at 4:56pm: Ajax wrote on Apr 8th, 2016 at 4:37pm: They can't predict the weather a few days in advance how on Earth can they tell us the impacts of this warming when they have never experienced it before. LOL! Clear winner of the "Stupid Comment of the Week" award. History shows us that there is nothing unusual about global warming and global cooling. It also shows us that CO2 has never correlated with the warming events. http://i67.tinypic.com/zml3cl.gif

Does Ajax trust those graphs he just posted?

Interesting times

http://www.arctic-charts.net/ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/gifs/latest.gif

note week 41 of 2015 from Univerity of Colorado latest gif.

ftp://ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/images/iceage_browse_week_n_2015_41.png

Week 41 2015 .png University Colorado

http://www.arctic-charts.net/ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/gifs/

Where has the bump gone?

lee wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2016 at 5:25pm:

Interesting times http://www.arctic-charts.net/ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/gifs/latest.gif note week 41 of 2015 from Univerity of Colorado latest gif. ftp://ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/images/iceage_browse_week_n_2015_41.png Week 41 2015 .png University Colorado http://www.arctic-charts.net/ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/gifs/ Where has the bump gone?

Someone who knows what mutli-year sea ice is: you should tell bobby!

;D ;D

lee wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2016 at 5:25pm:

Interesting times http://www.arctic-charts.net/ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/gifs/latest.gif note week 41 of 2015 from Univerity of Colorado latest gif. ftp://ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/images/iceage_browse_week_n_2015_41.png Week 41 2015 .png University Colorado http://www.arctic-charts.net/ccar.colorado.edu/pub/tschudi/iceage/gifs/ Where has the bump gone?

What bump?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2016 at 5:52pm:

What bump?

If you go to the second link and click on that week 41 of 2015 doesn't have that nipple. It looks just like the one you posted from here-

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/