backtop


Print 103 comment(s) - last by woolly1.. on Aug 23 at 11:56 PM


Dr. Velasco Herrara  (Source: Reuters)
A "little ice age" in our future?

Previous DailyTech stories have detailed recent cooling experienced by the planet, and highlighted some of the scientists currently predicting extended global cooling.  Even the UN IPCC has stated that world temperatures may continue to decline, if only briefly.

Now, an expert in geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico has added his voice to the fray. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at UNAM's Institute of Geophysics, has predicted an imminent period of cooling intense enough to be called a small ice age.

Speaking to a crowd at a conference at the Center for Applied Sciences and Technological Development, Herrera says the sun can both cool and warm the planet. Variations in solar activity, he says, are causing changes in the Earth's climate.

"So that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years", he said. "The most immediate result will be drought."  Herrera says satellite temperature data indicates this cooling may have already begun.

Recent increases in glacier mass in the Andes, Patagonia, and Canada were given as further evidence of an upcoming cold spell.

Herrera also described the predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as "erroneous". According to Herrera, their forecasts “are incorrect because are only based on mathematical models which do not include [factors such as] solar activity".

Herrera pointed to the so-called "Little Ice Age" which peaked in the 17th century, as a previous cooling event caused by solar fluctuations.

Herrera made his remarks at UNAM, located in Mexico City, is the oldest university on the North American continent.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

well...
By mdogs444 on 8/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: well...
By FITCamaro on 8/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: well...
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 8:44:26 AM , Rating: 4
But hey Wedding Crashers showed us death can make some chicks horny. So go with that.


RE: well...
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 8:51:14 AM , Rating: 1
Haha yeah no kidding. The rat dog (min pin) is great though - but I hate her damn poodle that gets its nails painted.

The Great Dane though is a pain in the butt in the winter and spring - having to wash its feet every time you take it out so it doesn't drag mud and dirty water all over the house.

I offered to build a permanent dog house in the back yard, but the gf wasn't having it.


RE: well...
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 8:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
I meant the poodle.


RE: well...
By mdogs444 on 8/20/2008 8:57:08 AM , Rating: 2
Easier thing to do would be to move south, and not deal with this Ohio winter crap, right?


RE: well...
By mvpx02 on 8/20/2008 11:58:41 AM , Rating: 2
winters anywhere north are too cold, summers anywhere south are too hot, ohio's a nice compromise


RE: well...
By porkpie on 8/20/2008 12:20:56 PM , Rating: 2
Summers here in Florida aren't a lot hotter than Ohio. They're just a whole lot muggier.


RE: well...
By HrilL on 8/20/2008 12:24:34 PM , Rating: 1
Its called Santa Barbara California. Not that I want more people here but it never gets too hot and it never gets too cold. We might have 5 nights in the winter where it gets below 32 and like 5 days in the summer where we might get into the lower 90s. But not everyone can live in paradise.


RE: well...
By deeznuts on 8/20/2008 1:34:11 PM , Rating: 1
Sounds like you're describing San Diego.

Ohio just right? I think that's the first time I heard that. And our company's outside counsel is in Natti, so I hear their opinions all the time when they come out here.


RE: well...
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 2:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
That made me laugh.


RE: well...
By therealnickdanger on 8/20/2008 3:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
I've got friends out there... very nice place to visit! Far to expensive for me to live, however. Too many homeless people too. Too many to jump with my skateboard, that's for damned sure.


RE: well...
By Adonlude on 8/20/2008 3:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
You beat me to it! Santa Barbara is the perfect city... but I shouldn't say too much becuase like you said we dont need more people moving here. Perhaps we can demolish some of these barrios like around Milpas to make more room for good people?


RE: well...
By 67STANG on 8/20/2008 5:04:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm moving to Ventura in 3 months. Looked at both Santa Barbara and Carpinteria, but they were both over 700k for a 3 bedroom house... I'm "settling" for Ventura where the temp is the same and the housing is roughly 30% cheaper.

Either way, coming from the San Joaquin Valley, the cost is ridiculous. But since it's generally 30 degrees cooler there in the summer, it's worth it.


RE: well...
By HrilL on 8/21/2008 11:32:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yes there is more wind in venura but still a very nice place to live. I have family there as well.


RE: well...
By AlexWade on 8/20/2008 1:01:20 PM , Rating: 2
Well, sure if you can stand Ohio. I'd consider a little west in Indiana.


RE: well...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/20/2008 1:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
No, Ohio is Ohio like most mid west/central states.

Hawaii is a nice compromise.


RE: well...
By ShaolinSoccer on 8/20/2008 10:56:49 PM , Rating: 2
Cincinnati get's very hot during the summer and also has bad winters. I don't think I'll ever wanna go back to that city.


RE: well...
By slawless on 8/20/2008 1:08:05 PM , Rating: 2
more and more people are beginning to realize we are cooling. This is bad news. we can do something about warming (seeding the stratosphere to increase albedo among others) but with cooling we are screwed.

dont have time to spellcheck


RE: well...
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/20/2008 1:41:30 PM , Rating: 3
Sure we can do something about cooling - drive more and fart more....

The truth is we could not do anything about the heating up of the world either.... People just like to give you the idea we can. If the Sun gets much hotter we are going to get much hotter....Colder, we will get colder. Really that simple.


RE: well...
By matriarch wolf on 8/21/2008 1:32:29 PM , Rating: 2
and yet they STILL gave al gore the nobel peace prize for his blathering idiocy.


Scary stuff
By porkpie on 8/20/2008 12:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
It's really getting frightening how many scientists are starting to predict this stuff. Ice Ages can come on very fast once they get started. I once read that glaciers rolled down and covered most of North America in less than 100 years.




RE: Scary stuff
By Screwballl on 8/20/2008 12:58:53 PM , Rating: 2
right... I also read and saw a science movie where the entire northern hemisphere was plunged into an ice age in a matter of a week....

Don't believe everything you read or hear or see


RE: Scary stuff
By boogle on 8/20/2008 1:12:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
right... I also read and saw a science movie where the entire northern hemisphere was plunged into an ice age in a matter of a week....


Where will you be the day after tomorrow?

It'll happen, you'll see! ITS GONNA GET COLD, AND BADLY ANIMATED WILD DOGS WILL APPEAR FROM NO WHERE AND TRY TO EAT YOU!!!


RE: Scary stuff
By Mitch101 on 8/20/2008 2:11:10 PM , Rating: 2
And if you see badly animated dogs then the Hulk cant be too far away.


RE: Scary stuff
By snownpaint on 8/20/2008 2:26:30 PM , Rating: 2
Then the mutants from the umbrella corp. pop up and we have to take them down. Banding the human race together and ending all wars to fight the zombies (in the snow)..

Bring on the cooling.. Invest in Potatoes.. They saved Europe during the little ice age..

The one thing I can tell you is, at one time Antarctica was a warm and nice place; Sahara Desert was like the FL everglades and N.America plains were once swamps.

P.S. This is good to hear, I hate the summer heat..


RE: Scary stuff
By 16nm on 8/20/2008 2:47:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
BADLY ANIMATED WILD DOGS WILL APPEAR FROM NO WHERE AND TRY TO EAT YOU!


You're thinking of the movie I AM ONE. :)


RE: Scary stuff
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 1:18:41 PM , Rating: 2
During an ice age, glaciers can indeed cover a continent in a very short period of time. This has been confirmed by a considerable body of research.

Even today, a glacier such as Greenland's Jacobshvan is moving at up to 8 miles a year.


RE: Scary stuff
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 8/20/2008 1:48:18 PM , Rating: 2
even a mini-ice age? Say 200 years. Is there enough time? Keeping in mind average temp drops but does not drop 30 to 40 degrees.


RE: Scary stuff
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 2:16:03 PM , Rating: 2
For a little ice age? No. We didn't see glaciers advance more than a few dozen miles during the last Maunder Minimum; I don't believe anyone is predicting even that much for this one.

Still, the next significant Ice Age is due at some point. No one can predict when it will occur, but its definitely coming eventually.


RE: Scary stuff
By JohnnyCNote on 8/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Scary stuff
By omnicronx on 8/20/2008 2:15:10 PM , Rating: 2
This is not really a new prediction, its has been pretty much common knowledge since we started recording solar activity (sunspots) since the 1600's. Our last 'mini' ice age was called the Maunder Minimum and scientists noticed that during this time there were fewer spots on the sun then ever before, with some years having 1 or zero sunspots. Compare that to today where solar activity was once very high, and has now significantly dropped since 2004.

I am not saying this will come true, all I am saying is chances are, it will happen again. But for all we know next year the sun could suddenly become active again, its not exactly an exact science.


RE: Scary stuff
By Steve Stip on 8/20/2008 2:34:25 PM , Rating: 4
I once stopped a glacier in Alaska from moving but it was boring work so I quit.


An expert from the "University of Mexico"
By johnbuk on 8/20/2008 2:09:50 PM , Rating: 5
The "University of Mexico"- isn't that the source the Weekly World News used to use for all of it's reporting?

I miss the regular reports on Bat Boy and am disappointed I won't get to read about Obama and McCain meeting with aliens.




RE: An expert from the "University of Mexico"
By jaimesheiro on 8/20/2008 2:24:14 PM , Rating: 4
UNAM is second largest school in the world. Several Nobel Prize winners have graduate from it.

How many come from your college?


RE: An expert from the "University of Mexico"
By JasonMick (blog) on 8/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: An expert from the "University of Mexico"
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 4:03:11 PM , Rating: 4
> "Guy seems like a crackpot to me. "

He's a crackpot because he has three Ph.D.s and you don't know how to use Google Scholar? Interesting logic you have there.

Here's a list of his publications:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&q=Herr...


RE: An expert from the "University of Mexico"
By ipay on 8/21/2008 8:50:42 AM , Rating: 1
And amongst his recent publications is 'Territorial Manifestations of the Economical Influence Areas of Global Warming and Climate Change'.

Why would he co-author a paper that accepts the reality of AGW if he says it's not happening?

Either your story is based on a lie and Herrera has not said the things attributed to him - this wouldn't be the first time the denial gang have lied to further their cause - or he's some combination of deranged and dishonest.

It must be frustrating fighting a battle where all evidence and reality conspires against you....


By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 11:26:32 AM , Rating: 3
> "Why would he co-author a paper that accepts the reality of AGW if he says it's not happening?"

You are confused. Climate change does not equate to anthropogenic global warming. Herrera believes in climate change; he simply believes the sun is the largest driver of it.

This is a common tactic among the CAGW crowd. Much of the research on climate change is automatically assumed to be inferring a human source.


By jaimesheiro on 8/20/2008 6:05:17 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Entirely incorrect. UNAM is the 17th largest school in the world
Most on your list include more than one university. Like The Florida University System, which have 12 different university to make that total. UNAM is one single university.

I do not know this professor but it is very selective process to become professor there. It is the most prestigious school in Spanish-speaking world.


Easy to guess who wrote this, isn't it?
By DeepBlue1975 on 8/20/2008 2:27:32 PM , Rating: 5
As soon as I read the title I knew the article was Masher's. :D

All I can conclude from my little knowledge in the field is that, because of the opposed positions (alarmist man made global warming vs. not man made / not so global / not so warm) is that this is a topic that should remain widely open for debate and further study because, as of yet, there's not enough evidence to unequivocally say what's really happening with the world's climate and how large the human influence can be.

As for me, I settle for enough efforts to limit the yielding of toxic stuff, but I think that we as a race can't yet control things such as a "global warming" and that our efforts should be aimed towards directly improving our actual life quality instead of supposedly trying to stop global scale effects about which we can't be sure enough even of their existence.

The media hype and the ignorant volunteers who choose to join environmentalist associations without even knowing a single bit about the causes they are for makes matters even worse.

We don't need opinion polarization, we need more knowledge and to get it, every single bit of evidence for or against things like "the global warming" should be further studied and researched instead of generating a soccer team fan - like fanaticism.

In DT the only poster presenting evidence contrary to the popular one about global warming is Masher, and no matter what his personal position is about it (even though we already know it), at least he provides a different point of view.

So I hope you keep these articles coming, Masher, as no serious knowledge can come from there where only one single side of the story is told.




RE: Easy to guess who wrote this, isn't it?
By ipay on 8/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Easy to guess who wrote this, isn't it?
By tank171 on 8/20/2008 4:22:44 PM , Rating: 2
A handful eh?

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23387

30,000+ sceientists isnt exactly a handful. Maybe you should get your facts straight before you spew your global warming propeganda here. I am all for helping the environment. I want nuclear, wind, solar, and hydrogen fuel cell power to replace fossil fuels. I want CO2 scrubbers that will stop all this fuss over man made global warming.

Why do we not have these things? Because the stupid environmentalists that are supposedly for alternative energy and reductions in CO2, are against a lot of this.

They say that nuclear is far to dangerous, when a well made nuclear power plant is easily as safe as a coal or oil power plant. They wont let anybody make power lines so they can transport this power for electric cars, because its too ugly, or it will interfere with historical buildings. No wind turbines because the noise can affect people or supposedly kill birds.

This is what pisses me off the most. They are AGAINST CO2 SCRUBBERS... They say that using CO2 scrubbers LETS US USE FOSSIL FUELS.... I thought that CO2 was the thing that we were trying to limit. I guess the supposed CO2 caused global warming is less important than the fact that we are using fossil fuels.

I am sure that not all environmentalists are against these things, but just a small number seem to be able to hold off everyone else for some reason.


By tank171 on 8/20/2008 4:27:23 PM , Rating: 2
BTW, here is a link to the co2 scrubber thing.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=23547


RE: Easy to guess who wrote this, isn't it?
By ipay on 8/20/08, Rating: 0
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 4:52:37 PM , Rating: 3
> "1. The Heartland Institute is a right wing attack group, funded by tobacco and oil"

Your link is from SourceWatch, a group that exists solely to discredit GW skeptics. The Heartland Institute is funded less than 5% from corporate donations, and it isn't even close to a "right wing" organization. It's actually Libertarian in goals.

> "The '30,000 scientists' are from the bullshit Oregon Petition which has been thoroughly debunked "

That "debunking" has in turn been debunked repeatedly. Yes, many of the signatories have degrees in engineering, economics and medicine. So? Many do not..and more than half of the IPCC's "thousands of scientists" have degrees in the same fields as well -- including the head of the IPCC himself. That never seems to worry those who believe their pronouncements.


RE: Easy to guess who wrote this, isn't it?
By tank171 on 8/20/2008 9:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and your wikipedia links, which ANYONE CAN EDIT, are really reliable? Look up your information on more reliable places than one where a 10 can be writing it.


By tank171 on 8/20/2008 9:19:04 PM , Rating: 2
Whoops, I meant a 10 year old, not a 10. Hehe.


By DeepBlue1975 on 8/20/2008 4:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
Number of affiliates to an idea does not equate to a better probability of being right.

That's a fallacy which, unfortunately, is abused over and over.

Remember that, by the time Einstein came up with his restricted theory of relativity, he was almost the only one supporting his findings and there were lots of scientists calling him mad and what not.
Even to a book called something like "1000 arguments explaining why Einstein is wrong" Einstein replied something like "If I am really wrong, you only need one argument to demonstrate it, not 1000".

The fact that there are 2 strongly opposing sides. Those who oppose the anthropocentric... err, anthropogenic! view of global temperature increase are not just a handful, there are lots of them.

Instead of happily locking sides, the best course of action for he who wants to learn and better understand, is to study both approaches and go where the evidence better leads him.

It's unfortunate that our race has become too busy trying to find the ultimate answer for everything instead of enjoying the real search for knowledge, that eventually leads to finding strong and solid answers without the need to force them to come out from biased opinions.

When morals and pressure for results interfere with science, science ends up loosing ground to "what it should be" kind of thoughts and then we have more pseudoscience than science.


RE: Easy to guess who wrote this, isn't it?
By snownpaint on 8/20/2008 4:01:12 PM , Rating: 1
I like your post.. right on.. I wish more people had a head on their shoulders like you..


By Ringold on 8/20/2008 9:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
Everybody in Florida here should have their climate skepticism boosted a bit. Yes, I know, hurricane path predictions may be significantly different than global climate predictions, but they are related.

A couple days ago, Fay was going to go way to the West of the peninsula. A day or so ago, it was going to come up the middle of the state. After it made landfall, then it was predicted to go way to the east.

In fact, at one point, the local news had all the models paths on the screen, and it was lunacy. They literally were all over the place; some taking it way west, others way east, and some due north. They also predicted it would weaken once on shore, but no, it strengthened. Shouldn't of surprised them; Katrina and others did the same. They were also a little surprised, I think, that it has stopped moving a couple times.

In other words, these models, the scientists that made them and those who rely on them had almost no idea what was going on. And yet people expect me to take on blind faith the predictions of others in the same field? Heh. No, thanks.


global cooling
By Steve Stip on 8/20/2008 1:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
Y'all Yankees stay up there, ya hear?




RE: global cooling
By Suntan on 8/20/2008 2:05:11 PM , Rating: 3
That’s ok. We’d rather freeze to death than move down to the South.

-Suntan


RE: global cooling
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 2:25:35 PM , Rating: 3
We'd prefer that outcome as well.


RE: global cooling
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 2:29:46 PM , Rating: 3
We'll send the Californians up there first though.


RE: global cooling
By snownpaint on 8/20/2008 2:36:53 PM , Rating: 3
haha.. I'm heading down there when the freezing begins..

I'm bringing my Hybrid car, ban-stance on raised pickup trucks, my anti-gun stance, trimmers for mullet shaving, Vegetarian restaurants, pinky-finger-out cafe' shops, and all my gay and lesbian friends.

just kidding, i don't have any trimmers.


RE: global cooling
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 3:24:25 PM , Rating: 3
So you'll get run over, shot, go hungry, break a finger, and get laughed at.

Just kidding. You won't get laughed at. Well. Maybe.


RE: global cooling
By snownpaint on 8/20/2008 3:55:50 PM , Rating: 2
At least i can laugh at these posts.. good stuff..


Did you hear the one about......
By Dfere on 8/20/2008 2:39:30 PM , Rating: 2
How global warming is an even bigger threat as it has been minimized by the current Maunder Minimum? That we won't see otherwise obvious increases until the Minimum is negated and then the warming trend will be even more catastrophically along its exponentially increasing scale? Sorry to not have the name of this video, it was on PBS in Cleveland Ohio last weekend later. I didn't watch it for long for obvious reasons... Did anyone else catch this?
And this is supposedly scientific theory.....




By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 3:11:09 PM , Rating: 4
Here's the issue. If solar activity has been able to effect substantial climate change in a period in which solar insolation levels have not appreciably varied, then that means the solar variability index has been understated. That in turn means that climate sensitivity to CO2 has been grossly overstated.

Remember that direct calculation of CO2's heat-trapping effects yield results too small to be dangerous. The cataclismic scenarios come from positive-feedback mechanisms, postulated to align the data with the observed amount of warming.


RE: Did you hear the one about......
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 3:26:37 PM , Rating: 1
Ah....PBS....no left wing bias on that station whatsoever......

PBS is the station that aired a special on WW2 questioning whether the US was as bad as the Nazi's because we bombed Germany during the war.


By Ringold on 8/20/2008 8:48:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
PBS is the station that aired a special on WW2 questioning whether the US was as bad as the Nazi's because we bombed Germany during the war.


At least there is a valid point there about bombing military targets in civilian areas (though of course, what we were supposed to do about it).

Whats worse, as far as I'm concerned, how they censored "Inside Islam: Faith vs. Fanatics" Google it. Outrageous. Speaking truth in liberal-land wrecks careers and gets censored.


By sleepeeg3 on 8/21/2008 9:53:56 AM , Rating: 2
I’ll be boarding in Tahoe in a t-shirt while MM & GW battle it out for supremacy of the planet


Open the eyes
By Rebargod on 8/20/2008 6:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
I guess the biggest problem I see is that X number people are simply following:

1. Albeit a smart group of scientists, the conclusions achieved are by too many estimates,models that they create,and most likely flawed equations

2. The media.

People need to not blindly follow, but use some common sense observation of nature, and history, to arrive at more accurate predictions.

Just because 100,000 people say its so, does not mean they are right.

Based on the above, I will contunue to disbelieve the IPCC, and its followers.

I think we will see more and more of the other camp in the following time. The camp that wanted to disagree with the IPCC, but could not, less they were persecuted.




RE: Open the eyes
By badmoodguy on 8/21/2008 4:14:52 PM , Rating: 2
This just in.... People are stupid. More exactly, people evidence stupidity in things they don't care a lot about. In those cases they don't spend the time to figure out what is actually going on so they just rely on anything that sounds good that somebody tells them is so. The cause of a problem is the first thing that they can think of that they don't like.

This behavior isn't necessarily bad since it lets a person spend time on the things they feel are important without getting bogged down on the rest of life. But the more you know about any field the more you know that everything the populous says about it is totally wrong. This is true in my fields of Physics and Mathematics and my career of C.S.

Hell, I'm one of the smartest people I've ever met and I didn't realize I was stupid until about 35.


By foolsgambit11 on 8/20/2008 5:35:14 PM , Rating: 2
Reason 1: The variations are not predictable.
Reason 2: The variations are not statistically significant.

Since we've been able to measure variance in the sun's radiation, despite cyclical variations on the order of 0.1%, there has been no evidence to suggest that the average amount of solar radiation has been increasing - despite a consistent increase in terrestrial temperatures during that period. No model based on solar intensity can account for temperature variations.

Of course, there are other aspects of solar activity than only intensity - sun spots and the solar wind, for example. While it could be possible that these would have noticeable effects on the climate, there are no accepted means of predicting variations in these phenomena in the medium-term (next 20, 50, 100 years) accurately, nor is there consensus in exactly how much effect these phenomena would have, if any.

I don't know this guy's credentials, I'm trusting him as a credible source based solely on the fact that livescience.com used him as a source. Not good enough, I'll admit.

quote:
"The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record," said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.

"The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming," Mann told LiveScience.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_sola...




Little Ice Age
By Enlightenment777 on 8/20/2008 5:39:41 PM , Rating: 2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age

The Little Ice Age was a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Climate Optimum. Climatologists and historians find it difficult to agree on either the start or end dates of this period. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century. It is generally agreed that there were three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals.

Northern Hemisphere

The Little Ice Age brought bitterly cold winters to many parts of the world, but is most thoroughly documented in Europe and North America. In the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, gradually engulfing farms and crushing entire villages. The River Thames and the canals and rivers of the Netherlands often froze over during the winter, and people skated and even held frost fairs on the ice. The first Thames frost fair was in 1607; the last in 1814, although changes to the bridges and the addition of an embankment affected the river flow and depth, hence the possibility of freezes. The freeze of the Golden Horn and the southern section of the Bosphorus took place in 1622. In 1658, a Swedish army marched across the Great Belt to Denmark to invade Copenhagen. The winter of 1794/1795 was particularly harsh when the French invasion army under Pichegru could march on the frozen rivers of the Netherlands, whilst the Dutch fleet was fixed in the ice in Den Helder harbour. In the winter of 1780, New York Harbor froze, allowing people to walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Sea ice surrounding Iceland extended for miles in every direction, closing that island's harbors to shipping.

The severe winters affected human life in ways large and small. The population of Iceland fell by half, but this was perhaps also due to fluorosis caused by the eruption of the volcano Laki in 1783. The Viking colonies in Greenland died out (in the 15th century) because they could no longer grow enough food there.

One researcher noted that, in many years, "snowfall was much heavier than recorded before or since, and the snow lay on the ground for many months longer than it does today." Many springs and summers were outstandingly cold and wet, although there was great variability between years and groups of years. Crop practices throughout Europe had to be altered to adapt to the shortened, less reliable growing season, and there were many years of death and famine (such as the Great Famine of 1315–1317, although this may have been before the LIA proper). Viticulture entirely disappeared from some northern regions. Violent storms caused massive flooding and loss of life. Some of these resulted in permanent losses of large tracts of land from the Danish, German, and Dutch coasts.

The extent of mountain glaciers had been mapped by the late 19th century. In both the north and the south temperate zones of our planet, snowlines (the boundaries separating zones of net accumulation from those of net ablation) were about 100 m lower than they were in 1975. In Glacier National Park, the last episode of glacier advance came in the late 18th and early 19th century.

In Ethiopia and Mauritania[citation needed], permanent snow was reported on mountain peaks at levels where it does not occur today. Timbuktu, an important city on the trans-Saharan caravan route, was flooded at least 13 times by the Niger River; there are no records of similar flooding before or since. In China, warm weather crops, such as oranges, were abandoned in Jiangxi Province, where they had been grown for centuries. Also, two periods of most frequent typhoon strikes in Guangdong coincide with two of the coldest and driest periods in northern and central China (AD 1660-1680, 1850-1880). In North America, the early European settlers also reported exceptionally severe winters. For example, in 1607-1608 ice persisted on Lake Superior until June.




Green at last
By Steve Stip on 8/20/2008 8:33:46 PM , Rating: 2
Green at last

An asteroid came at us
but what could we do?
We’d spent all
our money
to reduce CO2.

On it came.
On it came.
We were dismayed.
We cried to Lord Al G.,
but he’d flown away.

On it came.
On it came.
We were quite sad.
Compared to being smashed,
CO2 seemed not bad.

We were blasted and shattered
and what’s worse more:
we in Tennessee
were covered with Gore.

And now we’re just green ooze
with bubbling gas.
Lord G. would be proud of us;
“Green at last!”

But though we’re green
we’re also blue.
We miss that lovely CO2.




Easy now
By Kyanzes on 8/21/2008 1:37:43 PM , Rating: 2
Now we only need someone to bring forth the "Theory of Global Steadiness" and we are golden.




lil ice age???we shall see
By jimmy blue eyes on 8/21/2008 7:41:41 PM , Rating: 2
the fact that more scientist are coming out for an immenent iceage is not new. but little ice age? lots of snow on the ground creates lots of ice, ten inches will compress to one inch of ice with time. it would only take a generation for glaciers to cross the northern borders of the u.s.a.

plus the air further north would become drier with all the moister getting locked up in new snow fall further south.

this would mean few if any clouds over the north pole. That causes sunlight to be reflected more so thus lowering the temperature even more, if by lil they mean half a mellinium, i would be more likely to agree.




Asher's dishonesty
By Suomynona on 8/23/2008 9:24:30 AM , Rating: 2
Asher's last dishonest propaganda piece and his continuing crusade to deny scientific reality - http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=12403 - produced the following from the American Physical Society (http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm ):

quote:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible : Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.


Note that he found it very significant that the APS had "reversed its stance on climate change" - which turned out to be a lie. Will he now write an article that reports the truth to restore some journalistic integrity? Any honest journalist would....




Another contrarian - so what?
By ipay on 8/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By FITCamaro on 8/20/2008 2:28:48 PM , Rating: 4
Yeah. Stupid Mexican scientist. Who is he to question the word of the one true savior. Al Gore. Who's accomplishments in the realms of science are unmatched.

The only consensus reached on global warming is that its a huge cash cow.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By ipay on 8/20/08, Rating: 0
RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By jimbojimbo on 8/20/2008 3:41:50 PM , Rating: 1
Your facts are actualy contrary to what global warming enthusiasts even say. 1896?? Who's the crackpot now? Get out of your little world and learn some more before you post here. Maybe some day you'll become the best poster "every".


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By MarcLeFou on 8/20/2008 4:41:08 PM , Rating: 1
That's most likely a typo.

Were there even recorded logs of temperature back then ? I doubt it.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By ipay on 8/21/2008 8:32:19 AM , Rating: 3
Did you notice that bit of text in blue, with a line under it? You can click on that. It takes you to information which you can read and thereby alleviate your deep ignorance.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By snownpaint on 8/20/2008 3:54:06 PM , Rating: 3
We lets all ride on the bandwagon with Al Gore..
"The wheels on the hybrid bus goes round and round.. "

Yeah, a quick search "history of global warming" and now I have the answers too..

As it was best said. "you can not claim to understand this complex worlds weather, given our short term weather recordings, limited data collecting, and lack of extensive history of weather changes. All you can do is make sure we are doing something to prevent damage, preservation, and cleaning up what we have dirtied. The Earth has taken beatings from meteoroids, heating and freezing, and has seen more changes the could ever imagine."

someone might think the earth has its own checks and balance system ( that works )


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By MarcLeFou on 8/20/2008 5:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
The fear of Global Warming is not that we'll destroy Earth. It's that we destroy our way of life and, in doomsday scenarios, a good chunk of our species.

I think there is a global warming around us right now. Whether its man-made or not is another debate but the planet definitely is warming up. Let's just take what we can quantify and measure : ice deposits in the Arctic and Antarctic. Since we've focused our attention to it in the last decade, its been shown the ice that hasn't thawed for Millenniums according to analysis is now melting at a faster and faster pace. This would seem to indicate a trend toward global warming.

The thing is, once we reach a certain average temperature, other mechanism supposedly spring to life which would release huge quantities of methane gases in the atmosphere and methane is a much more potent warming gas than CO2.

I believe the source were two distinct BBC shows but there supposedly is massive quantities of methane gases trapped in ice in the Russian artic lakes which is starting to show signs of melting a bit further each year. As well, the Ocean's would supposedly release tens of Millennium's worth of absorbed methane once a certain global temperature is met (don't recall the exact one but I believe it was between a global average of 0,5 and 1 centigrade - which is a pretty steep hike to be fair) which would in effect start a cascade of temperature hike as more and more methane is released through higher and higher temperatures.

Given these observations (and theories), I believe that whether man-made or not, we should without a doubt try to stabilize the climate to prevent a grave impact on our way of life. We're certainly far off from that capability right now but it is something that will be needed in the future to preserve and expand our way of life.

It is going to be needed knowledge down the line once the next ice age hits and if we ever want to be able to Terraform other planets so why not get a head start and start research into it now ? It might also allow us to better understand our ecosystem and be able to prevent abuse to it and to be able to exploit it more efficiently in other areas which would benefit all involved and create new commercial opportunities.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By Ringold on 8/20/2008 8:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The fear of Global Warming is not that we'll destroy Earth. It's that we destroy our way of life and, in doomsday scenarios, a good chunk of our species.


You're incorrectly mixing conclusions from different fields of inquiry. Many economists have taken IPCC's data, and conclusions about what it could do to the environment, and then applied econometric analysis to it to determine its impact on we humans. The two, environmental and economic impacts, are quite different. Global warming or not, in the future we're still going to be far more wealthy than we are today. The only debate is the impact it will have on growth, not if it'll "destroy our way of life." Well, compared to what it could be in the future, it might, but the way you say it makes it sound as if the world would go in to reverse. That wouldn't be the case.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By MarcLeFou on 8/20/2008 8:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
Actually I see the two as being intertwined.

The two problems that would have the biggest impact is a change of temperature would affect flora and fauna in a big way, thus severely disrupting our food chain and, as glaciers melt because of increased temperature, sea level rises and coastal cities get flooded. As most big cities in the world are in coastal areas, most production capacity in the world would get wiped out along with the cities.

Obviously, the unknown factor here is the amount of time these changes would occur under. Would it be a 100+ years affair where we would have time to forecast, move production and adapt agriculture to a new climate gradually or would it be a self feeding system where we reach a point where each increase in temperature feeds off itself (with methane gas being released in the atmosphere speeding the process further until all methane is released) and a drastic change happens in 1-2 years and basically send the economy back to the dark ages.

Obviously a scenario closer to span of 30 years would seem more plausible to me so we should have limited time to adapt but I do wonder how far back it would send us technologically (with most modern infrastructures such as power plants needed to be rebuilt) and, by cause of effect, economically.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By Ringold on 8/20/2008 9:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obviously, the unknown factor here is the amount of time these changes would occur under.


As I said, analysis has been done based on the IPCC's worst-case scenarios. You're now talking about unforecasted catastrophes leading to unexpected changes. Yeah. A rogue asteroid could annihilate us all ten minutes from now. I would suggest sticking to the IPCC and analysis based off of it, otherwise you're spreading FUD, which is no better than what you would accuse others of doing. You wouldn't be biased, would you?! :P


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 2:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming."
- Dr. Stanley Goldenberg, NOAA Meteorologist, from a news report just last week.

There are several thousand scientists, including those from places such as MIT, Harvard, and Stanford, who now express skepticism or outright denial over CAGW. The evidence is that the earth stopped warming a decade ago, and that solar activity plays a much larger role than previously thought.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By ipay on 8/20/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 3:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
Goldenberg is an active researcher in climatology, who has published a large number of papers in the field, especially in the influence of ENSO and SSTs on climate. Compare him to the head of the UN IPCC, Raj Pachauri, who has a degree in industrial engineering and hasn't published a single paper in climatology or meteorology.

In any case, Goldenberg is only one of many hundreds of climatologists with a similar opinion. I attended the "skeptics" International Conference on Climate Change in NYC this year, and it was standing room only, with over a hundred climatologists among those in attendance. Several were expert reviewers for the UN IPCC.

The BBC showed up to cover the event as well, refused to interview any of the scientists, and, when only 17 people answered their call for those wanting to be in "a group photo of all the scientists here", chose to report that very few researchers attended.

As for global temperatures, warming did indeed stop in 1998, as a plot of any of the satellite temperature records indicate:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_mon...
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglh...

Plot it yourself and see. It takes about 30 seconds with Excel to do it, and you don't have to take anyone else's opinion.

The misleading graph generated by GISS's James Hansen -- the father of the global warming hysteria movement -- it has long since been shown to be riddled with thousands of errors and dubious adjustments to the raw temperature record, sometimes changing the value of actual readings by several degrees centigrade or more:

http://www.climateaudit.org


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By ipay on 8/20/2008 5:28:29 PM , Rating: 1
He publishes papers on hurricanes and cyclones. I could find nowhere on his home page, in his papers or in print where he explicitly denies the reality of AGW. Even if he did - so what? He's one dissenting voice amongst tens of thousands of scientists who agree with the peer-reviewed science that confirms AGW is real.

The International Conference on Climate Change in NYC (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_200... That'll be the one sponsored by Heartland Institute (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartla... who lied about a list of '400 scientists' who disagreed with AGW - most of whom demanded to be removed from the list, which Heartland did not do. Further reading at: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008...

No, warming did not stop in 1998. That's possibly the most tired of all the denier arguments: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/...

I've no inclination to plot anything myself - I'm not a climate scientist and don't believe that by cherry-picking a couple of data points, slapping it in to a spreadsheet that I will then have a greater understanding of a highly complex multi-faceted scientific discipline than scientists who have spent decades studying it. To do so would demonstrate massive arrogance and Dunning Kruger effect. Instead I will accept the scientific position of every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet, all of whom confirm recent climate change is due to human activity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...

To do anything else would make a person some combination of dumb, deluded, deranged and dishonest.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 5:46:56 PM , Rating: 1
> "He's one dissenting voice amongst tens of thousands of scientists who agree with the peer-reviewed science that confirms AGW is real"

Tens of thousands? That number just keeps growing and growing. Even the IPCC only claims 2,500 -- but many of those they claim are well-known skeptics.

As for Goldenberg being "one dissenting voice", here's 400 more:
quote:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=...

> "who lied about a list of '400 scientists' who disagreed with AGW - most of whom demanded to be removed from the list,"

You are confused. I attended that conference myself. None of the scientists I spoke with said anything about "asking to be removed" from any list. Many of the coference speakers I correspond with on a regular basis, and they certainly are not shy about making their viewpoint clear.

> "No, warming did not stop in 1998"

Graph the data for yourself. I gave you the links. No "cherry-picking of points" here, but the entire satellite temperature record, from start to finish.

> "I will then have a greater understanding of a highly complex multi-faceted scientific discipline than scientists who have spent decades studying it"

The problem is that many of those scientists don't believe in CAGW. As for quoting a Wikipedia article on global warming, I trust you're not seriously advancing that as a source?


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By ipay on 8/21/08, Rating: -1
RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/21/2008 11:50:25 AM , Rating: 2
> "every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet confirms recent climate change "

"National Science Academies" are political organizations. In the early 1970s, the US NAS issued an advisory on the possible effects of global cooling , with action being urged to combat the future potential of an upcoming ice age.

Furthermore, you are mistaken in assuming these statements are the pronouncements of "thousands of scientists". They're made by an executive committee, and not voted on by the body at large. Few true researchers are interested in serving as the President of some body like the NAS or the IPCC; these positions attract only those interested in political sinecures.

Finally, when one examines the actual statements of these bodies, what does one find? Always some variation of "we are deeply concerned, please continue funding us for a solution". What else do you expect? Climate change has been the biggest boom for the geosciences in history, with funding as high as $40B over the past decade. A researcher who puts in a request to study the "effects of climate change change on the sex life of squirrels" now has a reasonable chance of scoring a few hundred thousand dollars. Do you really think they want to return to the days of famine?


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By Suomynona on 8/23/2008 8:00:13 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, the old global conspiracy theory - the last refuge of the desperate.

You're saying that every national science academy of every industrialised country on the planet are lying in unison and tens of thousands of scientists are going along with it whilst earning the same salary (they're not on profit share, you know)? Also going along with this massive deception are the following universities: Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Massachusetts, CalTech, Stanford, Singapore, Zurich, Berlin, Australia, Tokyo... you get the idea.

And who is coordinating this massive, worldwide deception? The Illuminati? Lex Luthor? Dr Evil? Or maybe it's Al Gore.

And you and all the other deniers don't have a shred of evidence to back up your ludicrous claims. Only the deeply delusional, dumb or dishonest could believe it.

However, there is a conspiracy going on - for which there is massive evidence - a concerted propaganda campaign funded by ExxonMobil and other gluttonous energy companies to deny scientific reality and confuse the gullible - you're either a victim or a participant. Why would they do that? To protect their obscene profits - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/may/28/...

Fortunately, there is no scientific debate on the reality of anthropogenic climate change - it's only on sideshow sites, such as this, where 'debates' occur. You can post your dishonest articles as often as you please, it won't change the scientific reality that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By clovell on 8/20/2008 5:47:36 PM , Rating: 2
> I've no inclination to plot anything myself - I'm not a climate scientist and don't believe that by cherry-picking a couple of data points, slapping it in to a spreadsheet that I will then have a greater understanding of a highly complex multi-faceted scientific discipline than scientists who have spent decades studying it. To do so would demonstrate massive arrogance and Dunning Kruger effect. Instead I will accept the scientific position of every national science academy of every major industrialised country on the planet, all of whom confirm recent climate change is due to human activity.

That's ridiculous. Anyone with a fifth grade education can plot raw values over time and tell if they trend up or down. Arrogance is not involved, but a modicum of intelligence and objectivity is requisite.

Is it ruly too much to ask that you think for yourself? God help us...


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By Suomynona on 8/23/2008 8:44:19 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By woolly1 on 8/21/2008 3:54:03 PM , Rating: 2
Come on Masher, you should know its been pointed out to you
long enough that 1998 was an exceptionally warm year due to a larger el nino effect .

The trend is still upward.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By clovell on 8/21/2008 5:45:19 PM , Rating: 2
And you should know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. If you acknowledge your own statement, then you also must accept that increase tropical cyclone activity is due to ENSO, and not AGW.

You can have your trend, if you check your catastrophic consequences at the door.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By woolly1 on 8/23/2008 11:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a problem accepting that sea temperature has an effect on extreme weather events....hmm where in my post did i mention any catastrophic consequences??

Perhaps you need to read and respond to what people post rather than rail away at a straw man that wasn't there


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By jimbojimbo on 8/20/2008 3:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
But the sun always burns at an exact constant forever and any kind of fluctuation in the solar system just HAS to be because of us, right? Oh we're so evil! It's all our fault!

For some reason there are a lot of panicky morons out there that just can't fathom the idea that THE SUN DOES NOT BURN STEADILY.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By ipay on 8/20/2008 4:30:30 PM , Rating: 1
You haven't read any of the links provided, have you? You've done no research. You provide no evidence for your assertions. You just know you're right and you can win any argument by SHOUTING.

What a laughable, standard-issue denial retard....


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By masher2 (blog) on 8/20/2008 4:56:18 PM , Rating: 1
How many papers on solar physics have you yourself read? I personally have interviewed or spoken with several solar physicists and astrophysicists who believe the sun is presently causing climate change here on Earth. Ilya Usoskin, Henrik Svensmark, Nir Shaviv, and Sally Baliunus to just name a few.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By Suomynona on 8/23/2008 9:08:42 AM , Rating: 2
So? You self-selected a handful of (widely discredited) scientists who confirm the lies you want to spread. You have proved nothing.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30...


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By clovell on 8/20/2008 5:50:16 PM , Rating: 2
He actually makes an incisive point. None of the models that predict AGW include solar activity.

That's called confounding and it often invalidates results, or, at the very least, leaves them open to question.


RE: Another contrarian - so what?
By Suomynona on 8/23/2008 9:15:33 AM , Rating: 2
So you think that none of the scientists involved in climate research over the past 100+ years considered solar activity? Only someone monumentally stupid could believe that.

People like you do more for promoting the idiocy of AGW denial than any scientist or proponent of AGW ever could. Priceless.


By snownpaint on 8/20/2008 3:29:53 PM , Rating: 3
(Read with Extreme Sarcasm)

Why is someone refuting other scientists..

Why is anyone not on board with global warming? Why draw your own conclusions? Everything you need to know is done by other scientists and super computers.. Global Cooling, that is impossible! The planet is not a ever changing system with its own checks and balances.

Don't you know Daliytech paid this guy to say this so they could spin their truth.. Contrary ideas should be suppressed or posted on conspiracy websites

(OK I'm done)

Isn't this article, and the idea it represents the whole idea of Science. Building proofs, finding errors to refine and build again. A collection of truths that get knock down and built up better, till they are solid..

An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field. (Bohr)

Tons of little no name scientist have posted theories that have changed the world. "Brownian motion" lead to the proof of Molecules, that was debated in the 1900. One mans little paper about pollen in water, lead to another's brilliant discovery.

Fallacy has a large margins in complex systems, and you don't get any more complex then the world.


By snownpaint on 8/20/2008 3:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
(Read with Extreme Sarcasm)

Why is someone refuting other scientists..

Why is anyone not on board with global warming? Why draw your own conclusions? Everything you need to know is done by other scientists and super computers.. Global Cooling, that is impossible! The planet is not a ever changing system with its own checks and balances.

Don't you know Daliytech paid this guy to say this so they could spin their truth.. Contrary ideas should be suppressed or posted on conspiracy websites

(OK I'm done)

Isn't this article, and the idea it represents the whole idea of Science. Building proofs, finding errors to refine and build again. A collection of truths that get knock down and built up better, till they are solid..

An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field. (Bohr)

Tons of little no name scientist have posted theories that have changed the world. "Brownian motion" lead to the proof of Molecules, that was debated in the 1900. One mans little paper about pollen in water, lead to another's brilliant discovery.

Fallacy has a large margins in complex systems, and you don't get any more complex then the world.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997

















botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki