Ben (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
openspace4life) wrote2008-04-24 08:39 pm
openspace4life) wrote2008-04-24 08:39 pm
Entry tags:
OK fine, have a DIFFERENT apocalypse
This article about the possible new Little Ice Age, arguing based on sunspots rather than an ultimately human-caused Gulf Stream shutdown, sounds depressingly plausible (although he doesn't seem to mention these spots in his rundown of solar activity this year). Depressing in that croplands would have to move south instead of north, thus speeding the destruction of the world's rainforests; in that we might seriously consider deliberately releasing the methane under the Arctic permafrost to combat the cooling, with probably disastrous results; and yes, also in that we may be too slow to respond more rationally because we've gotten all geared up to fight global warming and numerous scientific and engineering careers have been built around that pursuit.
My thinking is that in an ideal world, we would have contingency plans for both scenarios, since we still need to wait a few years to see where this particular trend leads. During that time, there's no reason not to work on both continued research on electric cars (which we need anyway, considering Peak Oil), and cheap ways to heavily insulate existing structures in the event they're asked to cope with colder climes. As for agriculture, maybe now is the time to invest in large-scale indoor hydroponics, which would also be useful for space colonies in the event we want to pick another basket or two to put some of our eggs in sometime soon.
Via.
Update, 4/26/08: Mr. Chapman cites four climate agencies to support his hypothesis that 2007 marks a decisive turning point for global temperature--a drop of 0.7°C from January '07 to January '08. The British Hadley Centre, his first source, has a convincing argument for why the drop happened based on the fact that El Niño and La Niña weather patterns are both becoming more severe. The second agency listed, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, also stands with the consensus: "The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 [which tied with 1997 for second-hottest year on record] is all the more notable." (But try telling that to all the right-wingers who have been gleefully reposting Chapman's analysis all over the Web, apparently believing they'll enjoy watching America get crushed under advancing glaciers as long as it means Al Gore was wrong.)
My thinking is that in an ideal world, we would have contingency plans for both scenarios, since we still need to wait a few years to see where this particular trend leads. During that time, there's no reason not to work on both continued research on electric cars (which we need anyway, considering Peak Oil), and cheap ways to heavily insulate existing structures in the event they're asked to cope with colder climes. As for agriculture, maybe now is the time to invest in large-scale indoor hydroponics, which would also be useful for space colonies in the event we want to pick another basket or two to put some of our eggs in sometime soon.
Via.
Update, 4/26/08: Mr. Chapman cites four climate agencies to support his hypothesis that 2007 marks a decisive turning point for global temperature--a drop of 0.7°C from January '07 to January '08. The British Hadley Centre, his first source, has a convincing argument for why the drop happened based on the fact that El Niño and La Niña weather patterns are both becoming more severe. The second agency listed, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, also stands with the consensus: "The Southern Oscillation and the solar cycle have significant effects on year-to-year global temperature change. Because both of these natural effects were in their cool phases in 2007, the unusual warmth of 2007 [which tied with 1997 for second-hottest year on record] is all the more notable." (But try telling that to all the right-wingers who have been gleefully reposting Chapman's analysis all over the Web, apparently believing they'll enjoy watching America get crushed under advancing glaciers as long as it means Al Gore was wrong.)
no subject
no subject
no subject