Saturday 25th of May 2019

don't be worried, be afraid... coming to papa gus...


For nearly 40 years, the massive computer models used to simulate global climate have delivered a fairly consistent picture of how fast human carbon emissions might warm the world. But a host of global climate models developed for the United Nations’s next major assessment of global warming, due in 2021, are now showing a puzzling but undeniable trend. They are running hotter than they have in the past. Soon the world could be, too.

In earlier models, doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) over preindustrial levels led models to predict somewhere between 2°C and 4.5°C of warming once the planet came into balance. But in at least eight of the next-generation models, produced by leading centers in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and France, that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” has come in at 5°C or warmer. Modelers are struggling to identify which of their refinements explain this heightened sensitivity before the next assessment from the United Nations’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But the trend “is definitely real. There’s no question,” says Reto Knutti, a climate scientist at ETH Zurich in Switzerland. “Is that realistic or not? At this point, we don’t know.”

That’s an urgent question: If the results are to be believed, the world has even less time than was thought to limit warming to 1.5°C or 2°C above preindustrial levels—a threshold many see as too dangerous to cross. With atmospheric CO2 already at 408 parts per million (ppm) and rising, up from preindustrial levels of 280 ppm, even previous scenarios suggested the world could warm 2°C within the next few decades. The new simulations are only now being discussed at meetings, and not all the numbers are in, so “it’s a bit too early to get wound up,” says John Fyfe, a climate scientist at the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis in Victoria, whose model is among those running much hotter than in the past. “But maybe we have to face a reality in the future that’s more pessimistic than it was in the past.”

Many scientists are skeptical, pointing out that past climate changes recorded in ice cores and elsewhere don’t support the high climate sensitivity—nor does the pace of modern warming. The results so far are “not sufficient to convince me,” says Kate Marvel, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City. In the effort to account for atmospheric components that are too small to directly simulate, like clouds, the new models could easily have strayed from reality, she says. “That’s always going to be a bumpy road.”

Builders of the new models agree. Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL) in Princeton, New Jersey—the birthplace of climate modeling—incorporated a host of improvements in their next-generation model. It mimics the ocean in fine enough detail to directly simulate eddies, honing its representation of heat-carrying currents like the Gulf Stream. Its rendering of the El Niño cycle, the periodic warming of the equatorial Pacific Ocean, looks “dead on,” says Michael Winton, a GFDL oceanographer who helped lead the model’s development. But for some reason, the world warms up faster with these improvements. Why? “We’re kind of mystified,” Winton says. Right now, he says, the model’s equilibrium sensitivity looks to be 5°C.


Read more:


Coming to papa?... Papa Gus (Gus Leonisky) has always claimed that the models of global warming were too "conservative" (restrained) in their calculations. Since 1979 in publications and since 2005 on this site (see global hotting), Gus has claimed that his own calculations would predict at least DOUBLE (or more) the IPCC predictions of global increase temperature due to CO2. The chicken are coming to roost... See:


If you are an Australian citizen of voting age, please discard Scott Morisson to the dust bin. On this issue he is a dangerous man, because he is ignorant and he talks bullshit


more bullshit from adman scummo... in leadership failures designed to fudge the australian carbon dioxide emissions...


this is madness...


In 2018, rare tropical fish from Australia such as the giant grouper were spotted in New Zealand waters after a marine heatwave lured the creatures more than 3,000km across the Tasman sea.

Warmer sea temperatures have also been blamed for mass jellyfish landings in recent years, on beaches from Nelson in the South Island to Whangarei in the far north. 

“The most interesting species are those that are starting to overwinter and grow to adult size,” Middleton said.

“When we start seeing established breeding populations is when the likely interactions between native species and these new immigrants will be more significant,” she says.

The increasing prevalence of vagrant species is not limited to fish. Cetacean biologist Dr Krista Hupman, from the National Centre of Atmospheric and Climate research said leopard seals – originally from Antartica – were now so common in New Zealand waters they should be reclassified as “resident”.

“Leopard seals are known as a vagrant species, which means New Zealand is well outside their normal range. But despite originating in Antarctic, their numbers keep increasing here,” Hupman said.

“The status of the species needs to be changed … given the vast evidence suggesting they are prevalent here and do not always return to Antarctic waters.”

Hupman said her team was still in the early stages of exploring why leopard seals were journeying north in greater numbers.

“They have been found here for a long time but the truth it we don’t know why we are seeing greater numbers now, there are many factors that have to be investigated.”

According to the Department of Conservation, which is responsible for reclassifying animal species, six new vagrant bird species were added to the New Zealand list between assessments done in 2012 and 2016. The department said two former vagrant species had started to breed in New Zealand, the Australian wood duck and the glossy ibis.


Read more:



Please see parallels between these events and what the Aboriginal people recorded, during the last big melt, in Arnhem Land. New fish species were incoming into the "estuaries"... Note that the last big melt happened in step with the Milankovitch cycles and we SHOULD be SLOWLY going towards an Ice Age from the present warm period. INSTEAD, we are warming the planet FURTHER by piggy-backing EXTRA warming onto a warm period for the planet, by burning fossil fuel. This is madness! Is this too hard to comprehend?


Picture at top, by Gus Leonisky.

I have no idea...

I don't know if any photographer in Sydney saw the opportunity of taking the photograph of the sky a couple of days ago. See at top. I have been a professional photographer since the late 1960s, using Sinars, Hasselblads, Nikons, etc — as well as doing many other stupid things, such as processing in "dark rooms" and working in factories.

I take a lot of people and cloud pictures — everyday — most of it, these days, off the cuff...

Even with my loony "expertise", the image at top, for me was a rarity. A very weird cloud formation, with conflicted air layers, a sun piercing through vapours, a tree representing nature, and a couple of technological marvels — a lone street lamppost and telephonic communication cells atop a sloping straight broken line building — all combining together to give an eerie feeling. I saw it! The main problem was, stuck in traffic, I had to find a way through the windscreen to shoot into the sun, while retaining the framing. I had about three-seconds to do it. 

The next trick was to underexpose the shot, otherwise the intense sun rays would kill the picture. We have to make the camera see differently what we see, even by squinting or using sun glasses. Anyway, most cameras see what we want then to see: contrast, colours, intensity, focus are artificial photographic means with which we try to mimic what our eyes see, but in most instances, when we look, our eyes adjust automatically to the light in the centre of our focus. Some cameras are devised to see infrared light or even the "methane spectrum". So should we look at the sky, it will be blue (or whatever grey, yellow) and the buildings below will be dark and unfocused. Should we look at the buildings, we will see details and the focus will brighten up but the sky will become "white". In most instances, our eyes scan non-stop in a random fashion depending on the "interesting" part of what we look at.


In photography, we try to compensate this contrast "problem" by using various techniques, including filters. In Black and White photography, in order to reduce contrast between sky and earth, a yellow filter is used, often turning the sky nearly black, while the rest is properly illuminated, such as clouds and buildings. This gives a deep intensity to the shot. In colour photography, polarisation helps a lot in reducing the white "heat" of the sky. Underexposing or overexposing the shot is used for effects or "sharpen" the vision, which even the eye can't see. Depending on the grain or pixillation of the camera/film/digitisation the shot will be sharp or can break up for more effects as well. In painting, it's the privilege of the artists to use various styles to give an effect or a feeling. I do this a lot.


On a technical note, I have five pocket Nikons (2 of them for underwater pictures), one HD Sanyo, one HD Samsung, one HD Sony and a dozen of other cameras (some dead ones I can't find the heart to throw out) from a Minolta I used for film, and many cheap digital cameras for special occasions such as when I took a picture of the Venus transit, without a telescope in very windy and cloudy conditions. Keeping a camera into the sun can eventually burn the receptor. We also become blind should we look at the sun. It does not take long. I also often use a dash-cam in the car. Amazing what one can pick up in traffic infringements and loony stuff.

I always travel, walk, drive, go to the shop with a couple of cameras in my pockets. The key word is pocket. A lot of SLR cameras are bulky and demand a university degree in manual expertise to press a button. Thus I prefer small things with instant autofocus. Smart Phones can do this mind you, but I only have a cheap Huawei Android for people to call me. My cameras are smaller than phones anyway — and by the time I took the camera out of my pocket, took a ONE-HANDED shot(s) and back in the pocket, you're still fiddling with TWO HANDS for that phone button, trying to see if grandma is in the frame. Sometimes I even use TWO cameras, one in each hand to take a left and right instant view.

The Sony is a tricky camera as it employs a digitisation transcription that is alien to most computer programs. Since my graphic computers have died, I can't use it. But the others are all good, from 5 to 21 megapixels, used for different occasions, such as night time and discreet spaces, as some cameras do not autofocus well in darkness. 

A shot off the cuff:

off the cuff..

Picture by Gus Leonisky.


Anyway, be afraid. Read from top.