P.S. My source is an ancient Farmer's Almanac article from the 80s, but I clearly recall it discussing sunspots and the Little Ice Age, and saying that 2020-ish was the pivotal point. My question is: will greenhouse atmospheric warming make it worse or mitigate it?
Original "global warming" (a newspaper term, hardly worth scientific mention) proposed, as one of a few major possible scenarios, that atmospheric heat accumulated by greenhouse gases could alter ocean currents by excessive freshwater runoff (glacier melt, mostly) desalinating surface currents, changing the specific gravities of different currents so that some that once rose now fell et vice versa.
Off the coast of NW Europe, this was forecast to create a Little Ice Age, something ye olde global atmospheric warming (not same as "global warming") theorists were well familiar with, being climatologists and all that.
Global climate oscillation<>disruption"(GCOD) would be an accurate scientific term for what the greenhouse gas models explore, but who uses genuinely scientific words and meanings these days?
Pre-existing extreme climate cycles obviously exist. Majorly messing with said cycles, during their century of their expected renaissance, by burning over 208 billion barrels of oil the atmosphere, is only going to exacerbate those cycles, and so is worth considering.
GCOD was politicized in the early 80s by Maggie Thatcher when she wanted to demonise striking coal miners as evil global warmsters. The scientific research/debate since then has grown increasingly corrupt and is now an infomercial for the Buy $$$ Green shitshow, but the original science is still real and what we're experiencing fits one of its main forecasts.
The climate is experiencing one of its periodic fits of the flu: either too hot or too cold, but we're begging to make it much worse.
Not that anything but enormous conservation (including majorly reducing the production of human beings) and an all-out nuclear energy program would do squat... which rather fits the idea of covid/culling being an ultimately SinoRussian thing. There is no way any one in our Black Friday at WalMart culture will conserve unless forced to, and human beings do NOT cull themselves: they cull others. Any human or critter they can get ahold of.
Which leads me to think that, if anything, Putin is out Davosing the Davosites in their own game. With, apparently, little ethnic sentimental feelings getting in the way of him letting his fellow Russians take it as hard or harder than the rest of the "global community".
Me, I prefer global plagues/plaguesters to full-bore thermonuke exchange, so I am not among the outraged. After all, we're just https://youtu.be/9fAViQJA1JA .
P.S. My source is an ancient Farmer's Almanac article from the 80s, but I clearly recall it discussing sunspots and the Little Ice Age, and saying that 2020-ish was the pivotal point. My question is: will greenhouse atmospheric warming make it worse or mitigate it?
If one looks into the Grinewald fluctuation, one encounters discussion of changing oceanic currents ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age ) ( https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3335 ).
Original "global warming" (a newspaper term, hardly worth scientific mention) proposed, as one of a few major possible scenarios, that atmospheric heat accumulated by greenhouse gases could alter ocean currents by excessive freshwater runoff (glacier melt, mostly) desalinating surface currents, changing the specific gravities of different currents so that some that once rose now fell et vice versa.
Off the coast of NW Europe, this was forecast to create a Little Ice Age, something ye olde global atmospheric warming (not same as "global warming") theorists were well familiar with, being climatologists and all that.
Global climate oscillation<>disruption"(GCOD) would be an accurate scientific term for what the greenhouse gas models explore, but who uses genuinely scientific words and meanings these days?
Pre-existing extreme climate cycles obviously exist. Majorly messing with said cycles, during their century of their expected renaissance, by burning over 208 billion barrels of oil the atmosphere, is only going to exacerbate those cycles, and so is worth considering.
GCOD was politicized in the early 80s by Maggie Thatcher when she wanted to demonise striking coal miners as evil global warmsters. The scientific research/debate since then has grown increasingly corrupt and is now an infomercial for the Buy $$$ Green shitshow, but the original science is still real and what we're experiencing fits one of its main forecasts.
The climate is experiencing one of its periodic fits of the flu: either too hot or too cold, but we're begging to make it much worse.
Not that anything but enormous conservation (including majorly reducing the production of human beings) and an all-out nuclear energy program would do squat... which rather fits the idea of covid/culling being an ultimately SinoRussian thing. There is no way any one in our Black Friday at WalMart culture will conserve unless forced to, and human beings do NOT cull themselves: they cull others. Any human or critter they can get ahold of.
Which leads me to think that, if anything, Putin is out Davosing the Davosites in their own game. With, apparently, little ethnic sentimental feelings getting in the way of him letting his fellow Russians take it as hard or harder than the rest of the "global community".
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/human-figures-circle-holding-hands-around-coronavirus-red-background-solidarity-concept-d-illustration-covid-colorful-177138314.jpg
As Dr. Bronner would say: all one! All one!
Excellent work, dog.
Me, I prefer global plagues/plaguesters to full-bore thermonuke exchange, so I am not among the outraged. After all, we're just https://youtu.be/9fAViQJA1JA .