from the little-fuzzy-on-this-whole-good/bad-thing dept.
The Gulf Stream, which keeps Europe's climate mild, is slowing down.
The gradual but accelerating melting of the Greenland ice-sheet, caused by human-made global warming, is a possible major contributor to the slowdown. Further weakening could impact marine ecosystems and sea level as well as weather systems in the US and Europe.
"It is conspicuous that one specific area in the North Atlantic has been cooling in the past hundred years while the rest of the world heats up," says Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, lead author of the study to be published in Nature Climate Change. Previous research had already indicated that a slowdown of the so-called Atlantic meridional overturning circulation might be to blame for this. "Now we have detected strong evidence that the global conveyor has indeed been weakening in the past hundred years, particularly since 1970," says Rahmstorf.
Because long-term direct ocean current measurements are lacking, the scientists mainly used sea-surface and atmospheric temperature data to derive information about the ocean currents, exploiting the fact that ocean currents are the leading cause of temperature variations in the subpolar north Atlantic. From so-called proxy data—gathered from ice-cores, tree-rings, coral, and ocean and lake sediments—temperatures can be reconstructed for more than a millennium back in time. The recent changes found by the team are unprecedented since the year 900 AD, strongly suggesting they are caused by human-made global warming.
Time to go long in wool futures?
(Score: 5, Funny) by wantkitteh on Wednesday March 25 2015, @03:36PM
Cue sock puppets in 5.. 4.. 3..
*Starts taking the migraine medication*
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @03:55PM
strong evidence that the global conveyor has indeed been weakening in the past hundred years, particularly since 1970
Oh.. wait... I see... this is AGW caused hmm... ok.
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Wednesday March 25 2015, @06:44PM
Well, even if you don't get any socks in this thread, here's front-running presidential candidate Ted Cruz to compare the best available scientific analysis to Flat Earthism.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday March 26 2015, @06:36AM
Ted Cruz...front running? The guy's not even a "natural born" citizen. There's no way way short of a constitutional amendment he could ever qualify.
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 3, Informative) by ikanreed on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:27PM
1. Yes he is natural born. So was John McCain(born in a territory), Barack Obama, and George Washington(born in an English colony). Even if you willfully ignore the pragmatic legal definitions given for the term, none of those cases even remotely brush on the underlying concern that constitutional clause was meant to befuddle: foreign powers meddling with our elections to put one of their own in charge of the US.
2. Yeah, front running, the only republican who is polling at all near him is Another Goddamn Bush. I'm hoping even republicans can see the problem with that dynasty.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Thursday March 26 2015, @05:32PM
Calgary, Alberta, Canada is not, nor never has been a U.S. Territory, U.S. military base, nor was his mother employed in in U.S. Diplomatic Mission. The issue has never really been resolved. It will likely take a decision by SCOTUS to resolve.
http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/yes-ted-cruz-was-born-canada-so-what-n329516 [nbcnews.com]
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"- --Daniel Patrick Moynihan--
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday March 25 2015, @03:48PM
I suspect not. Regions that will go really cold is sparsely populated. Regions that will be cooked has a more dense population. They properly get heat strikes and failed farming.
Global warming will just cause more natural disasters, unpredictability, climate extremes (super hot, super cold), failed farming etc.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday March 25 2015, @03:59PM
Look, we all got really hurt when Pangaea broke up, too. This isn't the end of the world, you know!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Arik on Wednesday March 25 2015, @04:11PM
Was it anthropogenic? Some think so, and certainly a case can be made for it. Did that fact in any way change the effect it had on people at the time? Not at all.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 5, Disagree) by VLM on Wednesday March 25 2015, @05:23PM
But it is at least semi-relevant to the discussion that the most paleo-conservative types have this weird assumption that the earth is perfectly stable and static and never changing other, solely, than human caused global warming, which bugs the hell out of anyone who knows anything about geology,
So they "know" that humans have caused these changes? Its not normal variation? Not a prime example of correlation vs causation? Sounds like a load of bull to me.
Another thing the paleo conservatives always get wound up about that bugs me is the assumption that its somehow bad that all climate change sucks. Suckage is a normal part of life, buddhist style. Since the first mud puddle with the first proto-bacteria dried up hundreds of millions of years ago, there's been a constant stream of complaining about climate change Fing stuff up and isn't it so awful. Well get used to it, its like the solar cycle or lunar cycle it ain't goin away any time soon so instead of fretting about something changing, try to go with the flow and change with it. Because nobodys stopping nothing and geology is going to keep on doing its thing no matter how much some dislike the concept.
Finally the discussion always devolves into "we must do something" and the answer is no, no we don't. Nothing short of 1000x Ghengis Kahn or 1000x Pol Pot will have any measurable effect. So unless you're personally willing to wield a sword and take care of business, nothing can be changed so why screw stuff up by trying? If the only way to "fix" things is to become a multi billion person serial killer, I prefer not to fix things. I see a lot of faith in the basic goodness of humanity that nobody has stepped up yet to become that multi billion person serial killer that would be required to "fix" things. Maybe it means we're screwed, but at least we're going to be sane civilized humans about it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:55PM
The problem isn't that climate changes. It is that it is changing on a time scale of 100 or so years and not the typical 1000s of years. The rate of change correlates very nicely with the Industrial Revolution and beyond. So yes, they "know" it is predominately driven by human influence. When the change is dramatic enough to have real effects over the lifespan of a person, then yes, it is entirely reasonable to address what can and/or should be done about it.
We've been down this road many times. For instance, in the early 70s and before you could just dump industrial waste into rivers or release tons and tons of lead into the atmosphere just so our car engines wouldn't knock. If you were worried about it, well don't, it isn't a problem. When you measure lead concentrations building up over time, well it's bad science that is open to other interpretations. When you see the concentrations increasing with time by looking at ice core profiles from Antarctica, well yes, ok, so maybe atmospheric lead concentrations is increasing dramatically and that's probably bad, but changing things will entirely destroy the energy/automotive/industrial economy and civilization as we know it will collapse. Humans are pretty adaptable and we could just suck it up and live with the pollution and lead (it was an issue too big to fail).
Or look at the 70s and 80s. We notice that we're dumping a shit ton of aerosols into the atmosphere. We love them beehive hairdos and man, that AC feels great in the summer. But these aerosols are pretty long lasting, and where aerosols like to hang out they have a tendency to increase albedo. Looking at the measured concentrations and their residence times in the atmosphere, they were expected to have an overall cooling effect on the planet and there was much discussion as to whether this was a good or bad thing, depending upon whether one thought it offset the warming effect from "greenhouse" gases, or whether it would dominate over the warming. Then we noticed that these aerosols, particularly the ones made up of halons, were killing the atmospheric ozone (based upon experiment as well as well-understood chemistry). Unfortunately, if we tried to do anything about it, it would obviously kill the energy/automotive/industrial/cosmetological sectors and civilization as we know it would collapse. Better to just slap on some sunscreen and a warm sweater and suck it up.
But every now and then, the chips fall the right way. The Clean Air Act and other environmental acts were passed, CFCs banned, leaded gasoline phased out, etc. and these things made real, positive effects. Freon alternatives were developed, which never would have happened if CFCs weren't forced out. The ozone hole is closing up. We're not constantly breathing lead. A river has not caught fire in a very long time. Some of those things were even addressed world-wide. One unintended consequence of cleaning up the air is that there isn't as much to counter greenhouse warming (now, some are even proposing to dump aerosols into the atmosphere to counter the warming!). This is an issue that can and should be addressed, but we don't seem ready to address it yet. We're still in the fact denying phase, or perhaps the "what-me-worry" phase, but sooner or later the chips will be lined up to seriously address it. And I'm sure whatever solutions are proposed, they'll surely kill the energy/automotive/industrial/cosmetological/beverage industries and civilization as we know it will cease to exist, but I do believe that this is better than sticking our heads in the sand and doing nothing.
(Score: 1, Troll) by BK on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:05AM
I stopped here. Maybe I'll read the rest after... but.
Bull. It's statements like this that make the Ted Cruz's seem reasonable. You have a few facts. You make a mega inference. Then you tell the big lie.
The data on historical climate change is limited. There was no systematic recording of anything that might be called global temperature over periods of thousands of years. At best we have proxy data and inference... theory and conjecture with more conjecture and theory. The number of significant climate events in the era of (however inaccurately) recorded temperature is so small that it is difficult to draw conclusions... You see, apart from the current news-cycle-driven event, there is really only one.
Look it up. The Little Ice Age [wikipedia.org] saw a sharp change in "global temperature" over a period of less than 50 years. So you should have started your commentary above with the following:
"Climate changing on a time scale of 100 or so years really is typical based on all past examples and the people who think it takes 1000s of years are uneducated, unscientific, reactionary crazies who should be ignored, named, bullied, beaten, fined, and locked up."
Shame on you AC.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Thursday March 26 2015, @03:16AM
Straw man much?
No, it is not.
Human, sort of. Natural, yes: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/schmidt_01/ [nasa.gov] Sort of means we have written records and other historic artifacts which while not telling us a temperature, describe the climate well enough to build a model and find the temperature.
Ssmall, sharp changes that came in small clusters and lasted over 400 hundred years. BTW, did you see the 2000 year temperature reconstruction graph? The sharp spike at the end which is marked by the year 2000 is much more pronounced than the so called little ice age and medieval warm period.
Look, while we cant say with 100% accuracy what will happen, it makes sense to err on the side of caution. Covering your ears while yelling "la-la-la I cant hear you" will not make a potential problem go away. Maybe we are seeing a natural phenomenon, maybe we aren't. But evidence points to anthropogenic activities. Why ignore it when there is evidence?
(Score: 2) by BK on Friday March 27 2015, @02:37AM
I'm on the record as a firm believer in AGW. More CO2 == more heat retention in the atmosphere. Learn it, live it, love it.
But the data does not support claims about the typical speed of other (non AGW?) climate changes.
BS. Dude says in 2000 year old manuscript that the year 15 was "warm" and the wine harvest was . So tell me... what was the exact average temperature that year. And make no mistake, I expect the exact global temperature to within 0.1 C for that year. I know, that seems unreasonable... but so far, we are discussing changes of a degree or less. Measures with less absolute precision than the measured changes are pretty darn meaningless.
Indeed. But the poster didn't make a claim about the magnitude. He made a claim about the speed. Look again. There's a precipitous drop at the start of the LIA. the rate of change represented is even greater than the recent situation.
Remember, try science. Don't mistake theory for observation.
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:32PM
And that's also what happened in the example I gave you, the end of the last glacial. A 25 metre rise in sea levels over less than 1000 years. This is before not only industry, but before most metallurgy or agriculture as well. Still it has been suggested that extremely early agriculture-like activities may have been a factor.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by Hairyfeet on Thursday March 26 2015, @06:30AM
What I love is how many go "ZOMFG its getting warmer, teh sky is a fallin!" while ignoring the teeny tiny little fact that for most of the past century we had this little thing called the "little ice age". Hell during WWII, when every side was literally firebombing so damned much oil that if AGW was correct should have made it just slightly cooler than Satan's balls, what did we get? Dead Germans piled up like cordwood in Stalingrad because it was so damned cold they couldn't dig a fricking hole without dynamite. Hell go look at the Wiki pages on the little ice ages and even though we have core samples and models and data up the wazoo they have no less than SIX different possible causes of why it happened, hell one even blames the black plague because less humans because....what peasants in mud huts burning a little pile of peat to survive somehow changed the temps on the planet...wah?
Look you wanna use less and cut down pollution? Invest in renewables (ACTUAL renewables, not like what Obama did which turned out to be a big giant kickback to his biggest donors, just like Dubya with big oil) and recycle tech? I'm right there with ya, if we can do more with less it will be better for everybody. But don't buy magic beans, especially when said magic beans are being pushed by scammers [youtube.com] that are gonna make out better than robber barons [forbes.com] by pulling a reverse robin hood. If you do that? Well fuck you might as well demand your government pay me a couple billion for genuine AR anti-AGW crystals, because they will do just as much for the environment.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 5, Touché) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:25AM
What I love is how many go "ZOMFG its getting warmer, teh sky is a fallin!" while ignoring the teeny tiny little fact that for
mostmuch of the pastcenturymillenium we had this little thing called the "little ice age". Hell during WWII......
Hell go look at the Wiki pages on the little ice ages
There. FTFY.
You know, I went to the, as you put it, "Wiki pages" even though I already knew that the Little Ice Age [wikipedia.org] was long over (circa 1350-1850) by the time WW II was fought.
Just a passing thought: If you'd like to be taken seriously, perhaps you might want to get at least the basic facts right. Otherwise, regardless of the value of your argument, you are perceived as uninformed and, as such, unreliable.
You could have cited Napoleon's Russian Campaign [wikipedia.org] which at least occurred during the "Little Ice Age."
But hey, I guess facts aren't all that important anyway, are they?
In any case, have a great day!
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Thursday March 26 2015, @08:31AM
Uhhh you DO know that was the MAJOR "little ice age"...right? Yeah don't blame me, I didn't name the thing. But you obviously weren't a child of the 70s because all we heard for a damned decade was about the SECOND "little ice age" [wikipedia.org] which as you can see starting in the late 20s and ended in the late 70s to late 80s, depending on who you talk to.
I can tell you that even here in Satanically hot AR, which is listed as a fricking sub-tropics zone like Brazil, from 76 through 88 you could ice skate down main street for a little over a month every year, yes it got THAT fucking cold. We're talking a solid 9-12 inches of pure ice on the streets, God help you if you broke a leg or had your appendix break as your ass was just gonna die. We would have to buy supplies like you were living in fricking Alaska, complete with having a wood fireplace installed just for heat because when the lines broke? Yeah no power for you for a good month and a half.
Sorry if I didn't keep up with what Wiki was calling it this week, I frankly avoid even going there whenever possible as I find the whole bunch a bunch of asshats so I just called it what was drummed into our heads for the better part of 15 years, but I should of called it "Ice Age 2 Electric Boogaloo" or something as I had forgotten about the first one, my bad on that one.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:26AM
Uhhh you DO know that was the MAJOR "little ice age"...right? Yeah don't blame me, I didn't name the thing. But you obviously weren't a child of the 70s because all we heard for a damned decade was about the SECOND "little ice age" which as you can see starting in the late 20s and ended in the late 70s to late 80s, depending on who you talk to.
The first paragraph of the page you linked states:
Also, nowhere in that document does anyone refer to that period as a "little ice age."
What is more, you stated in your initial post that this affected the Germans their Russian offensive. Again, according to the link *you* posted:
Just so you know, the Russians had pushed the Germans back to the Polish border by the summer of 1944 [wikipedia.org] and never looked back until they took Berlin in May, 1945.
Since this "cooling" period didn't start until 1945, it had no effect on the German invasion of Russia, which started in 1941.
What is more, this slight cooling, again according to the link *you* posted, ended in the early 1970s.
I have no doubt that the weather events you experienced were real (I remember some pretty bad winters up here in the northeast back in the 70s and 80s myself), and I don't necessarily disagree with your position that climate science is far from exact either.
However, it's difficult to find common ground (or even to disagree coherently) unless we have a foundation of factual information.
I'm not trying to be a jerk here, but you're making assertions that have no basis in fact and then basing your conclusions on those incorrect assertions. How can I even agree with you under those circumstances?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Troll) by Hairyfeet on Thursday March 26 2015, @03:48PM
Which part of I consider Wikipedia an expert like I consider my ass a tuba was hard to understand? Do I REALLY need to wallpaper this damned page with a fucking mountain of articles showing Wikipedia is more political than Pravda, with everything from SJWs to Scientologists controlling pages and making them jive with their little worldviews?
But YOU were the one that brought up the Wiki, I pointed out I don't go there unless there is no other site available and had forgot about the first one (everytime I think old climate I think medieval warming period) but as far as their "facts" I trust Jimbo and Co's wiki about as much as I trust this wikipedia [conservapedia.com], hell I probably trust this one a little more as at least their slant is obvious and they aren't pretending their shit don't stink like old Jimbo.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:35PM
Indeed, ice ages are the climate we are used to. Specifically we prefer the inter-glacial periods of the ice ages, rather than the glacials, but we survive either just fine, while a return to hothouse earth (that's what happens when we actually exit an ice age) is likely to be much more catastrophic for us.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 26 2015, @02:11PM
Yes we are living in, as you said, an interglacial period. "ice age" is not a scientific term. The scientific term is "glaciation" as you pointed out.
In fact, all of human history has unfolded during cycles of glaciation and warmer, interglacial periods.
And so, from a scientific standpoint you're absolutely correct.
Unfortunately, that's not what was being discussed. The term "little ice age" is a historical (rather than a scientific) term that refers specifically to a ~500 year period which ended around 1850 CE.
Hairyfeet believes that the historical term also applies to a span of roughly 30 years (circa 1945-1975), which was, AFAIK never referred to as a "little ice age."
Other than attempting (and failing) to be didactic, did you actually have a point?
Since you ignored the context, your comment added no value to the discussion.
It's great that you want to contribute, and I applaud you for doing so. Thanks!
Perhaps next time you'll contribute something relevant.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 4, Funny) by wantkitteh on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:32PM
Damnit, my migraine pills just wore off... reading that really hurt.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Wednesday March 25 2015, @09:38PM
eh?
This,
destroying untold numbers of people.
then,
Did that fact in any way change the effect it had on people at the time? Not at all.
doesn't compute...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday March 28 2015, @06:41AM
Was it anthropogenic? Some think so, and certainly a case can be made for it.
And a case can be made for the Moon being made of green cheese. The real question is why should we care?
And I agree with arslan, getting destroyed by climate would have an effect on me, if I were around at the time. Unless by "destroyed", you mean have to drink plenty of fluids.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Thexalon on Wednesday March 25 2015, @04:00PM
I think that's the idea: If you can't raise sheep in Scotland any longer, than there's less wool available on the market, so the price of whatever wool you have goes up.
And of course, there are some ancillary problems as well, like the kilt shortages that would occur shortly after the wool shortage. (I'd mention the bagpipe shortage, too, since they traditionally use sheep-based bellows, but nobody really would miss them!)
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 25 2015, @05:31PM
I'd mention the bagpipe shortage, too, since they traditionally use sheep-based bellows, but nobody really would miss them!
When the material of the last kilt finally wears away and is gone for ever, the only thing worse than a dude in a kilt, is a dude not wearing a kilt. That'll be a sight to see. I put my hope in synthetic fabrics, or we're going to be seeing things we don't really want to see.
(Score: 2) by BK on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:11AM
Just wanted to point out that the rise of synthetic fabrics correlates strongly with "climate change". Maybe if we banned them...
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 2) by M. Baranczak on Wednesday March 25 2015, @06:59PM
Q. What's the difference between bagpipes and onions?
A. Nobody cries when you chop up bagpipes.
Can you imagine what it was like for the Roman soldiers who conquered Britain and heard bagpipes for the first time? You're from some small town on the Mediterranean, you join the army because you want to see the world, and they ship you off to this horrible gloomy Northern wilderness where nobody's even heard of wine. Then you go into battle against the blue-eyed savages, and before you even see them, you hear this infernal wail like nothing you've ever heard before.
(Score: 3, Informative) by HiThere on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:24PM
FWIW, the Greeks had bagpipes. I think they only had one drone, though. And they used pig skins rather than sheep skins, so I guess only the Scots bagpipes are Kosher.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 26 2015, @10:44AM
Which seems to put a chink in Professor Yaffle's argument that in fact the bagpipe is a haggis. More research clearly needed.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Touché) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:38PM
That seemed an incredible claim so I looked it up [wikipedia.org]. Bagpipes in the British Isles predate British rule of India. They're mentioned in the Canterbury Tales (1380) and explicit reference to Scottish Highland bagpipes was made in 1547. Both dates predate British India.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday March 27 2015, @10:44AM
It's not bagpipe related, but you may find /The Invention of Tradition/ by Hobsbawm an interesting read. That's one of the books which has bolstered my calendonia-view. A modern kilt is a skirt. There, I said it. Deal with it. (And a historical kilt is nothing like what the modern-day scots are calling a kilt. There, I said that too. Deal with it.)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday March 27 2015, @12:42PM
You're right that bagpipes are found in many cultures. For better or worse, in our time they are iconic for Scotland though.
You make a good point about people re-inventing "tradition." There are a lot of examples to name: hot dogs were invented in Germany but the world knows the American version today, and is associated with it; pizza was invented by the Italians, but the world knows pizza today as an American food; etc. It's a good reminder how fluid cultures and societies really are.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday March 27 2015, @01:53PM
Food traditions also change as they move from place to place, even within the subculture that produced it. For example, the modern fortune cookie, now almost expected at most Asian-cuisine restaurants, was invented not in Asia but in San Francisco. And most of the pizza variations in the US (New York, Chicago deep-dish, etc) were created by Italian-Americans. And then there's the many American beer styles, mostly invented by German-American brewers who knew full well how to make proper German beer but needed to vary it based on the available materials.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 25 2015, @04:29PM
> I suspect not. Regions that will go really cold is sparsely populated
What, you mean like Great Britain? Although I think our country should be more like the Scandinavians in a lot of ways, I really don't want to adopt their climate.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday March 25 2015, @04:52PM
Your country = GB? Anyway sparse or dense is a comparison. There's a lot of Asians near the equator.
But which futures to buy would be interesting to know. And what timeframe. Provided it's even possible to trade..
(Score: 3, Informative) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 25 2015, @05:15PM
Yes, GB, and it is pretty densely populated: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_density#/media/File:Countries_by_population_density.svg [wikipedia.org]
If the UK goes all ice-age, then we will have to significantly change our way of life, and probably rebuild a lot of our infrastructure. In particular, the majority of old homes (and we have a LOT of old very buildings still in use in this country) would have to be either heavily modified or completely rebuilt. Therefore if I wanted to make a fortune on this (so that I could retire to a palm-fringed tropical paradise like Switzerland) I'd probably invest heavily in all things warm: Double glazing, super-thick insulation systems, central heating, underfloor heating, insulated clothing, cold-weather gear for cars and vehicles and airports and railways... In particular I'd be looking at Scandinavian companies who work in those fields, since that's probably where most brits would look first for help. However Canadian and Alaskan products would be in demand too.
I'd also invest in distilleries and breweries. It's a safe bet that inhospitable winters would lead to increased alcohol consumption.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday March 25 2015, @05:29PM
I think you have just pointed out where the money will go in that situation.
Death is also a life changer ;)
Which may occur if the infrastructure to keep billions of people alive fails.
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday March 25 2015, @05:37PM
If the UK goes all ice-age
Peshawar Lancers, by S.M.Stirling
Note, taking over India as a plot device was more realistic set in 1890s than it would be set in modern 2020s or whatever.
Also WRT booze, without barley/corn/stuff you won't be doing fermenting when its too expensive to eat. Might get somewhere with cellulose generated ethanol from inedible scrap as a white lightning booze.
Fishing would work pretty well as a food source if we hadn't already destroyed the best fisheries. Whoops. Some sort of aquaculture scheme would be my bet.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Jaruzel on Wednesday March 25 2015, @05:14PM
The problem with the UK (GB & NI) climate is that it's so damn erratic.
Will it snow? When will it snow? Oh shit it's snowed, and we don't know how to cope!
Planning a BBQ? Don't be silly. No matter what day you pick during the 'summer' the weather will be shit. Guaranteed.
Mainly it rains. A lot. We know how to cope with that, we are the masters of the umbrella. Floods still screw us up though - we're not good with those. Maybe we shouldn't have removed all the trees for farming after WW2.
In my lifetime, I've seen the shift in weather patterns. Our winter (will-it-snow season) is now Feb to April. Our summers are now typically split between May-June and Sept-Oct. July-August is typically a washout. I think that's what people call an 'Indian Summer'.
If the Gulf Stream stops, we wont benefit from the warm air brought up from the equator. Temperatures will drop a good few degrees on average. It'll be less windy (due to the reduction of high/low pressures meeting). It'll probably rain more.
Regardless what happens, us Brits will still go into meltdown the moment the weather changes. It's what we do.
-Jar
This is my opinion, there are many others, but this one is mine.
(Score: 2) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:02PM
Basically, England will become climatically like Scotland, and Scotland like Iceland.
Maybe that means the Tories are doomed!
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:17PM
(Score: 3, Funny) by NotSanguine on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:44PM
I believe that in India "cold weather" is merely a conventional phrase and has come into use through
the necessity of having some way to distinguish between weather which
will melt a brass door-knob and weather which will only make it mushy.
--Mark Twain
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 5, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 25 2015, @04:45PM
Europe is not so sparsely populated. Most of it is about the same latitude as Canada, so without the Gulf Stream moderating their weather life will get much colder for 350 million people.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @12:01AM
Obviously another fiendish plot by Putin to keep Europe dependent on Russian gas.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @11:55PM
So floods, tornadoes, earthquakes, hurricanes, droughts, etc. I think you're missing brimstone and a plague of frogs there.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @05:30AM
To the rescue!!!!
I suspect not. Regions that will go really cold are sparsely populated. Regions that will be cooked have denser populations. They properly get heat strikes and failed farming.
There. FTFY.
Subject/verb agreement is life or death stuff, friend. I won't get into the part about how your facts are incorrect. But then, I'm not a content nazi, I'm a grammar nazi.
-- Dave Barry, "An Utterly Absurd Look at Grammar"
(Score: 3, Informative) by BananaPhone on Wednesday March 25 2015, @04:27PM
due to hydrogen sulfide gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday March 25 2015, @04:45PM
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event [wikipedia.org]
I didn't know anything about that before, and now I wish I could unlearn it. Thanks for the nightmares.
More than ever we need to develop closed-loop life support systems and get the hell off this rock.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Jeremiah Cornelius on Wednesday March 25 2015, @05:05PM
Yes. The closed asbestos-clad cylinders of a space "colony" or the toxic/barren surface of Mars will be easier to adapt than right here.
Human assholery and bigotry are best quarantined to this "rock" - without infecting any other location.
You're betting on the pantomime horse...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:03PM
+1 Agree, but bigotry seems to die out as diversity increases, except when indoctrinated into people at a young age (eg, growing up hearing your family talk about how [race] is sub-human). If kids can't isolate themselves or be forced by their parents to be isolated from other races and are kept from parental bigot indoctrination, bigotry should die out on its own. So, the closed containers of a extra-terrestrial colony should increase the rate at which bigotry vanishes. That won't do anything about the xenophobia of thinking people in other colonies or planets aren't sub-human though.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday March 25 2015, @08:01PM
So, only slightly more habitable than Chicago?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:15AM
> Yes. The closed asbestos-clad cylinders of a space "colony" or the toxic/barren surface of Mars will be easier to adapt than right here.
I didn't express myself well. One of the main benefits of closed life support is that it can be applied right here on Earth. We'll never be able to move a significant fraction of humanity off world anyway so we have to fix Earth, and the lessons we learn from surviving in space would allow us to recycle all of the human byproducts that are currently fucking up the environment. Maybe it (in conjunction with all of the environmental sciences we've learned from our current environmental concerns) would also allow us to look at "correcting" the Earth's environment, maintaining it in a steady, human-friendly state, and ultimately even terraforming other worlds.
Getting a few thousand / million people permanently and comfortably out into space as an insurance policy against the kind of unavoidable mass extinction event you see on cheap, melodramatic documentaries is important, but it's only part of it. The two come together.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:45PM
I agree with you. It does make logical sense. Lighting out for the frontier is costlier and more arduous than fixing what's wrong where you are. But as the descendant of generations of frontiersmen, there's also a lot of satisfaction in getting the fuck outta dodge and being your own man. The prospect of a 10-million acre ranch on Mars suits me fine. Just imagine tearing round on your ATV, firing heavy weapons at boulders for pure amusement value, and leaving the rusted out hulks of heavy equipment on your front yard with noone and nobody to give you guff. It would be like the West used to be, and you'd weigh 1/3 as much.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 25 2015, @10:52PM
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 26 2015, @05:38AM
I would be dead anyway. Most of us aren't equipped to breath water at a kilometer down. So this has less relevance than you might think. [emphasis added]
And even fewer of us are equipped to breath water *at all*, unless Aquaman [wikipedia.org] has been breeding at a prodigious rate.
Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 26 2015, @07:33AM
due to hydrogen sulfide gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event [wikipedia.org]
I'll see your H2S boogeyman and raise you a Methane Clathrate [wikipedia.org] disaster.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 26 2015, @09:40AM
"Enhanced volcanism (through the release of CO2) is the proposed central external trigger for euxinia." Volcanism emits bugger all CO2 compared to other sources, including innocent (non-anthropogenic) things like forest fires.
All the external links, apart from dead ones, point to work with one person's name on them (some "Jenkyns" guy). You generally find that when a page is in the hands of acolytes of a kook.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by geb on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:19AM
The Earth has gone through some periods of extremely active volcanism, where CO2 emissions have rocketed beyond anything we see in the normal day to day plate tectonics of human history.
e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deccan_Traps [wikipedia.org]
There's some debate about exactly how these things are triggered. Nobody is quite sure whether large asteroid impacts cause shockwaves which disturb Earth's crust and cause volcanism at the focus point opposite their impact. There does seem to be a correlation between supervolcano eruptions and asteroid impacts, but not a conclusive correlation.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 26 2015, @11:54AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:53PM
The Earth has gone through some periods of extremely active volcanism, where CO2 emissions have rocketed beyond anything we see in the normal day to day plate tectonics of human history.
Allegedly. I note that there's funding currently to tie your research to climate change. It'll be interesting to see if the story changes once the climate change hysteria dies down.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday March 27 2015, @10:59AM
On the assumption your assertion is true, of course. I should verify it before relying on it ;-)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 27 2015, @05:53PM
On the assumption your assertion is true, of course. I should verify it before relying on it
Already happened. I don't see the point of verifying it some more.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @07:57PM
good job submitter. i fully expected to be incensed by whatever lurked beneath the quote, but had a hearty laugh instead. That's the way to do that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 25 2015, @11:36PM
The paper you quote uses indirect measurements to measure the Atlantic in leiu of direct measurements, which say the opposite.
This is a propaganda media release that assumed it would have passed peer review and be published.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 26 2015, @01:13AM
Probably using Louisiana Purchase measurement units as well, just to confuse good right-thinking conservative homophobic white sock-puppet deniers of Anthropogenic Global Climate Change with Warming. (How does one assume one will be published, and then get published?)