taz.de
Climate Change: Ice Age Unlikely, Golf Courses Outsize Solar Land Use
A Science study refutes claims of an imminent ice age, predicting the next one in 10,000 years but deeming it unlikely due to CO2 emissions; a separate study shows that German golf courses occupy 25% more land than all solar plants combined.
- What are the key findings of the recent Science study regarding the timing of the next ice age, and how do these findings challenge existing climate change skepticism?
- A new study published in Science refutes claims of an impending ice age by identifying orbital factors causing ice ages, predicting the next one in approximately 10,000 years. However, researchers deem this unlikely due to current CO2 emissions disrupting natural climate cycles.
- What are the potential long-term implications of human-induced climate change on natural climate cycles, and what further research is needed to refine our understanding of this interaction?
- The study's findings demonstrate that human CO2 emissions have already significantly altered the natural climate cycle, rendering the predicted ice age improbable. This underscores the urgency of addressing climate change and challenges arguments against renewable energy based on land use.
- How does the study on the land use of golf courses in Germany, UK and the US compare to the land use of solar power plants, and what broader implications does this comparison have for the debate around renewable energy?
- The research team analyzed oxygen isotope ratios in foraminifera fossils and orbital parameters over the past 800,000 years, revealing a clear correlation between these factors and climate. This contradicts the 'cold sun' theory, highlighting the significant impact of human-induced climate change.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the debate by highlighting studies that refute climate skeptics' claims. This framing prioritizes a pro-renewable energy narrative and may downplay the complexities or challenges associated with the energy transition. The headline implicitly positions climate skepticism as wrong.
Language Bias
The article uses strong language in describing climate skeptics' arguments as "grob gesagt" (roughly speaking) and implies their arguments are easily refuted. This choice of words could be perceived as biased against the opposing viewpoint. Suggesting neutral alternatives like "according to" or "the argument is that" would improve neutrality.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on refuting climate skeptics' arguments but omits discussion of potential negative impacts of renewable energy sources, such as land use changes or visual pollution. It also doesn't address the economic implications of transitioning to renewable energy or the challenges in scaling up renewable energy infrastructure.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a false dichotomy by framing the debate as solely between climate change denial and the adoption of renewable energy. It neglects other perspectives or potential solutions, like nuclear energy or carbon capture technologies.
Gender Bias
The article uses gender-neutral language ("Forscher:innen") which is a positive aspect. However, a deeper analysis of the researchers' gender in the cited studies would be needed to assess for potential gender bias in the research itself, which is not provided.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights a scientific study refuting climate skepticism arguments. The study demonstrates that human CO2 emissions have disrupted the natural cycle of ice ages, emphasizing the urgency of climate action. Another study shows that the land area used for golf courses significantly exceeds that used for solar power, suggesting a potential solution for increasing renewable energy capacity while addressing land-use concerns. This directly supports climate action by highlighting the need to mitigate climate change and transition to renewable energy sources.