“If planners and governments want to prepare for a substantial “climate change” in the future, it’s global cooling they should be concerned about, not global warming.”
– Gregory F. Fegel
Descent into the next Glacial Period perhaps within our lifetimes
The effects of global cooling will be far more devastating than global warming.
Gregory F. Fegel
Unlike the current CO2-caused Global Warming hysteria, the threat of an approaching “Ice Age” Glacial Period that was presented in the 1970s was based on solid science — including the combined evidence of the geologic record, ice cores, sea sediments, and pollens, all of which matched the cyclical insolation (amount of sunlight) pattern caused by the orbital Milankovitch cycles. In the 1970s, it was confirmed that the Milankovitch cycles cause the Ice Age cycle — which is taught in earth-science textbooks.
In the 1970s, the media emphasized the fact that a large change in the Earth’s mean global temperature could happen within decades — in that way the media promoted “global cooling hysteria” in the 1970s. In spite of the fact that the climate in the 1980s and 90s became warmer, the scientific evidence for an approaching Glacial Period was valid, and it remains valid. Some scientists claim that our current warm interglacial (the Holocene) will be different from the previous interglacials by lasting twice as long — giving us another 15,000 years of a warm climate. However, that theory of a warm 15,000-year extension is speculative.
Based on the regularity and timing of the Ice Age cycle so far, we should expect the descent into the next Glacial Period to begin (approximately) within hundreds of years, or perhaps within our own lifetimes. The idea that either natural or anthropogenic causes will intercede to prevent the next Glacial Period from returning within its usual time-frame is speculative — and it is perhaps a result of wishful thinking.
If planners and governments want to prepare for a substantial “climate change” in the future, it’s global cooling they should be concerned about, not global warming. Firstly, because severe global cooling is more likely to happen (eventually). Secondly, because the effects of global cooling will be far more devastating than global warming. A global sea-level rise caused by global warming would be easier to cope with than arctic conditions in Northern Europe, Russia, Canada, and Alaska caused by global cooling. A warmer global climate would be a net benefit for all life on Earth.