Residents of Nyahururu north district were treated to a rare occurrence, when a heavy down pour of snow hit the area leaving a massive block of snow that covered a large expanse of land …
The Nyandarua residents were left in both awe and shock, as they could not comprehend the happenings.
See what I mean? Blair hasn’t even bothered to understand “La Nina”. He’s going for cheap ‘controversy points’ for his blog and paper.
Oh well, if Tim Blair doesn’t like physics, then what can we do? I guess the kindest thing to say is at least ‘it’s democracy in action’. Freedom of speech and all that. But please forgive us activist types if we just wince a little at Tim Blair’s ignorance, and turn the page. But the real question is, should Sydney Anglican’s be associated with that low level of muck-raking, anti-science dogma?
Hi Kevin,
isn’t this akin to the “Exact Correlation Strawman” that tries to imply climate science must be simply to be correct, and that Co2 levels must rise at exactly the same rate as temperatures?
Our planet’s climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors.
You think a little climate weirdness disproves the basic physics? Do you understand what the climatologists claim can happen when global warming affects the Southern Oscillation index? (El Nino/La Nina cycle?)
How climate warming will affect you? It depends on where you live, how long you will live, what you do for a living and for fun - and whether you care about the future of your children or humanity in general.
Global warming is already happening. Just about every part of the planet, except for Antarctica has warmed since 1970. Glaciers are melting, spring is coming earlier and the ranges of many plants and animals are shifting polewards (see the IPCC’s 2007 report on impacts, adaptations and vulnerability).
For most people, this has made little difference. We may have sweltered through more heatwaves but winters have been milder. The next decade or two will bring a similar mix of upsides and downsides. Heating bills will go down but air conditioning bills will go up. There will be fewer cold-related deaths, but more deaths due to heatwaves.
This does not sound too bad, and for many people it won’t be. Wealthy individuals and countries will be able to adapt to most short-term changes, whether it means buying an air conditioner or switching to crops better suited to the changing climate. Rainfall will fall in mid-latitudes but rise in high latitudes, and initially agricultural yields will probably increase (see Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production). Some regions will suffer, though. Africa could be hardest hit, with yields predicted to halve in some countries as early as 2020.
Frequent bleaching
Wildlife will also be in trouble. Some plants and animals will thrive as CO2 rises but at the expense of others. Coral reefs, which are already suffering frequent bleaching episodes, could be particularly hard hit. Many species, like the polar bear, will suffer as their habitat disappears.
As global temperature climbs to 3°C above present levels - which is likely to happen before the end of this century if greenhouse emissions continue unabated - the consequences will become increasingly severe. More than a third of species face extinction. Agricultural yields will start to fall in many parts of the world. Millions of people will be at risk from coastal flooding. Heatwaves, droughts, floods and wildfires will take an ever greater toll.
There are two factors should borne in mind when thinking about the impacts. Firstly, even countries that escape the worst of the direct effects will feel the economic effects of what happens elsewhere. There may be social and political problems too, as migration increases and water becomes increasingly scarce in some regions.
Time lags
Secondly, there are time lags between rises in CO2 and their impact on climate. These lags mean that the longer we delay effective action, the more severe the impacts will eventually be.
There is a lag between CO2 rises and their full effect on global temperature. Even if we made the drastic cuts necessary to stabilise CO2levels tomorrow, the world would continue to warm for decades.
There is an even longer lag between any increase in temperature and the resulting rise in sea level. The IPCC is predicting a rise of 0.6 metres at most by 2100 but this will just be the start.
The IPCC predicts a minimum temperature rise by 2100 of 1.8°C. About 120,000 years ago, when it was 1 to 2°C warmer, the sea level was 5 to 8 metres higher - more than enough to inundate many major cities around the world, including New York, London and Sydney. Three million years ago, when the temperature was 2 to 3°C higher, it was 25 metres higher.
There is no doubt that similar temperature increases will eventually lead to similar rises in sea level. The assumption is that it will take many centuries, as the Greenland and Antarctica ice caps slowly melt and the oceans expand as the waters warm. But some researchers think it could happen much sooner due to the sudden collapse of ice sheets.
Sorry for double posting, but something else that came to light. While sceptics are busy congratulating themselves on their perceptions of ‘fraud’ in the climate community, one particular MOAB (Mother of All Bombs) started ‘ticking’ even louder.
The average daily ice loss rate for August 2008 was 78,000 square kilometers per day (30,000 square miles per day). This is the fastest rate of daily ice loss that scientists have ever observed during a single August.
This August’s rapid ice loss reflects a thin sea ice cover that needed very little additional energy to melt out.
I said I was happy to give it a break because no one else appeared interested and thread was dying for a while. It took on a whole new lease of life with high immigration mentioned, snow in Kenya, and a cheeky Greens poster drawing attention.
But you might have had time to consider the basic physics in the meantime? Did you say you were publishing an article critical of global warming in the Presbyterian magazine? Will it be dealing with the actual science, or just running a conspiracy theory about the IPCC?
Are you really just going to trust the word of one I.T. expert over the hundreds of scientists involved in the IPCC and the 30 other organisations that have independently verified the science? Not a very strong argument, especially if you ignore the very tools that tell us this is happening.
Did you say you were publishing an article critical of global warming in the Presbyterian magazine? Will it be dealing with the actual science, or just running a conspiracy theory about the IPCC?
Are you really just going to trust the word of one I.T. expert over the hundreds of scientists involved in the IPCC and the 30 other organisations that have independently verified the science? Not a very strong argument, especially if you ignore the very tools that tell us this is happening.
Dave I said it was a summer project.
And no cheap shots please, this is a website with cultivated posters, where DECORUM is the key word.
I also said I wanted to check out Garnault/Green/White papers. Unlike yourself I don’t try to trash “the other side”. I know you think there is only one side, but it ain’t so.
I was interested in reading the summary to Garnaut’s first report in which he evidenced more respect for the sceptic side than you appear able to muster. Of course Garnaut’s brief was that he was not to move away from the “IPCC consensus”. In the light of rampant weeds, I mean rampant Green fulminations, his recommendations this week appear sensible and should help deter our PM from initiatives that might not be in Australia’s overall best interest.
I know you think there is only one side, but it ain’t so.
I note you did not use the softer term, ‘It ain’t necessarily so’, but instead chose the blunter, stronger version ‘It ain’t so’. This requires back up. Have you any peer reviewed climate papers casting doubt on the whole theory please?
Dave, I’m really time out on this one. I said “next Summer” - I take your question on notice. However, I’m not sure about the peer reviewed bit, I’m not sure whether that happens in the period leading to a paradigm shift.
Did Einstein’s general relativity theory sweep in on the back of peer reviews? Or the Big Bang theory, which incidently is still not accepted by all scientists. You tell me.
We’ll, in a way you’ve proved my point for me. What’s my job as a Christian lay person approaching all this? To know — without any warning or prior indication — where scientific consensus could possibly head in distant future years, or to develop a Christian approach to what 99% of the professional climate scientists and 100% of the legitimate climate organisations are saying right now? (That’s the independent ones not funded by Exxon millions).
I’ll repeat that I hope you’re right and the legitimate climate scientists do discover some hidden ‘safety valve’. I’ll also repeat that I think the Christian thing to do is to get on board until that day, and try to demonstrate love to both our present and future ‘neighbours’ in how we treat their climate today.
I hope you’re right, but that Arctic sea ice is looking thinner than ever — in human history at least.
Dave, I’m really time out on this one. I said “next Summer” - I take your question on notice. However, I’m not sure about the peer reviewed bit, I’m not sure whether that happens in the period leading to a paradigm shift.
Did Einstein’s general relativity theory sweep in on the back of peer reviews? Or the Big Bang theory, which incidently is still not accepted by all scientists. You tell me.
Ultimately, the peer review process is about discussing the testability and methodology in the paper, and then finally verifying or disproving it with the data. Einstein developed an alternative theory that better explained the rules of gravity in a revolutionary new way, and eventually the data confirmed it.
Any problem with the spectrometer readings, or the math that extrapolates how much extra energy will be in the atmosphere? Any data against global warming, or have 12 of the last 13 years qualified as the hottest since record keeping began?
What about going one step further and developing an alternative theory we can test?
Einstein didn’t just sit there and promote conspiracy theories against Newtonian physics.
I infer from your somewhat obfuscating response that Einstein’s general relativity theory did not sweep in on the back of peer reviews, nor the Big Bang theory either.
The opinions expressed in this forum belong to the individual posting the message and may not represent the view of the Sydney Diocese of the Anglican Church. Click here to read the Posting Policy.
Everyone is welcome on our forums, but please keep comments on-topic and civil. Any flaming or general nastiness will be deleted. No unsolicited advertising is allowed. All comments, suggestions, bug reports, etc. related to the forums should be directed to Robert Moller. Click here to read our complete Posting Policy.
Get the latest Sydney stories, Culture and Indepth on your mobile device. Visit sydang.mobi
