The global warming ice-age (5 Oct, 2017)

Have your say on today's Aardvark Daily column

The global warming ice-age (5 Oct, 2017)

Postby aardvark_admin » Thu Oct 05, 2017 8:56 am

This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2017/1005.shtml

If the linked report is to believed, parts of the planet could be thrown into ice-age like conditions in a matter of just days or weeks.

Should we be worried?

Should we ignore that which we can't control -- or should we be doing much more to at least try our best to avoid this catastrophe?

Why so much coverage of the little N.Korean despot and his toys but so little about what could be (for some) an extinction-level event that may now happen at almost any time?
aardvark_admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2642
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 2:10 pm

Re: The global warming ice-age (5 Oct, 2017)

Postby phill » Thu Oct 05, 2017 9:23 am

"B" defiantly "B"

chaos effects say some small inputs can create some large outputs ( good bad or just different )
when you are inside a rusty leaky submarine you dont play tunes on the hull with a sledgehammer
User avatar
phill
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2014 8:31 pm

Re: The global warming ice-age (5 Oct, 2017)

Postby GSVNoFixedAbode » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:36 am

Way back when, before AGW and Climate Change/Global warming/Al Gore were in the media so the 70s mostly, I was reading a number of stories (Analog - great mag!) and the idea of climate change usually came up as a Climate Shift or Climate Cliff: a sudden change from one steady-state to another. The Atlantic conveyor/thermocline was often the villain, or a sudden change in the weather patterns that switched off the rains in one area creating big shortages in the wrong areas.
GSVNoFixedAbode
 
Posts: 154
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 8:53 am

Re: The global warming ice-age (5 Oct, 2017)

Postby hagfish » Thu Oct 05, 2017 10:39 am

The rest of the world is starting to catch on that cow burps are a problem. If there's ever a 'fluorocarbon'-style effort to curb methane emissions, it's going to take more than a bit of seaweed to save little NZ. And if there isn't, we're all screwed anyways.
hagfish
 
Posts: 544
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 10:28 am

Re: The global warming ice-age (5 Oct, 2017)

Postby Hiro Protagonist » Thu Oct 05, 2017 12:50 pm

GSVNoFixedAbode wrote:a sudden change from one steady-state to another.

This is due to the Lorenz Attractor, which climate has been observed to follow. the attractor has two distinct lobes, indicating that the climate is capable of switching rapidly between two modes - the most recent change [Younger Dryas] is thought to be due disruption the north Atlantic thermohaline circulation - there are several theories about the ultimate cause of this, but the result was a ~1200 year cold period in the northern hemisphere.

An older disruption occurred as a result of the closing of the meso-american land bridge.

Current concerns are due to the melting of the Greenland icecap [just recently found to be more voluminous and even more at risk of melting than previously thought] disrupting the north Atlantic thermohaline circulation - nobody knows just how bad or how rapid the effects will be.
Hiro Protagonist
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu May 08, 2014 11:26 am

Re: The global warming ice-age (5 Oct, 2017)

Postby Kiwiiano » Fri Oct 06, 2017 11:24 am

aardvark_admin wrote:This column is archived at: http://aardvark.co.nz/daily/2017/1005.shtml

Previously, whenever an event didn't match the predicted global warming pattern, the "experts" dismissed it as "just weather" and said that such anomalies were to be expected.
Now however, it seems that we're being told these extreme variations in temperature over very short periods are quite normal and are indeed a part of the climatic variations that we should expect.
Is it climate or is it weather?


Climate is the accumulation of weather. Irritatingly complex and variable. What we should be paying attention to is trends, especially things like Hot records outnumbering Cold, seasons drifting more and more out of alignment, storm frequencies or intensity or changes in ice melting and freezing timing or volumes.

Should we be worried?
Should we ignore that which we can't control -- or should we be doing much more to at least try our best to avoid this catastrophe?

We can’t be sure we can or can’t control something if we don’t try.

Why so much coverage of the little N.Korean despot and his toys but so little about what could be (for some) an extinction-level event that may now happen at almost any time?

Interesting observation in the Herald about the US Ambassador’s sermon and the damage a NK H bomb could do to the Pacific & NZ’s economy. The US let off around 100 nuclear bombs in the Pacific, should we be putting our hands out for compensation for all the damage they caused?
~ Kiwiiano
“I'm right 98% of the time, so who gives a damn about the other 3%?"
User avatar
Kiwiiano
 
Posts: 321
Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 5:36 pm


Return to Today's column

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron