Bonmot ...... Thanks

Curmudgeon
You've demonstrated on the other thread

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=59360

that you do not have the capacity to find a report, let alone read and understand it. It’s all there, really.

Wait, conspiracy - the IPCC put up a false report because some science writer over in OZ is snooping.

Alice
Nice link, pity you do what curmudgeon does, cherry-pick and read into it only what you want to read into it – another case of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias.

For the benefit of all, here is the link to the Royal Society again – I suggest it be read (and understood) in its entirety.

http://royalsociety.org/climate-change-summary-of-science/

Alice in wonderland, Australia is indeed a continent and we can project what Australia’s climate might be like given a number of scenarios, regardless that they do need to be revisited. Moreover, we have more data than ever and have access to more computing power. Stay tuned for AR5.

It's worth repeating, weather is not the same as climate - you seem to have difficulty with that concept.

AoM
To clarify my view, I think the temperature range for a doubling of [CO2] will narrow (i.e. uncertainty will decrease) rather than shift to a higher range.

Agnostic of Mittagong

Hi Agnostic

You write:

"Ensuing floods point to two things predicted by climate scientists: 1. A growing severity in the number and frequency of extreme climate events and: 2. Greater climate sensitivity to temperature increase than previously indicated by climate models.”

It would warm the hearts (and minds) of Warmerlanders if you could answer the following questions.

1.

Which climate scientists said this? Name three.

How did they define ‘extreme climatic events’?

How did they define ‘severity’?

How did they measure the frequency of ‘extreme climatic events’?

Over what period were the measurements taken?

2

Which climate scientists said this? Name three.

How did they define ‘climate sensitivity’?

How did they measure the ‘severity’ of climate sensitivity?

If climate sensitivity increased, how did they relate it to increase in temperature rather than, for instance, increase in CO2, sunspots, or polar bears?

Which models are you referring to?

Have they ever been tested?

Thank you.

Alice of Warmerland

Agnostic of Mittagong

Alice in Wonderland is following the copybook advice from her Queen of Hearts – Ms Joanne Nova – viz: the “Surgical Strike”:

1. Stick to the points that matter.
Alice shuts her eyes tight, covers her ears with her hands, and screams like a raving banshee “I can’t hear you”.
Ergo, she only wants to see and hear what she only wants to see and hear, regardless of the points that matter.

2. Ask questions.
Alice can’t do the homework herself so is relying on you (unlikely expert in all the climate sciences) to slip up. She will then shriek at the top of her lungs ‘gotya, na-na-nee-na-na’ and so will therefore debunk the whole of climate science.

3. Global warming and greenhouse are different.
Well, duh ... as if the Queen of Hearts and her fiefdom has discovered something that real scientists haven't known about.

4. Deal with the bully-boy.
I empathise with you Agnostic; the bully-girl is picking on you now.

Agnostic, if you want to feed the troll, go ahead – but the precious lady really doesn’t want to go to (let alone understand) the published research herself. Rather, she will 'hit' you with short, sharp, sound-bites that she's gleaned from her favourite anti-global warming blog site, or her favourite MSM shock-jock.

You may be interested in this interactive site:

http://zvon.org/eco/ipcc/ar4/#w_0

There are a number of ways to explore the reports, test the site yourself – it can quickly take you to any area of AR4, and it cross-references. For me, I make use of the referenced papers at the end of each chapter – not only for my own research, but to shed light on the nonsense that people living in Wonderland spew out.

There’s even a glossary of terms.My guess, our precious Alice in Wonderland hasn't gone there – unlike a real sceptic.

Curmudgeon

You go from this:

<< As for the IPCC forecasts, the panel most emphatically did not forecast river floods >>

to this:

<< the 2007 IPCC report did not include climate cycles at all >>

Seems to me you’re trying to weasel away (change the goal posts).

What the IPCC did ‘forecast’ (in AR4) was:

“A warmer climate, with its increased climate variability, will increase the risk of both floods and droughts ...

... Floods include river floods, flash floods, urban floods and sewer floods, and can be caused by intense and/or long-lasting precipitation...

... Floods depend on precipitation intensity, volume, timing, antecedent conditions of rivers and their drainage basins (e.g., presence of snow and ice, soil character, wetness, urbanisation, and existence of dikes, dams, or reservoirs)...

... Human encroachment into flood plains and lack of flood response plans increase the damage potential ... etc, etc.”

Curmudgeon, there is a veritable wealth of information in AR4 that you obviously haven't looked at.
Wait, maybe you can't find AR4 either? Pesky IPCC, hiding their reports again :)

Oh yeah, you state (to AoM) “Expect strong la ninas for the next 20 years or so.”

Why might that be?

Bonmot ….. Again, thank you.

The http://zvon.org/eco/ipcc/ar4/#w_0 is very good as is the most recent index to Skeptical Science provided by http://zvon.org/eco/ss/.

Alice will no doubt make good use of both to satisfy her curiosity.