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

Another contrarian - so what?
By ipay on 8/20/2008 2:23:36 PM , Rating: -1
So another minor, sideshow scientist has popped up and is spouting his own little hypothesis which runs contrary to the evidence and the statements of every national science academy of every industrialised nation? Why is Dailytech reporting this? Why the continual focus on any story that appears (to the uninformed) to contradict the massive global consensus and evidence for anthropogenic global warming?

It's almost as if Dailytech is more concerned with spinning the truth it wants rather than the one that exists....




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.


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

















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