I will say this right from the start; I think climate change is a real issue and I believe that the evidence strongly suggests that human being have played a part in it, at least. I think that the evidence also suggests that the climate change which is occurring is that the planet is getting hotter faster than it would if there were no industrialization.
I am open to reasoned argument that is opposed to my point of view, but note what I said; 'reasoned argument.' Supported by peer reviewed evidence. Lots of it. I will not treat with respect anything that says it's god's will because we're a) promiscuous b) druggies c) blasphemers d) turning people into homosexuals because we support gay marriage e) . . . You get the picture.
However, as a book reviewer and enthusiastic filmgoer, I think the whole instant cataclysm as suggested by disaster films such as The Day After Tomorrow are going a but too far. Rising seas, superstorms, a cataclysmic freeze, might be a result of climatic change, but not that fast, and not all at once.
Which brings me to a book that's recently been published, which I shall not name, but I'll discuss it's premise. The Ross Ice Shelf in Antarctica drops into the sea and Australia is hit by fifteen metre tsunamis. The Ross Ice Shelf is the biggest in Antarctica, getting on for half a million square kilometres, and if it dropped into the ocean all at once, it would make a helluva splash.
Except it wouldn't. It's already in the ocean. It's sea-ice, floating in the water. Detaching it from its niche would cause ripples, but not a tsunami.
Okay, but suppose I'm wrong, and it did cause a fifteen-metre tsunami to rush out from Marie Byrd Land and Victoria Land. What would happen?
Well, the way the ice shelf points out into the Pacific, New Zealand would be in for a hard time, and then it would somehow have to swing around the two islands and head for Australia. It would have to cover the thousands of kilometres between Antarctica and Australia and retain enough force to hit the coast while remaining fifteen metres high. It would be pretty nasty. Parts of Sydney and Melbourne might be swept away. The west coast wouldn't be affected, nor would Darwin, probably not Adelaide, and possibly not Brisbane. Canberra, 150 km inland and 500-odd metres above sea level, wouldn't be touched.
So, Sydney and Melbourne damaged, in parts. Mostly the beach suburbs. Sydney CBD wouldn't suffer much, because there are these two big, rocky things called the Heads that protect Sydney Harbour. The central bourse of Manly would be wiped out, but the land rises pretty steeply away from the water, and the water would just spill over into the harbour. Melbourne would probably be the same, because the tsunami would have to get through Port Phillip Bay.
What would happen to the infrastructure of Australia? Not much. Government wouldn't be wiped out, essential services wouldn't suffer much, and the military would be pretty much intact. You see, a tsunami is just one, single event that doesn't last for very long, even though it's sever while it lasts. A super-storm can last for much longer than a tsunami, and can travel over a wider area.
There's also evidence that supports the idea that a tsunami generated in Antarctica wouldn't really affect Australia very much. The 2004 Indian Ocean Earthquake, which occurred just off the west coast of northern Sumatra, caused a tsunami in the Indian Ocean which was, at times, 24 to 30 metres high when it hit Aceh. How big was it when the wave reached Perth? It didn't get right up the beach.
Okay, drop the Ross Ice Shelf; I somehow think the effects are over-rated.
And that brings me back to whisky, and a vexed question. Should one put ice in whisky? The Whisky Trail people believe that the ideal temperature for tasting whisky is 15 degrees centigrade. They are not against the addition of a little water, as long as the whisky does not break up. They recommend adding it little by little until the prickle in your nose has died away. They do not recommend adding ice.
However, they're based in Scotland, and it's easy to keep a bottle of whisky down to 15 degrees. Here in the great land of Oz, the temperature stays above fifteen degrees most of the time, and in summer it's often twice that. So do we ice, or not ice?
I suggest a compromise; chilled water, with ice in it. You can use those whisky rocks that you shove in the freezer, which don't melt, or just get a very long iceblock and swirl it around in the whisky, but the first is rather twee and the second makes you look stupid. I'll stick by the chilled water.
Bye
No comments:
Post a Comment