Slashdot Mirror
Siberian Permafrost Melting
TeknoHog writes "New
Scientist Reports on a remarkable runaway process of global warming
that has been going on in Siberia for the past few years. 'Western Siberia has warmed faster than almost anywhere else on the planet, with an increase in average temperatures of some 3C in the last 40 years.' As a result, a million
square kilometers (the area of France and Germany) of frozen peat bog have
been found to be melting, according to Russian and international
scientists. This releases methane, a potent greenhouse gas, which
contributes to further global warming."
Again, from all the science it seems like global warming will be a catastrophe, but it would be nice to find a few more bog people.
And yes, I have a degree in anthropology.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
With all that methane being produced, you could surely turn that area into a methane farm. We've got engines that can run off methane, and those could be used as generators for power into the grid. This would be a good thing for Russia. Might as well take advantage of the energy that's about to come your way.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
But as a native of Western Siberia I can confirm some very unusual weather patterns. For instance this summer has been so far very tropics-like. Around 35C during the day with 80%+ humidity. Very unusual...
US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
I'm sure our esteemed leader will put it in proper perspective just like he did with CO2 levels.
"We expel methane all the time...well, Laura and I do"
All real science I've ever seen shows global warming to be total bullshit. Also, we know from history that the planet goes through cycles of hot and cold (remember the fact that there was an Ice Age anyone?) so there's no proof that any changes in temperatures are from human causes.
Hello, we are coming out of an ice age! I know I am one of the 'unwashed masses' when it comes to the science of Global Warming, so don't take this as an authority, but last I heard, the Earth fluctuates quite frequently (geologic time) in temperature, and the dinosaurs were enjoying world-wide tropics.
We very well may be causing this, which would be bad, but what if we are not?
Before you mod me down, remember, good scientists ask lots of questions, annoying questions.
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to govern any other" -John Ada
Not only that, but the waste products would be water and carbon dioxide. CO2 is of course a greenhouse gas, but one far less potent than methane. IIRC, it's a factor of about 100 to 1, which means that if one molecule of methane produces one molecule of CO2 when burned, you're solving 99% of the problem.
It is debatable whether 99% remediation is sufficient, but surely it's a good start. At the very least, it would be nice to use some of the energy produced in combustion to sequester the CO2 rather than dump it into the atmosphere.
Mal-2
How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
The earth hasn't really been steadily warming up for the last thousand years. What it did was suddenly and drastically warm up about ten thousand years ago. Since then it has been relatively steady in a single place.
Aside from this, the problem with global warming is that it does not represent the earth steadily warming up-- even if the earth had been steadily warming before human-caused global warming started. Instead, what we see is a decidedly non-steady, drastic, sudden, and accelerating trend in increasing temperatures right at the beginning of the industrial age.
We very well may be causing this, which would be bad, but what if we are not?
Then we're going to have to come up with entirely new models of how climate and atmosphere works, because the ones we have right now all say at the most basic level that if you drastically increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (and humanity has definitely done this) the climate changes.
Aside from this, think of it like this. Driving while drunk might kill you. However, what if it will not? Well, to what extent does the answer to this question matter? Because that's an outside chance at best.
Before you mod me down, remember, good scientists ask lots of questions, annoying questions.
Indeed, so in future if I were you I would stick to asking questions rather than randomly positing statements like "the earth has been steadily warming up for the last several thousand years" without finding backup for that.
I agree. We need to stop improving our lot, return to the more sensible mores of the 16th century, and let the flu and the Black Death cull the human herd. That unfulfilled death wish needs to be granted!
Give me a break.
Henry Ford made millions, but he also made fire trucks more mobile. Too bad they didn't have that in 1871 Chicago.
Franklin, Edison, Tesla, Shockley and Turing made research and information retrieval so much easier. Are you willing to give up your beloved Slashdot? I didn't think so.
If you are, let me know, and I'll provide the shovel so you can dig your cave. Once you have a hole big enough, you can use the shovel to beat away the wild animals.
That you think a scientist's knowledge of economics would be relevent to his opinions about the nature of climate change says a lot.
I should buy some cement.
So, wait....if it's not natural for this formerly "permafrost" peat bog to be melting, how is it that this peat moss was, at some point, able to grow in the first place?
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
A few ideas...
- Abandon capitalism (though not freedom), it drives consumerism.
- Raise taxes, if taxes are high enough, then no one will have enough money to be consumers... wait, this is kind of like getting rid of capitalism.
- Teach people the value of community, and of living for something greater than trying to attain personal nirvana. We would probably have to ban advertising since the goal of advertising is to make us feel inadequate about our current status, and offers a solutions for $19.99.
Dang, I think I just became a communist, but that went out with the 90's, so that probably won't work either.
Changing the momentum which consumerism has developed this century is not going to be an easy task. It may be faster to just embrace it, in order to help accelerate it over the cliff it may or may not be headed towards a little sooner. It may be unfortunate that billions may go with it along with our economy, ecology, environment and all, but if the evolutionists are correct, a billion years from now, it will all just be an extra thick grey layer in some rock, and some scientist from the current dominant species will be trying to figure out what amazing catastrophy could have caused such a mass extinction as they simulate possible scenarious on their newly developed toxic byproduct producing technology.
Can technology solve the problems it is creating? It seems to be creating bigger problems than it is solving.
Maybe the Unibomber was right, and we should all go back and live in small farming communities.
Personally I think the problem is that the current dominating western culture promotes greed as a good thing. It must be good, it drives our economy, creates jobs, drives people to produce, etc... Unfortunately, it lacks any balance of heart.
I don't know about everyone else, but I'm going to hurry up and build my 70' composite catamaran and sail to Kenya so I can see the glaciers of Kilamanjaro before they are totally gone. Then I'll set out to answer the latest question that's been really nagging at me: "If we cut down all the trees on the earth, would the earth spin faster?" I think I'll start in the Amazon, there's a lot of big trees there.
What on Earth makes you think we can change it? What on Earth makes you think we should change it?!?! Are you so arrogant as to think we have a say in it? Maybe it's some other species' turn to rule the planet!
I am not left-handed, either!
There's an article on WorldChanging.com today about this very topic. They discuss the viability of terraforming techniques to address this problem.
The nearest terraforming solution would be the use of methanotrophes, a bacteria that is known to consume methane.
It's worth a read (it's enviro-techy, a good combination).
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003283.html
World Changing - News for Humans, Stuff about our planet
This is all interesting but as I take a few min today to think about this, I'm both concerned and excited.
On the one hand this is unknown territory for humans as you mention. It is the 'greenhouse effect' which could have dramatic consequences including an ice age if ocean currents flip.
It is playing with fire. This is possibly the worst thing that can happen in the last several thousand years.
But it is the greenhouse effect. If you have ever worked around greenhouses, you inject C02 to induce faster plant grow. Like plants like bogs..
Why did dinosaurs tower 3 stories? The biomass could support them. Would we survive a transition to a CO2 rich atmosphere? I don't know.
I live in Romania and the wather has gone bad here too. And I'm not talking about "oh, I didn't get my perfect tan" changes. I'm talking about floodings on a massive scale. I'm talking about thousands of people loosing EVERYTHING they have: houses, animals, crops. I'm talking about people dying. I'm talking about parents desperatly looking for their children for days, only to find them dead - if they find their bodies at all.
Definetly gives you an entirely new view on the global warming, because now it hits very close to home. It's not just another story in the evening news, it's something that affects you and the ones close to you.
So now when I read about this in Siberia, my first thought was: "Great! So in following years even more people will die or loose their houses..."
I'm getting married this year. And I find myself alarmingly often asking myself if I really want to raise a child in this world...
Then you need to factor in every single extinct homonid species and subspecies that did NOT make it.
Sure, humanity survived without technology. Mind you, we weren't exactly causing this level of pollution a million years ago, either. Even with just "natural causes" to contend with, the vast majority of hominids did NOT make it and we damn near didn't, either.
Will we survive global warming? Possibly. Humans are sufficiently numerous and sufficiently mobile that it would take a total collapse of the ecosystem to finish off the race. That could happen, though. It is possible.
Will it decimate humanity? Oh, very likely. I suspect the human population will be in the hundreds of millions, by the end of the century, rather than the projected tens of billions. It depends on just how much the environment lags behind the input.
If the lag is sufficiently small, we're seeing the major effects of what we're doing now right now. This means a 5C rise over the last century would result in a 5C rise this century (we've had exponential growth, so far, but efficiency is beginning to catch up, so we can't just do a simple extrapolation). A 10C total rise would finish off life in the tropics and severely reduce it in the subtropics.
If, however, the lag is closer to a century (much more likely) then we're barely seeing the effects of the Industrial Revolution. A 5C rise now could translate to a cumulative 20-25C rise over a century from now, with no additional input from us. That's just from what we've put into the environment already, allowing for the time lags inherent in a global scale.
But, of course, humans aren't going to stop the pollution tomorrow. And if efficiency does NOT improve to reduce pollution, then the 20-25C rise will be an underestimate. In that case, a few hamlets might survive on the antarctic continent, but the rest of the planet will resemble Death Valley.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Hey, I do not believe in god
You voted for a born-again christian.
believe humans are most likely to blame for global warming
You voted for a former oil company executive who believes that "the jury is still out" on global warming.
recycle everything I can, ride my bike to work year round (even though I do own an SUV)
You voted for a "free trade" booster who has opened the borders to more cheap disposable Chinese and Central american goods.
and, wait for it - voted for Bush. Twice. Wait, three times if you count the elder. Oh, and I have a PhD in biochemistry. There are many different reasons why people vote Republican.
Some kind of sadism / masochism thing?
Do you also hire someone to beat you with a whip?
Me? I am sick of entitlements.
Both the Democrats and the Republicans are crooked, everyone knows that. The Republicans dole out as much pork as anyone.
Fast forward to the present, I am now stuck with a Democratic governor (Gregoire, Washington) who, despite promising not to, stuck me with the most bloated budget ever. A nice reminder of why I vote Republican at the national level.
Take a look at the budgets coming out of our Republican-controlled congress. Neither party care about fiscal responsibility any more.
I'm not trying to be cruel here (unless you're... you know... into that...) but can you name even a SINGLE issue that you agree with W. on?
And no, the balanced budget thing doesn't count, since he didn't actually do it!
"Any connection between your reality and mine is purely coincidental." -Slashdot
I think this is really worth a look....I find that the truth about global warming has become harder to discern because of the various agendas out there - to quote Micheal Crichton from 'State Of Fear' - 'But as Alston Chase put it, "when the search for truth is confused with political advocacy, the pursuit of knowledge is reduced to the quest for power." That is the danger we now face. And this is why the intermixing of science and politics is a bad combination, with a bad history. We must remember the history, and be certain that what we present to the world as knowledge is disinterested and honest.' Further interesting reading - http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html
To quote Micheal Crichton - " But it is impossible to ignore how closely the history of global warming fits on the previous template for nuclear winter. Just as the earliest studies of nuclear winter stated that the uncertainties were so great that probabilites could never be known, so, too the first pronouncements on global warming argued strong limits on what could be determined with certainty about climate change. The 1995 IPCC draft report said, "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced." It also said, "No study to date has positively attributed all or part of observed climate changes to anthropogenic causes." Those statements were removed, and in their place appeared: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernable human influence on climate."
What is clear, however, is that on this issue, science and policy have become inextricably mixed to the point where it will be difficult, if not impossible, to separate them out. It is possible for an outside observer to ask serious questions about the conduct of investigations into global warming, such as whether we are taking appropriate steps to improve the quality of our observational data records, whether we are systematically obtaining the information that will clarify existing uncertainties, whether we have any organized disinterested mechanism to direct research in this contentious area."
How can people think, that mankind's effect on global warming must be proven completely true before acting on it? The fact that there is no consensus among scientists should be enough. Why, you might ask? What is the possible cost of not acting on it? What is the potential gain we win if we do not? What is the worst case scenario? Destruction of civilisation as we know it? Might not be but eveng semi-neglible possibility alone scares the sh*t out of me, especially when we compare it to potential gain of not losing couple of jobs. Btw. Anyone familiar with the Butterfly Effect? Very interesting reading indeed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect Mankind working almost as a whole to pump atmosphere full of CO2 and methane is a bit more than a butterfly flapping its wings. - Jussi
We're using up gobs of energy that was stored up a long long time ago, which necessarily produces heat [...]. Yearly consumption, by the way, is on the order of ~500 exajoules today. That's a buttload of energy, and if the earth can't get rid of it by radiating, it's just not gonna happen.
.367), so we get something like 5000 times the 500 exajoules.
Our energy production is in no way relevant, as the Earth's energy input from the Sun is still thousands of times more than that. Let's make a rough calculation... One kW per square meter makes 60*60*24*365*1000*pi*6300000^2=3.9322e+24 J per year. Divide that by your 500 exaJ, and you get about 8000. Ok, some is reflected (earth's albedo is
All heat on surface of earth is radiated to space, all the time, no matter how it is generated, so Earth's energy input and output are about exactly the same. It's the buffer effect of the atmosphere that matters.
So the only thing that is relevant, is CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, which keep the Sun's energy trapped. Please keep to the facts.
Insightful? Juvenile. Where's that mod option.
In (a), you're assuming that this is a do or die. Either they will make it to shore, or they won't. In reality, the question isn't "is the planet going to die" it's "how badly is the planet going to die, and how badly has it already died". So yes you are right, either we can (b) start bailing (fixing the problem) or (actually the proper word here is AND, but you'd rather we forget that) we can take measurements to see how bad the damage is, how permanent the damage is, and how quickly we need to fix things.
We have what every reputable (non-political / lobby) scientist declares a problem or potential problem. If this is a true problem, we are constantly doing damage even now. You are advising that we double check previous findings before attempting to fix it, instead of attempting to fix it while double checking at the same time. Let me spell this out for you: If we try to fix it and it turns out not to be a problem, we lose billions or trillions of dollars (note: "lose" is of course not taking into account the reduced pollution which is a huge gain even if global warming doesn't exist). If we don't try to fix it while double checking, we lose the footing we need to combat the problem.
Here's another analogy. There is a colored plastic cup upside-down on a table. Underneath is either a mini-cupcake or termite digging into the table. Scientists hear scratching noises through the cup, but can't lift it. Either we fix the problem (smash the cup) which might ruin a cupcake if that is under it, however if it's a termite, we stop an infestation before it enters the table. If we wait around and double check our readings to confirm a termite, it will burrow into the table and squishing it will no longer be possible.
or
c) patch up the leaks and keep working, cause if they don't make a catch on this trip they'll be broke. If they make a catch they might be able to afford patch materials for the next trip AND have money to feed their families.
I believe that's the current method being used.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
On a scale of tens of thousands of years it's obvious that the planet has a cyclic climate, oscillating between ice ages and periods of warmer temperatures than we have now.
There is a much shorter climate-related transgression cycle for most coasts. In the Netherlands geology, archeology, and history suggest roughly the following cycle for the last few millenia:
Duinkerke III B (1000 - 1200)
Duinkerke III A (800 - 1000)
Duinkerke II (250 - 600)
Duinkerke I (500 - 200 BC)
Duinkerke 0 (1500 - 1000 BC)
Calais IV B (2150 - 1800 BC)
Calais IV A2 (2450 - 2150 BC)
Calais IV A1 (2700 - 2450 BC)
Calais III (3300 - 2700 BC)
The recent stability of coastlines is clearly exceptional. The map of Ptolemaeus for instance, based on Duinkerke I data, shows most of the Netherlands, a part of Belgium, the east of England, and the Venice area in Italy missing (consistent with a modest rise of the sea level).
Peat formation occurs only in specific cold, wet, and acidic conditions. If land along the coast contains a large amount of peat, a few degrees of warming causing just a slight rise of the sea level, also causes the land to sink. In a few decades land can sink into the sea or turn into a lake, as our ancestors have frequently seen happening in the early middle ages. In 2003 we had two small floods in the Netherlands caused by collapsing peat dikes because of the unusually dry weather.
In the case of Siberia there is another major catalyst for quick change: melting of frozen water in peat. A little change in climate can have great consequences, apparently.
If we have reached some sort of tipping point then hold on. Humans will either learn to adapt or we'll die. I happen to think we'll adapt just fine.
Me too, but I am starting to get slightly worried about the future value of my house.
But the free market is happily 'solving' the problem of Co2 emissions.
;-) ) is to be supportive of measures that fund alternative energy (yes, nuclear power, even if you hate bush, nuclear power is most likely the only short-term way out of fossil fuel dependence at almost *any* price), and to be supportive of measures that increase the price of fossil fuels (no Alaskan oil exploration. no excess U.S. refinery permits).
Anyone notice the price of oil (and other fossil fuels, which have gone up dramatically as well) today?
Back when I was a debater, in college, virtually every proposal to counter Co2 emissions was dependant upon altering the prices of fossil fuels.
Sure, the mechanisms were different; some utilized high levels of taxes, implemented globally. Some used means of artificially limiting supply; when we agree to burn only x exajoules of energy, the price per unit goes up.
In any case, none of those proposals (all of which were directly from left leaning political panels on climate change) envisioned prices as high as they are now, or as high as they are projected to be in the near future. I do not believe there is anyway that political action will be able to unite all the major Co2 emitting countries under one policy. It's simply impossible.
Significantly higher oil prices? We'll have conservation out the wazoo, now, and alternate energy technologies (yes, including Nuclear, which is probably the best way out of fossil fuels in the short run (you take what you can get, and there is the potential for a really wonderful powersource, if the only idiotic nuclear companies would step out of the way for the latest and greatest designs being used in research throughout the world)) are on the short-term horizon.
Anyone notice the hybrid trend? Or walk into a honda dealership or a saturn dealership?
See all the signs about conservation? Fuel Efficiency? Mark my words-- If oil prices collapse again, all of this green-wave will vanish. Keep oil prices high, and we'll move off the fossil fuel economy in the near future.
Quite frankly, if you are really worried about emissions-related global warming, (which I'm not, there are many other factors which I believe account for warming better than industrial era emissions. Like humanities desire to clear forests, and the resulting desertification. Or conversion of various land types to ecologically useless farmland) your best bet is to vote for policies that keep oil prices high, and drive it up through the roof.
If oil was $120-200 a barrel, electric cars would be a reality, even with their dinky 100 mile range. If oil was that high, nuclear plants would be built *right-now*, and the major auto companies would be building a hydrogen economy in conjunction with the oil companies *right-now*. Oh, and oil is projected to be at these levels if demand patterns continue to grow at their current rate.
I never believed the supply-side problems presented by the dooms-dayers of the 70. Rather, I thought we would experience demand that slowly outstripped supply, allowing the market to adjust economic allocations to account for it. That's exactly what we are experiencing. These corporations already have their plans laid; they've been waiting for economic conditions to be right, so they can get the jump on their competitors.
Basically, I'm asking for people to stop clamoring for lower gas prices. It's a blessing in disguise. If oil prices had only gone up from their high in the 70s, we'd live in a different world today. It's really too bad that the Shah's regime collapsed; as the architech of the first-wave price hikes, he would have unknowingly corrected the world dependence on fossil fuels.
The next best step for concerned individuals to take (i.e. people who are not the dictators of statist regimes who can alter prices at whim
That's the way out of fossil fuel emissions. You'll *never*, *ever* get a pure political solution. Attack the economics of the problem, and the free market
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Yes, I don't doubt that a true religious zealot would feel a need to get violent on the heretics. After all, we've already seen that in the form of the Inquisition. Nothing new there. If anything, it just proves my point that some people found _religion_, not science, there.
However, the question is, can you actually argue a point without crap like "I wanted to slap you like a bitch" or "you stupid cunt"? Zealot tantrums are an amusing read, but sadly prove nothing in science.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
The Soviet Communists produced more oil during the Cold War than anyone else. The Chinese Communists are consuming more oil than ever before, becoming a net importer in the 1990s, rather than exporter: this is one reason oil prices are higher than ever before. And it's just going to get worse. Meanwhile, your Capitalist heroes in the White House have you and I spending our tax dollars on their war in Iraq, which is a total disaster, for no reason other than to spend our tax dollars in Iraq (OK, and to keep us scared and dependent on their Daddy State).
So you, sick fool, are laughing. Making posts with no content, just some inane partisan crack. While talking about "communists", as if the real ones weren't part of the problem, in collusion with your oil corporate government heroes. When are you going to shut up and let the adults talk about how to salvage the wreck your boys have made? Or at least enlist and go to Iraq as a soldier to "support the troops", instead of just slapping a magnetic sticker (made of oil, in China) on the back of your suburban 12MPG SUV?
--
make install -not war
Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 10 years. I'm an electrical engineerand during my studies in sub-atomic physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be effected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and I believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? I've been bouncing this idea in my head for a while now and I can't see why this MAY not be true.
GALLANT claims "the jury is still out" on evolution or global warming, since he considers himself to be on the jury.
Here's a surprise for you: there are GALLANT's and GOOFUS's on both sides of the fence.
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
No. There are at this point exactly three possible reasons that somebody could vote Republican:
Me? I am sick of entitlements.
And so you vote for the party *most* commited to them?!?
That puts you squarely in category 2.
If anybody else doubts this, let's hear your reasons. It's really pretty simple to put them in one or more of those categories.
Well, it's both more and less complex than you suggest.
...). When it is later removed, they BOUNCE. So expect lots of vulacanism. What's lots? I have no idea. I think that the Deccan Trapps were set off by a meteor impact (on the other side of the world), so it probably wouldn't be that bad. My WAG (wild ass guess) is: Think of the "ring of fire" the circles the Pacific. Now imagine it two or three times as active, and all around the atlantic as well. And at a few places in the continental interiors. And that's definitely a WAG.
I'm no climate scientist, so take this with a grain of salt, but:
Different "greenhouse gasses" block different parts of the spectrum. It's my understanding that the section that CO2 blocks is already nearly closed. That means that further increases in CO2 will have little effect...there.
OTOH, methane blocks a different window. Ditto for sulfide ions (or perhaps it's hydrogen sulfide).
When a window is blocked, further releases have little effect on temperature, but continued releases prevent the window opening as the current gasses are cycled into the environment.
Methane has a relatively short half-life in the atmosphere. On the order of a decade. Then bacteria eat it and it gets turned into CO2.
HOWEVER, those methane clathrates that you mentioned are stored in "ices" that are very sensitive to the pressure and the temperature of the ocean that surrounds them. Occasionally something happens that causes large releases. If you know what, you know more than I do, but a warmer ocean sounds plausible.
Then there's another greenhouse gas. Water vapor. And we KNOW that that one's quite sensitive to temperature. The hotter it gets, the more water evaporates from the surface of the ocean. The warmer the air is, the longer it stays evaporated. And it's a very potent greenhouse gas.
Now the interesting thing is, the ocean has a long delay built into it. Water only evaporates from the surface, but the ocean has to be heated as a whole, and it has a vast thermal bulk. And water vapor in air is unstable. It tends to percipitate.
So the oceans are slowly being heated, which is increasing the rate of evaporation. And while a warmer atmosphere can hold more water, it can't hold an ocean's worth. So percipitation happens...but where? Not where it used to!
At some point we should start seing wild artic storms...something that hasn't been seen in centuries (at least). As long as the snow all melts in summer, the average temperature of the world will continue increasing, but at some point there will be a year of wilder than normal storms followed by a colder than average summer. This will lead to increased ice-pack, and snow not melting in the summer. But the ocean is still HOT, so it keeps evaporating more water. And in a few years, perhaps less than a decade, the glaciers will again start marching South.
As more and more land is covered by year-round snow, more light gets reflected back out into space. But it takes a long time for the oceans to give up their heat, and until they have finished doing so, there will be lots of percipitation every year, and each year more of it will be in the form of ice and snow.
This vast accumulation of ice and snow on the surface of the land will cause the ocean level to drop. (Sorry, I left out the ocean level rising during the lead up, but you're already familiar with that one.)
The last time the glaciers marched they scooped out the great lakes and Yosemite valley. That's around the latitude of San Francisco and Washington. I'm not sure how far South they got in Europe...but most of it was covered. (OTOH, the Mediterranian Sea was a fertile grassland. The sea level REALLY dropped.)
Another feature of this is that the continents float on a layer of underlying magma, and how high they float depends on how much weight is present. Water is heavy, so when the glaciation is in full force, the continents start to submerge into the magma (they never get very far
So. Well, if you ask how much certainty I have in that model...not much, but more than in any alternative I've been presented with.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.