ST. PETERSBURG, August 25 (RIA Novosti)- Global cooling could develop on Earth in 50 years and have serious consequences before it is replaced by a period of warming in the early 22nd century, a Russian scientist said Friday.
Environmentalists and scientists today focus on the dangers of global warming provoked by man's detrimental effect on the planet's climate, but global cooling - though never widely supported - is a theory postulating an overwhelming cooling of the Earth which could involve glaciation.
"On the basis of our [solar emission] research, we developed a scenario of a global cooling of the Earth's climate by the middle of this century and the beginning of a regular 200-year-long cycle of the climate's global warming at the start of the 22nd century," said the head of the space research sector of the Russian Academy of Sciences' astronomical observatory.
Khabibullo Abdusamatov said he and his colleagues had concluded that a period of global cooling similar to one seen in the late 17th century - when canals froze in the Netherlands and people had to leave their dwellings in Greenland - could start in 2012-2015 and reach its peak in 2055-2060.
He said he believed the future climate change would have very serious consequences and that authorities should start preparing for them today because "climate cooling is connected with changing temperatures, especially for northern countries."
"The Kyoto initiatives to save the planet from the greenhouse effect should be put off until better times," he said, referring to an international treaty on climate change targeting greenhouse gas emissions.
"The global temperature maximum has been reached on Earth, and Earth's global temperature will decline to a climatic minimum even without the Kyoto protocol," Abdusamatov said.
2006-08-25 05:07:59 · 11 answers · asked by kathy_is_a_nurse 7 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Ok I think global warning means that they are afraid the artic ice caps will melt therefore raising the sea level... Am I Right? well if I am then I want you to try puttin some ice cubes in a cup of water, then put them in a large amount of heat and watch them melt... then tell me if the amount of water in the cup raises or stays the same.. my point is that the icecaps are mosty underwater, meaning that there mass is already making the water rise, when they melt it will just convert that mass into watermass and therefore make little or no changes, am I right?
2006-08-25 05:29:23 · answer #1 · answered by Mr. BaSkEtBaLl 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I believe the key words in that article are 'global cooling - though never widely supported'
All you have to do is look at graphs outlining the earth's temperature over the last 600,000 years taken from ice core samples, and you can see the Earth is wrming, regardless whether it's a natural cycle or caused by man.
That being said....Ice Ages typically follow excessive warming trends in the past, so maybe that's what the author means.
2006-08-25 05:12:51 · answer #2 · answered by Mike V 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
It's all up for dispute, and we don't know if this guy's science is sound, but it sure looks ilke we are warming up too fast. There is much evidence to support the fact humans have increased the warming of the earth with pollution, etc. It's a fact. However, much is yet to be learnt. It doesn't mean we shouldn't decrease pollution drastically. It also doesn't mean global warming is the cause of all the problems on Earth.
2006-08-25 05:11:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Hmm.. sorry, I still think there is a huge chance of global warming, and either way we have to stop destroying our ozone. What we should really do is collect all the methane from the rainforest and use it to fuel our cars instead of using fossil fuels. It's a plus for our earth both ways because we cut down on a toxicating surplus and stop using a resource which won't be available forever.
2006-08-25 05:18:40 · answer #4 · answered by octopus hand 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Gee, it's not scientific, but I'd rather do all the things we know we need to do to offset global warming and find out in 50 years we didn't need to.
I live 8 feet above sea level on an island in San Francisco Bay. Any rise in the sea level will impact my life! I think giving up my carbon footprint is worth it.
2006-08-25 05:12:03 · answer #5 · answered by soxrcat 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You're right, we should just chop all the rain forests down decrease auto emissions standards, and allow corporations to dump toxic wastes into our streams. Oh, and drill for oil in Alaska...oh wait a minute...*nobody really knows* how much oil is up there...
2006-08-25 05:12:22 · answer #6 · answered by nfaustman 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
If you don't understand a question, DON'T ANSWER IT! How hard is that to do?
2016-11-30 11:45:38 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
of course no one knows for sure.
do you really want to take that chance though?
2006-08-25 05:14:53 · answer #8 · answered by badotisthecat 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Okay, no one really knows.
2006-08-25 05:09:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
no one knows for sure.
2006-08-25 05:10:01 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋