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

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.


“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

















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