|
DCWoody -> A completely different view on climate change (10/17/2007 3:06:04 PM)
|
This thread is not about whether or not human activity is currently affecting the climate, I'm not saying it is, and I'm not saying it isn't, I'm completely ignoring that subject for the purpose of the point I'm about to make.
The Earth is currently in an ice age.
If there are ice caps, it's an ice age, that's the definition.
There isn't much ice right now, as we're in an interglacial period, where the ice has retreated to just a couple of small caps at the poles. There have been several other previous interglacials during the current ice age.
There is some evidence predicting that the current interglacial will last about 28,000 years, with us being so far roughly 11,500 years in. However this is a bit of a shaky prediction, working out the weather in 5 days time is hard enough, let alone 5000 years. 12,000 years is a more typical length for an interglacial....but again, don't bet your house on it.
However long....it will at some point end, interglacials aren't stable and don't last long (from a geological perspective, it'd be a long time to wait for a bus).
The general point I'm making is that there is no option for the climate to stay as it is, it will change, either the ice age will end altogether, or the ice will be back down to visit. Can't predict exactly how far the ice would spread, but it would certainly be a bad idea to be living anywhere in the UK, Canada, Russia or Alaska at the time.
There would be problems with both scenarios, but I certainly think that cooling would be by far the worse option. It's a widely stated statistic that enough food is grown to easily feed the entire human population of the earth, and therefore it's a disgrace that there are people starving. If the ice comes back that statistic probably won't be accurate, whereas if the ice age ends completely we'll be able to grow considerably more.
Bear in mind that I'm biased in favour of warming, as I live in a relatively highground area of Britain, someone in a low lying part of Mexico would perhaps see the advatages of cooling.
That's basically what I wanted to say, that when arguing about global warming you should really think, 'which do I prefer, cooling or warming, because there is no 'stay the same' option'.
Perhaps you could let me know which one you're rooting for in your reply to this post :)
Edited for typo.
|
|
|
|
