Ice cold or fiery, hell?

Climate change. Who to believe? For decades we've been hearing about global warming and how human activities are causing a build up of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, leading to higher average temperatures, melting of the ice caps, desertification, and other calamities. This year Ottawa (the world's 7th coldest national capital) has even expressed concerns that its Winterlude festival will be marred by the unseasonably warm weather. The Rideau Canal may not be skateable, and the ice sculpture exhibits would vanish before anyone even gets a chance to comment on how labour-intensive yet pointless they are. Ottawa would lose yet another claim to fame in its pathetic attempt to remind the world that it is the capital of Canada, and not Toronto, the Big Smoke as they refer to it, whom they probably blame for this global warming thing.

Lately, I've been seeing more and more scientific claims that suggest a trend of global icing rather than global warming though. Many cite that we are overdue for another ice age, while others add that pumping CO2 into the atmosphere is actually beneficial and keeping the next ice age at bay. One supposed environmentalist even went as far as to say that we should burn even more fossil fuels, and quickly deplete the world's supply because that would really force industry to come up with more environmentally friendly alternatives. Nothing drives innovation like desperate necessity. Hmm, why do I get the sense that his paycheques are stamped by some major oil conglomerate? That aside, there are credible scientific sources that believe global cooling is occurring. The journal of Nature reports that British researchers have detected a weakening of key currents in the North Atlantic, responsible for bringing cold arctic waters south and warm waters north. Slowed by as much as 30% in the last decade, this could cause progressively colder winters for Canada and Europe. So, are we destined for an ice cold hell or a fiery one?

It's funny how both extreme camps of "scientists" often fail to mention that we really don't know jack. At best, our data shows but one century of the earth's 4.6 billion-year existance. How can we make such drastic predictions of where the planet is heading next with any certainty? We can't. And rest assured, the Earth will persevere no matter what we do to it, but whether we'll be around for the next phase of its existance is a matter of us behaving ourselves or not (read up on the Gaia theory). The Earth's current state is ideal for us, but throughout its history that has mostly not been the case. Should we not do our best to keep the status quo so as to avoid a major paradigm shift (buzzword of the day)?

Regardless of the theory you prescribe to, which scenario would you prefer? I find an ice age much more attractive than a desert world. I think we're better at finding ways to heat ourselves, than we are at finding drinking water in arid places. You must also understand that even in an extreme ice age, the tropics would be relatively pleasant. Plus history has shown that nothing speeds-up human innovation like an ice age. It's one of those things that if it doesn't kill us (and it never has), only makes us stronger. As for polluting the atmosphere further in an effort to slow down an oncoming ice age...I give that idea a stiff 2 finger salute!

Aside: Too often I hear people cite ozone depletion as the cause of global warming. This of course is not the case. Ozone depletion is caused by the release of CFC's (aerosols) which eat away at the ozone layer, causing the polar "ozone holes". This does not cause global warming, but rather allows for deadly solar rays to reach us and give us skin cancers, instead of bouncing off into space harmlessly. Global warming on the other hand is caused by the release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, which when they accumulate in great amounts, prevent heat from escaping from the planet. They form an atmospheric blanket around earth, causing the planet to get hotter and hotter. Venus is the perfect example of the runaway greenhouse effect. Mars on the other hand got stuck in an ice age. So far, our Earth is a happy medium. Also, if ozone (O3) is created by our factories and when released near the surface, is considered pollution, how come no one has found a way to shove it up where it can be beneficial to us and plug up the ozone holes? Just wondering.

Update: It seems ozone depletion is not the only culprit in the apparent increase of skin and other cancer cases. The Earth's magnetic field has weakened by as much as 6% in the last century. This magnetic field is what shields us from the onslought of deadly cosmic rays that would normally tear our bodies apart if they weren't mostly deflected out into space by the shield. Obviously other factors play a role in cancer prevalence as well...people living longer, greater daily exposure to chemicals, etc.