Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless. Some experts warn that a change in the climate may affect the ambitious projects for the exploration of the Arctic that have been launched by many countries.
Just recently, experts said that the Arctic ice cover was becoming thinner while journalists warned that the oncoming global warming would make it possible to grow oranges in the north of Siberia. Now, they say a cold spell will set in. Apparently, this will not occur overnight, Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory, says.
“Journalists say the entire process is very simple: once solar activity declines, the temperature drops. But besides solar activity, the climate is influenced by other factors, including the lithosphere, the atmosphere, the ocean, the glaciers. The share of solar activity in climate change is only 20%. This means that sun’s activity could trigger certain changes whereas the actual climate changing process takes place on the Earth.”
Solar activity follows different cycles, including an 11-year cycle, a 90-year cycle and a 200-year cycle. Yuri Nagovitsyn comments.
“Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years. The period of low solar activity could start in 2030-2040 but it won’t be as pervasive as in the late 17th century.”
Being a natural skeptic, I don’t know what to make of this other than the fact that our climate constantly changes. I am a firm believer in that the Sun is the main driver of our climate, and so it is possible that these scientists in St Petersburg are correct. It is also possible that they are wrong. It is obvious that past predictions about climate changes have been wrong, so what do we do? The answer is a simple one: we prepare for multiple contingencies. Instead of focusing on mitigating the changes in climate, which I think is not possible to begin with, we should be focused on what to do if the climate warms, and what to do if the climate cools, then come up with plans to adapt to either scenario. The politicalization of CO2 and climate change has been a complete waste of time, and has seriously hampered all efforts to plan effective measures to adapt to climate changes whichever direction they take.
While I agree with you in principle, Neilio, the “what do we do about it?” questions answer is simple. We leave it alone for the free-market and free-people to adjust to as they have through out the course of human existence. Human beings will adapt, migrate, change agricultural procedures, etc……… just like have done for thousands of years. The only “preparatory” actions that Govts need to take are short term ones to deal with natural events………just like they already have.
I don’t disagree with what you are saying. I guess my point is that we know that the climate changes. In the past, and I mean not recent history, we understood little about climate change. For example, the Vikings in Greenland were completely unaware, and completely unprepared for the rapid climate changes that practically wiped them out. Today we have a better understanding of what is possible, and it would be foolish to not have plans in place to deal with any possibility. It’s true that as a species we have adapted to many changes. But with growing populations, and the myriad of political systems around the globe, the logistics of adaptation, migration, changes to agricultural procedures, etc., would be so enormous that there could be great suffering and massive deaths if we rely on making it up as we go.
I don’t know who should come up with these plans, but I think it should be at least local, or regional in scope. Maybe it should be a military function? I don’t know.
I just think it would be foolish not to have a plan.
Are we talking slow moving events over decades or fast things like random weather? Things like Viking colonies are kind of irrelevant these days given modern transportation and communications speeds. We already have “disaster” plans and processes in place for the short term stuff, and while the effects on a micro scale may be devastating, on a macro scale they work pretty well. As far as Long-term changes, that may or may not even be an issue, those are the things I am talking about. Those effects would be best mitigated or handled by a free-market and free-will. The changes would incremental and dependent on the specific local circumstances. Again, may be difficult on a micro scale but on a macro-scale would likely barely be recognized.
As far as the WHO…………in the states the LAST people you would want is the military. In other nations………well, that’s specific to each.
Good points all. I guess I’m just saying it’s better to have a plan and not need it, than to need a plan and not have one. That’s all I’m saying. For example, let’s take agriculture. Let’s say the climate gets warmer and wetter. What crops grow better in warmer, wetter climates? Things like that. But I do see your point as that kind of information would be easily found with a simple web search and could probably be implemented rather quickly.
You’re right. It’s just that I am an err-on-the-side-of-caution kind of guy.
So Neil- your planning will or should be based upon what? Warming or cooling? I thought you agreed with neither, or is it both? And if as you have said so many times whatever changes are natural, why do you disagree with Zman? Are you continuing the trend of yours to disagree with everyone/everything?
First of all, I never claimed that the climate was static and have acknowledged that the climate changes naturally, without any help or hindrance from humans.
If you read what I said above you would see the answer to your first questions. I clearly state that I think plans should be made for all possibilities.
Secondly, what makes you think that I am disagreeing with Zman? If you read my previous post, the first line is “I don’t disagree with what you are saying.”. And I don’t. I would characterize this as a discussion, not a disagreement. Perhaps you could say that there is a minor point of contention, but it’s not the pointless argumentative gibberish that I get from like, say……YOU.
Yes, we all know how you feel about me. So you are advocating for planning for all contingencies, warming and cooling, and both depending upon where in the world these things are happening…? Although you state it as “all possibilities” which seems to be to be mind boggling. Even if it is restated as I did above, it would still be almost unworkable if indeed unworkable for any actual and realistic planning. Perhaps you could clarify this aspect because I think it is a HUGE “statement” you are making.
Not really. For example the Pentagon has defense plans for all conceivable threat scenarios that they can think of. They seem to think it’s a good thing to think of what could happen, and think about what the response should be. So if “A” happens they can pull out plan “A”. Or if “F” happens they can pull out plan “F”.
Zman doesn’t think it is necessary to make plans for possible climate changes because they happen relatively slowly, and because information and communication technology today is good enough that we can adapt quickly. And I don’t disagree with that. I’m just asking if it might be a good idea to have plans in place for possible scenarios. Zman doesn’t think so and that’s ok. But that is it. That’s all I’m asking. Do you think it is a bad idea? I don’t think that Zman is saying it’s a bad idea, I think he’s just saying it’s not necessary.
As far as “all possibilities” being “mind boggling”, I say not really. There are four basic scenarios. 1. Warmer and wetter. 2. Warmer and drier. 3. Cooler and wetter. 4. Cooler and drier. Sorry if that boggles your mind.
Good comments. Both the wife and I have been saying for years that chang happens. It is how you prepare for change that matters most. As for CO2 it is fairly obvious to anyone with an honest approach to geophysical science that the scare is government inspired baloney designed to convince free people to exchange economic, energy and egaletarian freedom of all for a mess of pottage and a false sence of security. CO2 is what we breath out. It sounds to me like some Marxist scam artist said, “I wish we could tax the very air they (us) breath” and anoth Marxist said, “No! Wemust be subtle and tax the air they breath out.” Then the Communist bastards said, “Yes!Lets do that, they are gullible enough for that!”
This is my first time to make a comment on the climate. I have studied temperature charts of the atmosphere oceans co2 levels carbon monoxide methane hydro fluorocarbons and for every chart for global warming theorist there is yet one to contradict that finding I am a so called self ordained scientist no formal education but yet my thinking and reasoning is well thought and self educated. So here we go . I agree man kind can effect the climate but not at a rate we can calculate or measure on spans of decades or even a hundred years past.the earth is like a giant machine or like our own bodies when we over heat we use sweat and evaperational cooling to regulate our temperature earth does the same thing it directs heat into the oceans naturally.in my opinion earth is going through a natural cycle solar activity volcanoes natural green house gasses and other natural causes make up the vast majority of global warming or cooling by far over man made causes .natural I would bet over 99 percent man made less than 1 percent someone prove me wrong please.