The Wrath of the Sea

28 comments on “The Wrath of the Sea ”

• Comments are now closed

1. mickysavage 1

   5 January 2011 at 2:31 pm

   I suspect that New Zealand is experiencing a similar phenomenon. It seems to me that in winter more and more storms come from the south and they are getting harsher and harsher.

   There is a comparable photo of the South Island after a 2006 storm at http://www.nasaimages.org/luna/servlet/detail/nasaNAS~10~10~71919~177256:Winter-Storm-in-New-Zealand

   80% of it must be covered in snow.

   I really hope the anti global-warming nutters are right but somehow I do not think so …
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     5 January 2011 at 4:08 pm

     I really hope the anti global-warming nutters are right…

     They’re not. The fact that they believe that they are is what makes them delusional nutters.
   • Sailor Sam 1.2

     6 January 2011 at 8:10 am

     Does the above article not dispute “global warming”?
     Anyway this term has long ago been changed to “climate change”.

     And maybe the old theory of warmer Arctic/Antarctic and cold continents holds true as a normal cycle in the earths atmospheric conditions.
     And maybe we humans have nothing much to do with it anyway.
     I am willing to accept there is climate chnage, but am open to the various reasons that may be causing it, man made or otherwise.
     • lprent 1.2.1

       6 January 2011 at 10:16 am

       Does the above article not dispute “global warming”?
       Anyway this term has long ago been changed to “climate change”.
       
       *sigh* Global warming is a cause, climate change is an effect. I realize that scientific morons like yourself frequently confuse the two, but that is really no excuse for the rest of your stupid comment.

       And maybe the old theory of warmer Arctic/Antarctic and cold continents holds true as a normal cycle in the earths atmospheric conditions.

       The theory is pretty specific to the northern hemisphere (ie it is a regional effect) because while the same overall could happen in the southern hemisphere if the circum-Antarctica airflow reduced or stopped, even the worst sailor should be able to read a chart and find that there are no continents particularly close apart from the thin strip of Patagonia.

       I am willing to accept there is climate chnage, but am open to the various reasons that may be causing it, man made or otherwise

       Of course there is natural climate change and it has happened in the past and a lot of the reasons it has happened have been deduced from the geological record plus climate modelling. The work to prove that has happened has come from the same earth scientists that are now saying the human generated climate change is underway.

       So in effect what you’re saying is that you want to pick and choose the results from the earth scientists based on convienience. Tell me, how does it feel to be quite such a hypocrite?

       It is quite evident from what you’re saying that you’re simply wanting to ignore the consequences of being partially responsible for human forced climate change and prefer to dump the whole issue onto kids. You really are the type of fuckwit sailor that Conrad was referring to.
2. Oscar 2

   5 January 2011 at 5:28 pm

   Im probably one of those nutters. Its not that I don’t believe in global warming/climate change, in fact, I do think that man has in some small effect contributed.
   I just don’t believe this nutbar theory that CO2 is bad. There was a book I recently read (name escapes me now) that described how in the 15th century, sailors were easily able to traverse from England to Greenland, which coincidentally was largely free of ice in the southern region during the same period.
   Like I’ve said all along, it’s nothing more than a natural cycle, but we just take incidents like the previous two years and blow it all out of proportion.
   My pick: England will experience longer and colder winters while Greenlands ice will keep rapidly expanding and contracting.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     5 January 2011 at 5:50 pm

     There was a book I recently read (name escapes me now) that described how in the 15th century, sailors were easily able to traverse from England to Greenland, which coincidentally was largely free of ice in the southern region during the same period.

     Whatever gave you the idea that there was anything to stop them?
     • Oscar 2.1.1

       6 January 2011 at 3:21 pm

       I should have expanded more. Going through the arctic circle. Remember, this is in the days pre compass when they certainly didn’t know greenland was due west.
   • RedLogix 2.2

     5 January 2011 at 6:10 pm

     sailors were easily able to traverse from England to Greenland, which coincidentally was largely free of ice in the southern region during the same period.

     OK let’s take this statement at face value. It is of course quite wrong to think of these ‘natural cycles’ as entirely mysterious, random and wholly unpredictable…. occuring as it were for no apparent reason. There is always a reason why climate of the planet changes. Climate is essentially an energy balance between three main drivers:

     1. The energy arriving from the sun, which is impacted by the life of the sun itself (it’s very slowly getting hotter), variations in the earth’s orbit…called the Milankovitch cycles.
     2. The location of the continents and oceans with respect to the earths axis which impacts the albedo or reflectivity of the planet as a whole
     3. The composition of the atmosphere which determines how much of the energy reflected from the surface is trapped within the climate system.

     These things all interact to change climate in a very complex fashion… but ultimately the reason for those changes can always be linked back to these fundamental drivers. No scientist has for one moment denied or attempted to minimise these so called ‘natural variations’. Quite the contrary, studying them is the main way they can determine the ‘sensitivity’ of the climate to any given variation in the drivers.

     So when climate scientists look back at this warm period in the Middle Ages (MWP) they only find relatively weak drivers for this change… in other words if the MWP was real then it represented quite a large effect in response to relatively small drivers. Remember… climate never changes for no reason.

     Logically arguing for the existence of the MWP only strengthens the case for a higher climate sensitivity rather than a lower one…. which only increases our own future uncertainties in completely the wrong direction.
   • Zorr 2.3

     5 January 2011 at 8:17 pm

     “Its not that I don’t believe in global warming/climate change, in fact, I do think that man has in some small effect contributed” comes across to me a lot like the quote “That’s where the truth lies, right down here in the gut”

     No actual evidence for the stance, just one taken purely on instinct and feel with zero scientific basis. Some links to scientific evidence or peer-reviewed papers would be just lovely right about now.
     • Oscar 2.3.1

       6 January 2011 at 3:23 pm

       Two things

       1) Humans ignore their gut instinct at our peril. We should listen to our instincts far more than facts/figures and hypothesis. It’s something we have lost touch with

       2) Can you show me ANY peer review evidence that CO2 is bad for Earth?
3. jaymam 3

   5 January 2011 at 9:27 pm

   By “anti-global warming” surely you mean “anti-anthropogenic global warming”.
   Almost NOBODY is denying that the climate changes, as it’s done for millions of years.
   Sensible people know that Carbon Dioxide has an insignificant effect on climate.
   The rest are ill-informed or liars.
   • ZeeBop 3.1

     5 January 2011 at 10:07 pm

     Tell that to Mars and Venus! The size of the Marsian atmosphere is directly related to carbon dioxide acting as a heat trap.
     • Zorr 3.1.1

       5 January 2011 at 10:26 pm

       Or you could get your planets right and not look like a tard… –facepalm–
       • NickS 3.1.1.1

         5 January 2011 at 10:45 pm

         Well, CO2 levels in the Martian atmosphere do play a significant role in keeping Mars warmer than the vacuum of space, and are theoretically one of the things any terraforming operation would likely boost to increase the surface temperature range 😛
   • NickS 3.2

     5 January 2011 at 10:42 pm

     Yes, because in no way do the double bonds in carbon dioxide absorb parts of the IR spectrum, thus gaining kinetic energy and grater movement, otherwise known as “heat” with some emittance of lower energy photons, if an energised molecule doesn’t bounce off another one and thus spread teh energy around. Enough so, that it does quite clearly result in slower rates of heat loss from the Earth’s surface as CO2 concentrations increase, and can be nutted out from first principles with a bit of (lab) kit* and some basic maths, or just from observational data like Arrhenius did back in the 19th century and work it out yourself.

     Not that you morons could even manage something as simple as that, instead preferring to quote mine, misinterpret and make shit up. Or more regularly, just ignore any inconvenient, well supported factual evidence such as CO2 and H2O absorbance spectra and the distribution of both gases in the atmosphere, and how while the sun’s activity has decreased in the last 2-3 decades, while average global temperatures keep climbing. But hey, just like creationists, HIV denialists, anti-vaccinationists, relativity and holocaust deniers, why let reality get in the way of your personal beliefs?
     ______________
     *
     1) N2, O2 and CO2 bottles, not perfectly clear on how to manage H2O vapour, but assume small amount of water placed in air tight, highly transparent lab glass container should do, apply gas laws to nut it out.
     2) Obviously take said bottle, add gasses via controllable valve system + variable light source, preferably one that and (digital might be an idea) thermometer and play around with CO2 and H2O gas concentrations while recording temperature curve over a set time period.
     3) And don’t forget the bloody controls, one for CO2 and one for H2O vapour. In which amounts of each are held constant over time. And if done right, statistical analysis might not be needed, but if so, an ANOVA should be fine. As long as it’s not done in excel /shudder
   • MrSmith 3.3

     5 January 2011 at 11:17 pm

     Jaymam: may I suggest you just light one up, sit back and take it easy.
   • Draco T Bastard 3.4

     6 January 2011 at 12:04 am

     No jaymam, the liars are the people who deny the science. People like Monkton and the ill-informed are the people just like you who listen to the liars.
4. NickS 4

   5 January 2011 at 10:53 pm

   Good post, and it covers some of the ground concerning current explanations for the EU and NA cold snap. Could have done with a bit more linkage though, as there’s been plenty of stuff on the climate blogs, i.e. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/

   Can’t provide more though, had to reinstall windows and have lost a ton of stuff, again…
   • MrSmith 4.1

     5 January 2011 at 11:22 pm

     A Mac with time machine might stop that happening again NickS. but you no what they say about good advice!
   • lprent 4.2

     6 January 2011 at 7:23 am

     That was what I thought, and why I put the post through with limited links.

     Sidetracking: I gave up on Microsoft for my systems a few years ago after using it since dos 2.0. Main reason is that the stability was getting worse rather than better and I was having to rebuild it every 12-18 months. Now all of my systems except for a old windows server are kubuntu with old windows client versions in virtual boxes and in dual boots. I would have gone Mac because it is stable. But their system is just too proprietary for basic tools. With ubuntu I only had to buy slickedit to get my full toolkit. Strange thing is that since then my employed work now splits about even between Linux and Windows whereas it was close to exclusively windows prior
     • higherstandard 4.2.1

       6 January 2011 at 7:52 am

       Windows is the antichrist.
       • lprent 4.2.1.1

         6 January 2011 at 10:20 am

         No – just unproductive since they started giving it built in obsolescence.
     • NickS 4.2.2

       6 January 2011 at 8:29 pm

       Well, that install of Vista did stay stable for the 3 years after I set it up for my brother, with only a minor blip from my stuffing around with overclocking the CPU the lazy way. 😛

       But since I like my videogames, I’m stuck with windows and until I buy a new PC, instead of recycling, I don’t see myself installing ubuntu any time soon otherwise. Unless I get a netbook. And yes, MS’s current business plan OS wise might make good business “sense” but it’s a pain in the arse for everyone else, especially as XP matured into a fairly solid OS. At least for a MS product.

       Also death unto Apple.
       • lprent 4.2.2.1

         6 January 2011 at 10:00 pm

         Dual boot it. Install XP, then install ubuntu. It will correctly repartition. Then you can boot into XP when you want to play games.
5. john 5

   6 January 2011 at 10:29 am

   James Lovelock has described Climate Change as being like walking down a Mountain Spur which gets increasingly steeper and steeper until one falls off the cliff at the end assuming there is mist, like in the Tararuas! Positive feedback processes are happening speeding up the rate of change, it is not a predictable linear process. What is happening, as the post explains, is Climate Change causing extremely cold Winters in the UK at the same time as Greenland is anomalously warmer.
   Climate Change is hitting Queensland at the moment: They’ve had one river system flood before but now it’s all three at once!
   Pakistan is still suffering from the biggest floods ever known.
   Russia had freak heating causing huge fires in their Summer but is now freezing.
   Freak Cold has moved as far south as Cuba and North America is having some of its coldest weather ever.

   In the UK people assumed with Global Warming that snow would eventually be in the past tense, but a destabilised climate system has chaotically thrown a surprise.

   As James Lovelock says in his book Gaia the climate was regulated by life for life but we have so severely impacted this system, that it has at least temporarily ceased to operate.

   Quote from “The revenge of Gaia” Chapter 9 “Beyond the Terminus”:

   “Like the Norns in Wagner’s Der Ring des Nibelungen, we are at the end of our tether, and the rope,whose weave defines our fate, is about to break.
   Gaia,the living Earth, is old and not as strong as she was two billion years ago. She struggles to keep the Earth cool enough for her myriad forms of life against the ineluctable increase in the sun’s heat. But to add to her difficulties, one of those forms of life, humans, disputatious tribal animals with dreams of conquest even of other planets, has tried to rule the Earth for their own benefit alone. With breathtaking insolence they have taken the stores of carbon that Gaia buried to keep oxygen at its proper level and burnt them. In so doing they have usurped Gaia’s authority and thwarted her obligation to keep the planet fit for life; they thought only of their own comfort and convenience.”

   One of the insights Lovelock gives us is that as the sun heats up Gaia has used ice ages as a means to keep the planet cool, temperature regulation!, Also surprising to us is that Life was actually more abundant especially in the Oceans during these cold periods! Nearer the equator huge areas of land were above sea level during Ice Ages which in this InterGlacial are now below sea level as the World continues to heat up more areas of land will go below sea level.
   • ZeeBop 5.1

     7 January 2011 at 12:22 am

     A warmer planet will need to exhaust more heat into space. The processes of
     dumping heat, convection happen more over continents and land masses.
     These weather machines usually dump rain, buy if energetic enough
     they can force rain to cycle a few more times and turn into hail and snow.
     So a warmer planet would expect to see colder winters over land masses.
     Warmer seas means colder continents. If the sun has been unusually
     less hot, then we’re really in deep snow for some time to come.

Links to post

1. The Standard: posted on 5 January 2011 at 12:59 am
2. Gabriella Turek: posted on 5 January 2011 at 9:38 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS