
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - gibsonf1
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0
======
russell
It's an article about the Milanankovitch Theory
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch> which theorizes that ice ages are
caused by cycles in the eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the
earth's orbit. The Wikipedia article cites some problems with the theory.

There are other theories. One I like is that ice ages are caused by global
warming. The arctic ocean becomes ice free leading to increased evaporation
and water from the melting Greenland ice cap shuts off the gulf stream,
resulting in lots more snow and big glaciers. [citation needed] And maybe it's
variations in the the sunspot cycle, the Maunder Minimum, but bigger.

------
softbuilder
Well it's Pravda, so it's gotta be true, right?

~~~
dpifke
"There is no truth in News, and there is no news in Truth."

[http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/09/there_is_no_truth_i...](http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2007/09/there_is_no_truth_in_the_news_and_no_news_in_the_t.html)

------
gaius
Well, the satellite data shows a cooling trend since '98.

~~~
dejb
Some measurements of air temperatures show failing temperatures but the sea
has been steadily warming. The amount of heat stored by water is much greater
than air and so the total heat in the system has increased.

<http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527>

------
Silentio
Wasn't the earth on the brink of an ice age sometime in the '70s? I recall my
aunts and uncles talking about this a few Thanksgivings ago.

~~~
martythemaniak
No, it is a little diversionary tactic used by anti-global warming crusaders.

What happened was a few scientists mused about it in a few papers and a few
publications wrote articles about it, but it was _never_ investigated deeply
nor was it ever endorsed by scientific organizations like the NAS.

So what did the NAS say in the mid-70s about "global cooling"?

>>"we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and
what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not
seem possible to predict climate."

Fast forward to today, and what is the NAS stance on global warming?

>> "In the judgment of most climate scientists, Earth’s warming in recent
decades has been caused primarily by human activities that have increased the
amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. ... On climate change, [the
National Academies’ reports] have assessed consensus findings on the
science..."

How people believe the two to be one and the same is quite beyond me.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling>
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_c...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change)

~~~
jgranby
It amuses me the great lengths people go to trying to downplay 70s global
cooling. You're doing it yourself -- _a few_ scientists, _a few_ publications.
If it really was only a few publications, and as trivial as you insist, then
why does everyone remember it so well? And if it really was a crackpot
minority getting undeserved media attention, where was the backlash from the
alleged majority of scientists who didn't believe it? The majority these days
are pretty quick to discredit anyone who questions global warming. It doesn't
seem to me that there were many scientists back then labeling it a crusader's
diversionary tactic.

~~~
Retric
Are you surprised by bad science reporting?

I mean we must have 10,000 cures for cancer by now ;-)

PS: There is a fair amount of global cooling due to particulate matter in the
air. However, while CO2 sticks around particulate matter tends to end up as
dust.

