Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age

[mountainhiker]

Russia declares that the earth is on the birnk of an Iceage!

As if things were not strange enough now we have Russia tossing the idea into the "Global Warming" that we are heading into a new ice age.

The earth is now on the brink of entering another Ice Age, according to a large and compelling body of evidence from within the field of climate science. Many sources of data which provide our knowledge base of long-term climate change indicate that the warm, twelve thousand year-long Holocene period will rather soon be coming to an end, and then the earth will return to Ice Age conditions for the next 100,000 years.

Ice cores, ocean sediment cores, the geologic record, and studies of ancient plant and animal populations all demonstrate a regular cyclic pattern of Ice Age glacial maximums which each last about 100,000 years, separated by intervening warm interglacials, each lasting about 12,000 years.

It now appears that the current Northern Hemisphere winter of 2008/09 will probably equal or surpass the winter of 2007/08 for both snow depth and cold temperatures. If this is true, we are looking at a major reshuffling of theories that are in total conflict. The article make for interesting reading.... <_<

[Simon]

Or not.

2008 ends up being the tenth warmest year due to man-made climate change

[mountainhiker]

Or not.

2008 ends up being the tenth warmest year due to man-made climate change

Two different things, it may have been the warmest year since 1850 BUT, Russia is saying that the WINTER is colder and based on some strange data, they think it indicates an ice age! Instead of trying to shut down any discussion on the issue, I think it is worth looking at what these speculations and see if they are smoke and mirrors are is there something to it? :rolleyes:

[Simon]

Two different things, it may have been the warmest year since 1850 BUT, Russia is saying that the WINTER is colder and based on some strange data, they think it indicates an ice age! Instead of trying to shut down any discussion on the issue, I think it is worth looking at what these speculations and see if they are smoke and mirrors are is there something to it?

No. Russia isn't saying that. A Russian web-based tabloid called Pravda is trying to deny global warming.

Come on! Cant you do better? Can you only find global warming denying bullshit from either nutcase Christopher Booker or a web-based Russian tabloid?

[brettbh]

>>I think it is worth looking at what these speculations and see if they are smoke and mirrors are is there something to it?<<

I don't. The fact is that nobody - nobody - can say with complete and absolute certainty what's happening with our climate, whether we are entering a period of warming or cooling or whether it is man that is causing the change (if there is indeed a change). So, what's the point in debating? Doing so will simply confuse and blur matters further. Heck, people cannot even agree on the rights and wrongs of what's happening in Israel/Gaza despite the fact that the background and history is well known and documented - so what's the chance of being able to reach an agreement on the realities of climate change when the available information is entirely speculative and often contradictory?

This is why the green movement needs to change the emphasis of its message. Telling people, as Monbiot has, that the immediate abandonment of all air travel is the only way to prevent catastrophic warming - if, that is, it isn't already too late to stop the warming process - isn't going to encourage change. Telling people that the global population is higher than the earth can sustain and that reducing the population is the only way to combat warming isn't going to encourage change either. What are we supposed to do? Vote on whether it's the Americans or the French - or both - who are eradicated? That's simply not going to happen. I must say, however, that the population problem is real and one which is often ignored (because, I assume, there is no easy answer). The world's population has increased more than 2x since 1960 and, each week, the planet becomes home to more than 1 million new people. In 1960, there were under 3 billion people on the planet. Today, there are 6.7 billion. By 2060, the population shall have increased by another 50% to almost 10 billion - 3x the number of people that there were in 1960. How the heck will we meet the food, clothing, energy and transportation needs of all these extra people while also reducing our emissions? Realistically, we probably cannot - at least, not with our current technologies. But I have digressed ...

The green movement needs to change the emphasis of its message and become the voice of reason and common sense. People such as Monbiot shouldn't be saying that Shrub is destroying the environment simply because he can and that we absolutely must abandon air travel in order to have any chance of avoiding a catastrophe which it may already be too late to avoid. People do not want to hear that and will choose not to believe it. Especially as such claims are not conclusively supported by science.

A much better message would be that we cannot afford to play Russian Roulette with our environment. The consensus is that the world is warming, and a majority of scientists believe that man is contributing to that. We need to work on the assumption that the scientists are right and work to reduce our emissions. To do otherwise would be completely irresponsible. Furthermore, even if the scientists are wrong, we still need to take action in order to ensure that we can support the world's rapidly expanding population without crippling the environment. Similarly, we also need to make sure that we cap the population at a level that can be sustained.

It's simple. It's accurate. It cannot be disputed. And it may actually get people to believe and act.

Footnote:

I'm really not sure why the matter of population growth receives so little attention - possibly because it's an uncomfortable subject and there is no easy solution - but it is undoubtedly a major problem.

During the next 50 years, the world's population will increase by almost 50%. That means a 50% increase in energy consumption, a 50% increase in manufacturing, a 50% increase in waste production, a 50% increase in wood consumption, a 50% increase in agricultural activities, a 50% increase in construction, 50% more pollution being dumped into the oceans, 50% more fish being pulled from the oceans, etc., etc., etc. and this will place an enormous strain on the health of the environment. We already have smog hanging over cities and an enormous brown cloud over Asia. How much worse will that become when the earth is supporting 50% more people? And if you think that we are already causing the climate to warm, then how much warmer will it become when there are 50% more people using cars and using electricity? Not to mention the amount of green space that will need to be used for new manufacturing plants, garbage dumps, houses, factories, etc., etc.

To combat these problems, we need to make massive - absolutely massive - investments in new technology. We have to find ways of making our transportation cleaner. We have to find ways of eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels and producing clean energy. We have to find ecologically sound ways of producing the food we need. We have to find more efficient ways of recycling (and recycling more). And we need to cap the population. There really is no alternative here. We either do this or we watch the planet turn into a stinking cesspit which is incapable of sustaining its constantly increasing population.

Unfortunately, our current political systems/governments are completely unfit to deal with the problems that we are facing. They are more interested in economic wellbeing than environmental wellbeing. Some refuse to sign-up to Kyoto. Others introduce "new deals" - snake-oil regulations which enable them offshore C02 production to developing countries. But none would be willing to remove billions and billions from their economies and invest that money in environmental/technological R&D. And nor would they willing to introduce policies which would make their industries less competitve in international markets.

That must change. We need a new set of global political ethics that are capable of driving the changes that are necessary. We need to find co-operative global solutions to the problems we face today. Every country needs to completely transition to clean energy, and we need to make the investments that will enable that to happen - not only in our own developed countries, but in developing countries too. To make that happen, we'll need to bolster their economies - take money from our pocket and put it into their pocket. Whether or not clean energy is more expensive and will increase the cost of living/the cost of products is completely unimportant - we absolutely need to transition. We need global solutions which enable C02 production to be reduced, not offshored. We need to find ways of producing the food that 10 billion people will need without depleting the environment. We need to find ways of enabling 10 billion to travel in an energy-efficient manner. We need to realise that we are but one among millions of interdependent species and that, to succeed, we must care for the other species. We need to start using the resources that are currently committed to petty wars and disputes more constructively. We need to stop competing to produce the cheapest products, and instead work together to produce what we need in the most ecologically responsible manner. And, most importantly, we need to control the population. We need to work out how many people our planet and current technologies can realistically sustain, and then work to cap the population at that level. Forget about the antiquated superstitions of the Catholic Church - contraception is absolutely necessary! There are already millions of people in the world who are without food. How many more will be without food when the population swells by a couple of billion? How many would starve should crops fail due to droughts caused by climate change? And the fact that there will be more people consuming more energy/producing more C02 makes such an event all the more likely.

Furthermore, people need to accept that drinking eco-beer and wearing environmentally-friendly undies is not enough - in fact, it's nowhere near enough. Do those things if you want, but do not make the mistake of thinking that you are doing much to help the environment - or that you are doing everything that you need to do in order to help the environment. To bring about the changes that are needed, people need to become activists. Those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo - such as the oil companies who sponsor and support our governments - will undoubtedly resist. To overcome this and bring in a new era of global co-operation in which the environment and not the dollar is king, people will need to insist that their leaders base decisions not on what is best for corporations and the economy, but on what is best for the planet.

In short, the time has come to forget about individual national interests and adopt the motto: all for one and one for all and all for the environment.