Considering I invented my theory before the ice cores were dug, it's not bad going and accurate enough. <You are partially correct, Ice ages start in less than decade (Greenland Ice Cores). >
I think the cores aren't very accurate. It's obvious that the ice age starts in one winter, as seen in reverse, in the same way that Uncle Al KBE says it's only looking backwards that we can see that there was a bubble.
We can't say that an ice age is going to start in any particular year. We can only say, in hindsight, that it started in autumn such and such a year. We could reasonably say it started with the first snowfall of that autumn.
For general purposes, we can say the ice age starts in two or three years. The first is "Gosh, that was a long and cold one". The second is "Oh no, not again and this one is even worse than last, which was bad enough!" The third is "What the?!! Hey, this is serious. We've never had snow in the middle of summer and the snow hadn't even fully melted from last winter". By then, it's pretty obvious what's happening. By the fourth year, people will be heading south [or north]. Maybe some scientists who don't believe it will wait 10 years, and take some cores to prove that an ice age has started. They'll curse more global warming and move south, to where global warming hasn't made it so cold.
Mqurice |
