Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade

Post by simonh » Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 8:27 PM UTC

danparsonson wrote: post #25

hugh3 wrote: post #10

This is exactly why I think the debate should be less about "how can we as humans stop affecting Earth's natual climate" and "how can we as humans gain control over Earth's natural climate". Climate change happens with us or without us. If we're going to protect our huge investments in climate-dependent infrastructure (i.e. cities) then we're gonna want (say) giant space mirrors to compensate for any zany things that…

Attempting to exercise control over such a chaotic system with simplistic solutions like giant space mirrors strikes me as a very bad idea indeed. Until we have a complete understanding of how the climate is regulated naturally I really don't see how we can do any good at all. Not to mention that, as you say, the politics are beyond us at the moment anyway (global consensus? yeah, right...)

Post by scg » Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 8:42 PM UTC

dstorrs wrote: post #72

wunderfool wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

nowhere to go? really? last time i checked most of the earth's surface was uninhabited. why do people want to go to mars when the land can be had in the mojave desert for practically no cost? its just as dry but has an oxygen atmosphere, and there is virtually no demand for the land or forget about the mojave. northern canada has a population per square km that is effectively zero. pretty mars-like, but you can hunt…

A) Because every dollar invested in the US space program since inception has created about $7 of economic benefit to the consumer economy. B) (Related to A but worth mentioning separately:) Because the space program has led to major advances in medicine that have improved length and quality of life on Earth. [1] C) To gain access to essentially limitless energy resources via space-based solar. D) To gain access to ma…

Post by goatforce5 » Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 8:51 PM UTC

curious_man wrote: post #36

natmaster wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For instance Canada may want the earth warmer, whereas Indian would want it cooler. (Since it benefits their respective latitudes.)

Well, I think this would be the simplest: the temperature at any given latitude will be the average of the last n years. Period. But maybe I'm too naive.

Post by gwright » Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 9:06 PM UTC

RuadhanMc wrote: post #77

Hawramani wrote: post #57

Reading the comments on here and many other places about global warming, it makes me sad that nobody is open-minded enough to entertain the possibility that an increase in the Earth's temperature could be a positive-sum change. We know very little about the Earth's natural cycles and the effects we have on them, so we are very far from knowing whether things are going in a good* or bad direction. * Good for everyone…

It is probably because people are comfortable with the familiar. Sure, a warmer earth might be a positive-sum change, but there's an equally good chance that it won't be. So why take the risk of losing what you have if you can avoid it?

   probability = ??????

   probability = 0.50

Post by FrojoS » Tue, Jun 14, 2011, 9:17 PM UTC

RuadhanMc wrote: post #77

Hawramani wrote: post #57

Reading the comments on here and many other places about global warming, it makes me sad that nobody is open-minded enough to entertain the possibility that an increase in the Earth's temperature could be a positive-sum change. We know very little about the Earth's natural cycles and the effects we have on them, so we are very far from knowing whether things are going in a good* or bad direction. * Good for everyone…

It is probably because people are comfortable with the familiar. Sure, a warmer earth might be a positive-sum change, but there's an equally good chance that it won't be. So why take the risk of losing what you have if you can avoid it?