The New Normal: BOM predicting temperatures to reach >50c next week (but now revised downward)

The BOM maps showing Australia awash with red were scary enough. But it’s going to get worse. Much worse:

BADKOHeCMAAfpC5

Update: BOM has revised their estimates. It would be remiss of me not to mention that – however, the predictions are still looking grim.

About these ads

137 thoughts on “The New Normal: BOM predicting temperatures to reach >50c next week (but now revised downward)

  1. […] 2013/01/08: WtD: The New Normal: BOM predicting temperatures to reach >50c next week […]

  2. Richard Ryan says:

    Found this on a climate blog:

    johnbyattqld The sad fact of climate science at the beginning of the 21st Century is that we have not managed to convince the majority of humanity that people are making the world heat up. We need to address this in a number of ways:
    We need to strongly advocate that the United Nations becomes the governing body for all climate decisions and overrides any single nation, removing the right for uneducated people to interfere.

    We need to encourage smaller third world nations to seek compensation for rising sea levels and force big polluters to pay. This truly this requires coordination on an international scale so we must build a framework controlled by the UN and all nations must cede their sovereign rights in the short term on climate and later on all things.
    We must also ensure that any major climatic event is attributed to AGW. We have a drought, it’s global warming; we have torrential rain and flooding, it’s global warming; we have an outbreak of tornadoes, it’s global warming; we just had a week of really hot weather, it’s global warming; we just suffered the worst hurricane ever, it’s global warming;

    We have no options but to push forward as general public interest is waning. The outer limits of predictions need to become the statistics that are promoted in the mainstream media. And any scientists who dissent should quickly be discredited. Debates should never be entered into.

    Wow, johnno … can you hide from that one?

    • Richard Ryan says:

      no further requirement to answer my questions johnny … the “uneducated people” bit probably covers the eugenics issue and the rest is, well, self explanatory

    • Richard Ryan says:

      yep, its him allright (as if there was any doubt) …

      have you picked out a uniform yet johnny? think you would look just spiffing in red, maybe a nice little burning planet insignia for the New World Order?
      now zootie, of course, being just a tad dumber than your average Ku Klux Klimater, will probably just have to be a doorman or something I’m guessing. No hang on, he may have to read someones credentials and make a decision. Cancel that, maybe a chimney sweep … doh, no burning! Fuckit gonna have to leave it to you guys to decide …

  3. john byatt says:

    Roy spencer creationist and climate denier never mentions his fundamentalism on his blog but it does show up in his posts, todays is pure gibberish.

    waste heat, , another zombie is resurrected

  4. Richard Ryan says:

    Johnny…I’ll give you some peanuts if you answer the questions … mmmm, yum

    • john byatt says:

      love the johnny tag, they seem to think it is a put down, just how does that work ?

    • Richard Ryan says:

      no, we’re all matey here … zootie seems to think Dick offends me – personally I think he just likes saying it ;) )

  5. Richard Ryan says:

    There is a john byatt who is a member of the Queensland branch of the league of rights. I WAS RIGHT all along. It makes sense – holocaust deniers are known to be AGW supporters 100%. Ouch, john byatt … OUTED

    • john byatt says:

      Thanks for the ht RR, the Qld league of rights semms to have morphed into the CEC, anti climate change and again nazi fixation just like our creationist friend richard

      http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=global_warming&id=main.html

      • john byatt says:

        These are A grade loonies

        Even people who disagree with the Greens often
        think that they are innocent and misguided, that their
        foolish attachment to paganism doesn’t matter. I think
        it’s deeply, deeply sinister. Anyone with a full understanding of the history of the Nazis should know how
        sinister this ideology is.

        yep fundamentalist god botherers

    • Richard Ryan says:

      I’m sure some of the people on this site have good intentions (although I’m yet to see one) but yes, A Grade loonies you are.
      Answer some simple questions johnno and be honest about your philosophy … you have a fixation with evryone else’s
      It will ALWAYS be the problem with you Ku Klux Klimaters … honesty. None with the science, none with the facts and certainly none with your own personal views. Its why very few will ever end up taking AGW seriously. You are your own worst enemies (thankfully for the rest of the sane world).

      • john byatt says:

        like yourself the KKK are anti gay, you have already proved that you are anti gay by using it as an insult, Freud would love you as an example

      • Richard Ryan says:

        on the contrary, the unconscious to Freud was the storage facility for all repressed sexual desires, thus resulting in pathological or mental illness. Only through laying bare the unconscious could a person discover how to live happily and recover from mental illness.
        he would encourage you to face your own demons johnno and tell the truth, be honest. With you, I suspect it would take quite some time …
        Hidden agendas will bring you down, johnny … just come clean. Hint: you can start with the desire to wipe out democracy then we can work our way up to the obsession with religion

  6. john byatt says:

    Richard Ryan says:
    January 10, 2013 at 6:34 am
    Matt … I hope you’re just taking the piss out of this because arguing with johnny is like playing chess with a monkey

    Ryan plays chess with monkeys, wonder if he ever wins?

  7. john byatt says:

    Put that link here then ,

    The rapid pulse of PETM CO2 followed by rapid warming (figure 2e) indicates high climate sensitivity.
    CO2 does indeed appear to have a long atmospheric lifetime.
    Ocean acidification (of the deep sea at least) can occur even under conditions of CO2 release much slower than today.
    Present acidification of the ocean is far greater than the PETM, and is probably unprecedented in the last 65 million years.

    Reply
    Matt M says:
    January 10, 2013 at 12:13 am
    Where in that does it state the link to extinction? The only direct link is to tiny marine life called forams driven to extinction buy the ocean acidification.

    AND THEN THIS
    Matt M says:
    January 10, 2013 at 6:22 am
    As I said I was only talking about the great dying not PETM. Surely I don’t have to repeat myself again

    read your 12.13 comment again sunshine

    • Matt M says:

      I didn’t realize your link was to PETM. For fucks sake, you changed the event not me and I didn’t notice because you didn’t separate them.

      • john byatt says:

        Crap, the link at skeptical science states PETM trying reading them

      • john byatt says:

        “I didn’t realize your link was to PETM. ”

        this proves that you did,

        Matt M says:
        January 10, 2013 at 12:13 am
        Where in that does it state the link to extinction? The only direct link is to tiny marine life called forams driven to extinction buy the ocean acidification.

    • Richard Ryan says:

      can I “buy the ocean acidification” too? is this the guy who corrects the english of deniers? hmmm … looks like there will be a new dictionary issued when the Ku Klux Klimate take control … all animals are created equal (except for pigs (or true believers)) LOL. While you’re with the KKK cause, johnny, its a soda

      • john byatt says:

        MattM made a typo, who cares? your comprehension is feeble.

        the post demonstrates that MattM did understand that the link was about the PETM.

        he can no longer deny that on the above evidence,

      • Richard Ryan says:

        just more evidence (as if we needed it) of your hypocrisy johnny

  8. Richard Ryan says:

    Matt … I hope you’re just taking the piss out of this because arguing with johnny is like playing chess with a monkey … when the board doesnt look pretty, he just messes it up coz he had no understanding in the first place.
    Just fess up about being a creationalist and get in line for the sacrificial burning at stake.

    They (the Ku Klux Klimate) have to govern us because they know whats good for us … none of this silly democracy where idiots get to vote too. Noooo … cant have that. they’ll look after the peasants when they have all the power and we’ll thank them for it.

    • john byatt says:

      What do you do when you are not trolling and why are you here with no evidence just chanting that science is all wrong and you are correct because every creationist and conspiracy theorist agrees with you, the rest of the world is wrong richard ryan is correct

      • Richard Ryan says:

        Unlike you, johnny, I’m not afraid to answer basic questions … when you do, we can start to possibly look at your credibility which is zero at present. Links to other Ku Klux Klimate sites are as worthless as your religious zealosy and eugenic viewpoint of the world. when you start asking for death penalties for “deniers” of your crazed philosophy, you are getting into scary and dangerous ground indeed. i know it nearly worked for Hitler so remember not to invade Russia. Have you noticed that (still) none of your “mates” here will support your creationalist ravings?

      • john byatt says:

        obviously you have not read any of mike’s posts concerning creationists and denial of climate change,

        ” I’m not afraid to answer basic questions”

        Question, why have you not sought psychiatric treatment ?

      • Richard Ryan says:

        oh come on johnny, more links to KKK sites??? YAWN
        so far we’ve established that you:

        1. believe in eugenics
        2. believe blacks, jews and disabled people are inferior and should be eliminated
        3. believe that democracy is ridiculous and should be replaced by world government run by Ku Klux Klimate true believers
        4. are obsessed with religion … does not sit well with KKK colleagues
        5. will not debate anything that is not on the KKK agenda
        6. a little homophobic, probably gay
        7. hypocritical … not practising what you preach i.e. belching co2 everywhere … meaning that there are alterior motives (see points 1, 2, 3)
        8. believe in the death penalty for anyone not towing the party line (a la Khmer Rouge, Hitler etc etc)
        9. have a superiority complex personality disorder (I just added this one based on all the above facts)
        10. ignore any empirical facts that disprove the KKK theories

        As you say, no denial means agreement, johnny … feel free to answer questions anytime .. or just keep the faith. STILL, no “colleagues” on this site willing to support your fanatic creationalist raves. Are you feeling a bit lonely?

      • zoot says:

        The correct usage is “toe the line”, not “tow the line”.

      • john byatt says:

        Nah you are just another christian fundalmentalist as revealed by your dummy spit over being outed

      • Richard Ryan says:

        come on johnny, just one little denial … you can do it

    • You are in”Just fess up about being a creationalist and get in line for the sacrificial burning at stake.”

      You’ve got it all wrong, we don’t burn denialists, too much CO2, they are more beneficial buried deep in the ground, about where your head is now.

      • Richard Ryan says:

        mmm, creative … john byatt wants to start with the black people, disabled and jews .. you too?

      • john byatt says:

        what with the blacks jews and gays fixation, he calls people gay as an insult, this is christian fundamentalism to the core, see cory bernadi

      • Richard Ryan says:

        fixation? what, like creationalism? LOL

        you havent denied anything johnny … taking the 5th is just an admission of guilt. Deny it johnny, answer the questions (especially the one about world government). LOL you’re easier to see through than a broken window

  9. Matt M says:

    As I said I was only talking about the great dying not PETM. Surely I don’t have to repeat myself again.

  10. john byatt says:

    john byatt says:
    January 9, 2013 at 11:40 pm
    the link is already there , third one up,

    here again

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html

    Reply
    Matt M says:
    January 9, 2013 at 11:53 pm
    All that article talks about is the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it could have happened. All other pages I have found go on to include how the extinction could have happened after already covering the temperature rise. The temperature increase is not attributed to the extinction.

    Reply
    john byatt says:
    January 10, 2013 at 12:02 am
    Put that link here then ,

    and the link you put up was the great dying not the PETM

  11. john byatt says:

    Matt M says:
    January 10, 2013 at 12:13 am
    Where in that does it state the link to extinction? The only direct link is to tiny marine life called forams driven to extinction buy the ocean acidification.

    Matt M says:
    January 10, 2013 at 12:26 am
    ://cience.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2002/28jan_extinction/
    .wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian%E2%80%93Triassic_extinction_event#Causes_of_the_extinction_event

    These pages say it was causes other than temperature and mostly that the higher temperature was due to the event that caused the extinction.

    the first is about the PETM the second about the great dying

  12. “Fire will happen in Australian summers regardless, the main reason it is so bad is the greens won’t allow hazard reduction burns and there hasn’t been major fires for quite a while.”

    More denial from the denialist who ignores the fact that extreme heat periods always cause more deaths among the elderly and frail, and, fuel reduction burns have been conducted in South Australia, Victoria, New South Wales and Tasmania at a greater rate because of the extra growth over the two recent wet years – which only bought the rainfall back to average or slightly above in most places in any case.

    A little research on the BOM and elsewhere will show the majority of catastrophic fires didn’t occur until the end of the last drought when temperatures and hot winds reached the levels we are experiencing now. Maybe you should get out a bit and talk to some firefighters who will tell you how quickly things have dried off this year. You’d also find out they have been called out to fires much earlier than normal as well. More inconvenient facts for you. We still have the hottest period to come yet, you must be thrilled about that.

    I wonder if you take out insurance for your home? If so, it’s further proof of your hypocrisy.

    • Richard Ryan says:

      more denial and hypocrisy from the Ku Klux Klimate and the Greens who cause more death and destruction with their loopy policies. and yet more hypocrisy from a True Believer who, despite the “catastrophic” consequences, continues to use all the technology supposedly causing it. Hmmmm, just like Lord High Gore et al

      • Richard, seems you can only offer name-calling whilst failing to provide any evidence to support your claims. You go on believing your little fantasies and justifications for remaining ignorant. Keep your brain in idle because it clearly isn’t capable of objective reasoning.

      • “… The wettest spring on record.”

        Not everywhere. Maybe you should check your facts? Maybe firefighters in your area haven’t been called out earlier but they certainly have in eastern areas of Victoria and parts of New South Wales and Queensland. But don’t let the facts trouble you too much.

      • Matt M says:

        “2010 has seen Australia officially record its wettest spring on record due to a moderate to strong La Nina developing over the region” Straight off Wikipedia. You are the one that has trouble with the facts. Fire-fighters haven’t been called out earlier since there have been fires from August.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%932013_Australian_bushfire_season

        You sound like you have been talking to some idiot fire fighters or fire captains who think they know everything, and there are plenty of them like that too.

      • john byatt says:

        i notice that wiki still only has four states showing january fires

    • Matt M says:

      Does anyone on here know how to use the reply function correctly?

      How the hell has this got to the elderly? I haven’t said a single fucking thing about the elderly. Are you really that dumb that you have said something and now think it was me? Of course extreme heat causes more deaths among the elderly, it’s pretty simple.

      The hazard reduction burns are always protested by the greens making it hard to get the job done. Far more burns need to be done to get anything near what is needed. Burning off a few parks here and there will do nothing.

      Maybe you should learn about what you are talking about. 2010 gave us the wettest spring on record, that doesn’t sound like average to me. There have been far far more destructive and catastrophic fires in the past than recently.

      Fire-fighters have not been called out to fires earlier that is a load of shit. Just look at Wikipedia and you will see very bad fires as early as the start of December.

      The drought ended in 2010, so you are saying that most of the worst fires we have seen happened about then? How about the 2003 fires in Canberra, the 1983 fires in Victoria, 1980 fires in NSW, this list goes on and on mostly getting worse as you go back.

      The farmers will give you a much better idea of what its like than the fire-fighters, some of the crap I have heard fire-fighters and fire captains spout is ridiculous.

      • john byatt says:

        There are funny things with the reply function we seem to get different options, some get one below and some do not makes it weird ,

      • john byatt says:

        Your understnding of greens policies are not in agreement with reality,

        This is a huge country FFS, read green policies if you wish to comment on them, not even a link provided, you just make this shit up

      • Matt M says:

        The greens may allow some burns but are opposed to them still. I saw a recent newspaper article about the opposition to hazard reduction burns by the greens. Me making shit up, now that’s the pot calling the kettle black.

      • john byatt says:

        C R A P. link to greens policies iof you wish to make a case

      • john byatt says:

        The Greens believe that living with bushfire threat requires a coordinated approach that includes:

        planning of housing sites to avoid development in risk prone areas;
        strategically planned hazard reduction, including controlled burning, where and when climatic conditions allow it to be done safely and where it is consistent with maintaining the ecosystem;
        education and community awareness programs to reduce the incidence of arson; and
        a well funded and managed fire fighting service which can protect human life and homes and contain the spread of fires.

        and all you have is some memory of some anti green rant in a newspaper,

        and no I am not a member of the greens,

      • Richard Ryan says:

        I could do that for you johnny but, unlike you, us “deniers” are all quite honest and open in our views UNLIKE you who cannot come clean on simple questions. You’re simply a fraud … denying any scientific evidence that doesnt suit your fervent philosophy. Come on johnny, be an Honest John (for once in your life). It will feel good to come out and say what you really believe in. We know zootie got backed into a corner but I have more faith in you because you are obviously a deeply religious man.

      • john byatt says:

        I realise that you have a problem that your own views on just about everything are 100% in agreement with the fundamentalist christian propaganda on climate change,

        You will not post any science because you realise that you have none to post it is all
        hitler and eugenics, pretty much same as eric worrall,

        ,

    • Richard Ryan says:

      I love the way you KKKs tick people off about name calling then proceed to do it more fervently LOL and ticking people off about lack of evidence … ROFL (see every pro Ku Klux Klimate site) this could keep me amused for at least another day.

      • john byatt says:

        I thought that you were going to get all your sock puppets to come here and get done like yourself

    • crank says:

      The Big Lie that ‘Greens refuse to allow hazard reduction’ has been endlessly refuted, but when does that ever stop a Rightwing hatemonger? The facts, that fire reduction burns have grown and grown in extent, that they became ever more dangerous during the long drought (and we are at the end of a brief hiatus in that drought)and that environmentalists almost never opposed them when they were sensible, is simply ignored by habitual liars. The demonisation of Greens reached a psychotic fever-pitch after the February 2009 tragedy when Miranda Devine called for Greens to be hanged from lamp-posts (a sign of what will come when the Right get really desperate)and the ‘responsible’SMH actually published the psychopathic bilge. In fact, of course, it was part projection, because it is the denialist Right, of which Devine is a febrile member, who are really responsible for the climate destabilisation crisis, and part pre-emptive strike, because Devine and the other uber-denialists are going to be ‘on the nose’ to put it mildly, when the denialist scam iis

      • crank says:

        finally exposed and an enraged public beginning looking for scapegoats. I hope she knows a good plastic surgeon and has a spare passport in a different name ready.

  13. john byatt says:

    I said PETM Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum – …

    and you thought that was about the Permian triassic great dying ,

    • john byatt says:

      You have been jumping backwards and forwards between two events here WTF

      • Matt M says:

        I have only concentrated on the Permian triassic great dying, you have done the jumping.

        You originally said,
        “Permian-Triassic Further evidence for environmental change around the P–Tr boundary suggests an 8 °C increase in global temperature” so one of the great extinction events has an 8C termperature increase millions of years ago”

        I didn’t notice but you changed in the next post,
        “the PETM was 8Degc above the current global temperature.”

        Helps if you can stay on one event before blaming others.

      • john byatt says:

        That was in response to your 12Degc claim , I then went on to talk aqbout the Petm

  14. Matt M says:

    All that article talks about is the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere and how it could have happened. All other pages I have found go on to include how the extinction could have happened after already covering the temperature rise. The temperature increase is not attributed to the extinction.

  15. Matt M says:

    There is no evidence to suggest that the temperature increase was the cause on the extinction event. If there is I have been unable to find it so if you have please link. The event has no distinct occurrence as the cause of the extinction.

    There was a rise in the amount of ultraviolet radiation too maybe that caused the extinction just because it happened at the time too. That is how you reason is it not?

  16. john byatt says:

    Cretaceous-Tertiary mass extinction, 65 million years ago, asteroid

    PETM 56 million years ago temperature increase

    boy they were close together , only nine million years apart.

    why do I always end up with the morons?

  17. john byatt says:

    Again he is confused about metorite extinction event, think dinosaurs and the PETM event

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-rising-ten-times-faster-than-petm-extinction.html

    this is painfull

    • Matt M says:

      Never said anything about meteorites, you just can’t help but assume and make shit up to try and make yourself look better, but you only fail and make yourself look like a liar in the process.

  18. john byatt says:

    MattM score

    Carbon emissions

    not a clue

    global temperature fluctuations over millions of years

    not a clue

    IPCC statements

    not a clue

    I am waitng for him to ask for evidence of the platyduck

    go for it fella

    • john byatt says:

      Matt M says:
      January 9, 2013 at 10:48 pm
      As you say, link please on that info. Core samples from EPICA show the increase of about 12C since the end of the last GLACIAL PERIOD NOT ICE AGE. This is an increase to temperatures today not an increase above current. It is you who has the lack of understanding.

      The P-Tr extinction event isn’t attributed to increased temperature, yet again you are making assumptions and just about making stuff up.

      Good grief, we are only 8C below the PETM extinction and you believe that it was not temperature related.

      you stated 20,00 years ago

      I could get a better understanding from my kitchen table,

      Then after whinning that i would only copy and paste, you now want a link , which is no different than a copy and paste,

      This is exactly like debating a creationist cretin

    • crank says:

      Classic Dunning-Kruger. Too dumb to realise just how thick he is, but so egomaniacal as to imagine himself a genius. Throw in the Right’s habitual paranoia (the great, global, ‘watermelon’ conspiracy) and you get a real waste of carbon. Certainly a waste of breath arguing with it.

  19. john byatt says:

    MattM

    “Its funny that you say 100% because even the IPCC doesn’t. Do you know more than they do?”

    citation please you are seriously confused about likelyhood that humans are responsible for the warming and an understanding that increased greenhouse gases increase temperature,
    the problem is that you are coming from a position of complete lack of even the basics,

    • Matt M says:

      Helps if you reply to the same thread, or is that too hard for you along with thinking? Now this discussion is a mess.

      If you didn’t know the IPCC report uses the word likely, now correct me if I’m mistaken but likely doesn’t mean 100% as you stated, it means 66% for likely and 90% for very likely, neither of which are 100%

      • john byatt says:

        You are still confused as what they are referring to, you are hopeless.

        the discussion was a mess as soon as you typed your nonsense

    • Matt M says:

      You take me saying its not 100% as me saying it’s 0%? Every post you make shows how stupid you are by assuming just about everything that isn’t explicitly written.

      • john byatt says:

        Let me type slowly for you

        – The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said … that it was at least 90% certain that human emissions of greenhouse gases were causing the warming.

        this has diddle all to do with the 100% certainty that increased greenhouse gases increase the global temperature,

        Work it out

      • Matt M says:

        You just proved my point idiot. 90% is not 100% as you stated. I never said CO2 isn’t doing anything I said its not certain (as in 100%) that human emissions are to blame for global warming. Are you really that dumb?

        I know that increased greenhouse gasses increase the temperature but you will see that word I used “emissions” that makes it the human component which is only put at 90% certainty, which you just stated is 100% certain.

      • john byatt says:

        MattM “So you can tell me with 100% certainty that the temperature will continue to rise due 100% to carbon dioxide emissions??

        Yes

      • Matt M says:

        Fuck you are stupid

      • john byatt says:

        Are we the cause of this ?

        90% certain

      • Matt M says:

        Finally. That is the question that is posed but the statement I made before. Now you seem to be getting an understanding.

      • john byatt says:

        No still not showing any sign of comprehension.

        Increased atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide only have one cause, emissions
        from the surface,

        are humans causing those increased emission levels 90% certain

        will increase emissions cause increased warming YES 100% certain

        The scientists involved with AR4 were telling the politicians that it was nearly 100% certain that humans were the cause, the bush admin would not agree to more than 90% ( Gavin Schmidt NASA)

  20. john byatt says:

    Karana downs week forecast including today

    40°C 36°C 36°C 38°C 39°C 39°C 34°C
    19°C 21°C 21°C 22°C 22°C 21°C 21°C

    tomarrow 36 and 80% hum.
    monday 39 and 90% humidity (dangerous)

    • Matt M says:

      Love the incorrect humidity
      Tomorrow* 57%
      Monday* 47%
      Only made it to 39 today also.

      I have not seen a forecast in the last week that hasn’t over estimated temperatures for my area. Just like the BOM forecast has been revised already removing the purple from the chart. Lots of scaremongering, weather pretty much normal for summer.

      • john byatt says:

        It was weatherzone, not met 28.7C at 7.30pm

        MattM , no it is not happening The second100 year event within four years is normal,

        get real

      • Matt M says:

        That’s were I got those numbers from too. What exactly is this 100 year event you refer to?

      • john byatt says:

        What is the 100 year event?
        are you for real?

        Dr. Jeff Masters’ WunderBlog
        Historic heat wave brings Australia its hottest average temperature on record
        Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 2:27 PM GMT on January 08, 2013 +33
        It’s been a summer like no other in the history of Australia, where a sprawling heat wave of historical proportions is entering its second week. Monday, January 7, was the hottest day in Australian history, averaged over the entire country, according to the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. The high temperature averaged over Australia was 105°F (40.3°C), eclipsing the previous record of 104°F (40.2°C) set on 21 December 1972. Never before in 103 years of record keeping has a heat wave this intense, wide-spread, and long-lasting affected Australia. The nation’s average high temperature exceeded 102°F (39°C) for five consecutive days January 2 – 6, 2013–the first time that has happened since record keeping began in 1910.

      • john byatt says:

        Karana downs is were one of our previous creationist denialist lives, i was baiting him

  21. Richard Ryan says:

    oh johnny, that makes YOU a denier LOL … but at least you are back on the old religion chestnut ROFL … when cornered trot out fundamentalism

  22. Richard Ryan says:

    ah yes the new normal … just like 20 year droughts were according to Tim the mammologist – the the heavens opened for 3 years LOL.

  23. […] but I would like to note a few things. The Bureau of Meteorology forecast chart above (courtesy of Watching The Deniers) for next Monday has forced BOM to add new colours to the hot end of the range, to allow for […]

  24. john byatt says:

    My letter printed in the Sunshine Coast daily this morning.
    this should bring them out of the woodwork

    Editor,

    Sunshine Coast Daily,

    Dear Sir,

    Doug Lloyd’s Reflections (SCS Jan 6) on the nativity and baby Jesus story fails to realize that his Jesus Christ will be our savior message is probably the overriding impediment to action on climate change.
    Those politicians most outspoken against the science of global warming have a common link to childhood religious fundamentalist indoctrination. The belief that it is God and not man who now controls our climate may now prove to be the biggest single factor which prevents the timely action needed to address the most serious problem ever to confront humanity for the past 250,000 years.
    In denying the science of climate change you are denying the findings of physics, chemistry, glaciology, oceanography, microbiology, statistics, ethnology, ornithology, meteorology, paleontology, climatology, zoology, botany, earth science and logic. God may have his place for many, but it will be our acceptance of science that will decide the future of humanity

    Rgds
    John Byatt

    • Matt M says:

      Nice scaremongering there “The most serious problem ever to confront humanity in the past 250,000 years.” How do you figure this? It can’t be that the temperatures are higher because several times since 250,000 years ago the temperature has been much higher than now, also much lower. This is very alarmist.

      • john byatt says:

        because my friend without action the temperature will just continue to rise, do you believe that it will suddenly just stop while we continue with carbon emissions?
        At what temperature increase would you decide that it was a problem 2C, 4C or maybe you think that even a 12C increase would be survivable

      • Matt M says:

        Nobody knows if the temperature will continue to rise. Also its carbon dioxide emissions not carbon emissions. I would have though a climate fanatic such as yourself would know this.

        If you look at approximately 20,000-25,000 years ago and use that as your start point then we have already seen more than a 12C increase. The end of the last glacial period about 12,500 years ago saw temperatures increase slowly to today’s temperatures. It is unknown if the last ice age has ended yet. Will the temperature continue to increase from natural cycles alone? Nobody yet knows.

      • john byatt says:

        I am not going to waste my time explaining the Carbon cycle nor the carbon flux to you,

        your nonsense even if correct woult be that the last 12C rise was not a problem therefore another 12C would not be a problem.

        What tosh, that nobody knows that the temperature will continue to rise without action,
        do you live on some magical planet wherin the temperature is maintained at a level agreeable to humans ,

        So in your own words then, why do you reject the science if you have obviously not even read any of it ?

      • Matt M says:

        Did I say another 12C wouldn’t be a problem? I don’t think so, of course it would be a problem. You can’t help but assume things that have not been stated or implied.

        So you can tell me with 100% certainty that the temperature will continue to rise due 100% to carbon dioxide emissions?

        I live on a planet that has a cycle that has run for millions of years of long cold periods followed by short warm periods. One of those long cold periods is ending and guess what happens then.

        You wouldn’t explain the carbon cycle because all you can do is copy past info anyway.

      • john byatt says:

        More lack of understanding

        “If you look at approximately 20,000-25,000 years ago and use that as your start point then we have already seen more than a 12C increase.”

        Increased levels of greenhouse gases increase the temperature of the earth until equilibrium is achieved, this cannot be achieved until decades after you stop increasing those gases, so I can say with 100% certainty that the temperature will continue to rise with increased greenhouse gases, the major greenhouse gas that forces that temperature is CO2.

        Now I already know the nonsense that you will reply with

        so what of your magic planet theory?

      • john byatt says:

        Permian-Triassic Further evidence for environmental change around the P–Tr boundary suggests an 8 °C increase in global temperature” so one of the great extinction events has an 8C termperature increase millions of years ago

        and you come up with this absurdity

        If you look at approximately 20,000-25,000 years ago and use that as your start point then we have already seen more than a 12C increase. The end of the last glacial period about 12,500 years ago saw temperatures increase slowly to today’s temperatures”

        please go and spend ten years reading up you are making a fool of yourself

      • Matt M says:

        Its funny that you say 100% because even the IPCC doesn’t. Do you know more than they do?

        Where is the lack of understanding? You really don’t read a post before commenting do you.

        The magic planet theory was yours or have you already forgotten that?

      • john byatt says:

        Where is the lack of understanding?

        If you look at approximately 20,000-25,000 years ago and use that as your start point then we have already seen more than a 12C increase. The end of the last glacial period about 12,500 years ago saw temperatures increase slowly to today’s temperatures

        well firstly the global temperature is now 4DegC above the last ice age,

        the PETM was 8Degc above the current global temperature.

        In claiming your 12Degc temperure increase from the last ice age you are claiming
        that we are back at the PETM great extinction level

      • Matt M says:

        As you say, link please on that info. Core samples from EPICA show the increase of about 12C since the end of the last GLACIAL PERIOD NOT ICE AGE. This is an increase to temperatures today not an increase above current. It is you who has the lack of understanding.

        The P-Tr extinction event isn’t attributed to increased temperature, yet again you are making assumptions and just about making stuff up.

    • “If you look at approximately 20,000-25,000 years ago and use that as your start point then we have already seen more than a 12C increase.”

      Yes and that saw a once fertile area of Africa become the Sahara desert…

      Keep up the denial Matt, hopefully it will help you in your dotage when you’re trying to survive a run of extreme hot weather. Clearly you don’t give a hoot about the old and frail getting bumped off now courtesy of the heat, or, the thousands of hectares of land and property being destroyed by fire. And we haven’t even entered a widespread drought yet.

      • Richard Ryan says:

        And if Doomsday Weather doesnt kill you Matt, you’re gonna be burned at stake for being a witch (sorry I mean denier). Lots to look forward to from the Ku Klux Klimate …

      • Matt M says:

        And guess what you call that? Climate change. But that wasn’t the point I was making. Where the hell did you get the idea that I don’t care about old people in the heat? Bloody hell you lot assume so many things. Fire will happen in Australian summers regardless, the main reason it is so bad is the greens won’t allow hazard reduction burns and there hasn’t been major fires for quite a while. The fractions of a degree increase in temperature will not make a difference for a fire. Drought is normal for Australia also, why even mention it.

      • john byatt says:

        nonsense, you past absolute rubbish

      • Matt M says:

        Talking about nonsense, that doesn’t make any sense at all.

    • crank says:

      In fact many Christian fundamentalist fanatics clearly see the coming climate destabilisation apocalypse as an undiluted good. It will fulfill God’s ‘promise’ to Noah, after the flood, that it would be ‘the fire next time’, it will leave them unaffected as they are ‘Raptured’ to Heaven, and, best of all, it will sentence those billions of ‘sinners’ that they despise so viscerally, to literal ‘Hell on Earth’.

  25. Skeptikal says:

    It’s all hot air.

    • john byatt says:

      BOM has had to bring in two new colours to capture the new normal , purple and pink

    • Moth says:

      Yes, you’re right; it is hot air. I know, I was there and got a good feel of it. It’s so hot because more energy is being trapped for longer. Simple science really..

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 772 other followers

%d bloggers like this: