Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 08/19/2008 10:10:46 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk
An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that the Earth will enter a "Little Ice Age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity.
Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics at UNAM, showcased his theories during an international conference he led at the Centre for Applied Sciences and Technological Development. Velasco, a specialist in remote sensing systems, said that the recent rupture of the Perito Moreno glacier on the border of Chile and Argentina, unusual for having produced a full austral winter, was not due to global warming. He theorizes that the event was caused during a drought by falling water levels in the river, coupled with colder temperatures.
Dr. Velasco described as "erroneous" predictions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), of a gradual increase in temperature, the so-called global warming. The models and forecasts of the IPCC "are incorrect because they are based solely on mathematical models and do not include, for example, solar activity," said Velasco, who is also a specialist in predictive image processing. "The phenomenon of climate change," he added, "should include both internal and external factors. Internal would include volcanic activity,while external causes include solar activity."
"Curiously, the Sun never has been seen as a cooling agent, but as a cause of warming. It clearly has roles in both cooling and warming," he said.
At present, Velasco holds that the world is going through a transition phase of considerably diminished solar activity, "so that in two years or so, there will be the beginnings of a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years,and the immediate consequence of this" he added, "will be drought."
Analyses by the IPCC concluded that the "Little Ice Age",a cold period that lasted since the beginning of the fourteenth century until the mid-nineteenth century. was a regional phenomena or accentuation of local effects. But Velasco disagrees. He says that, "Current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of abnormal heat or cold in this timeframe," and that it must have been caused by other factors.
Highlights and Dates
According to Velasco, effects will be clearly observable within in approximately two years. However, in early July, Velasco Herrera said that satellite data indicate it is possible that this period of global cooling may have even already begun as early as 2005.
He has predicted that cooling would fully arrive within 30 or 40 years.
Interestingly, I was never able to find a single one of them willing to take me up on it. They're happy to gamble trillions of dollars of other people's money on their junk science theory, but none of them would risk a month's salary of their own. What does that tell you?
It has nothing to do with translation, it all about relative temperature differentials. If you look anywhere in space but the sun the absolute temperature is about seven degrees above absolute zero, −273.15 °C or −459.67 °F. Since the earth's surface is much warmer then that we loose heat by radiating it into space. The sun is much warmer then earth and we gain heat by intercepting heat radiating from the sun. If the sun cools down we receive less heat so we cool as well.
It rather like sitting around a campfire, the side facing the fire feels nice and toasty and the side facing away gets chilly.
Regards,
GtG
Hi, the link to the article in the OP doesn’t seem to be working just now.
Could you post it again? Thanks!
Does this mean that the carbon credit idiots are going to harm the earth by making it colder?
Thanks!
We did this a decade or so ago here in NW FL. For several years we had 100 degree summers with the first 100 day arriving earlier each year. Then the first 100 was in May and I really feared for August, but come August 1 the temperature did not get above 85 and did not pass 89 the rest of the year. We have not had any 100 days for several years now. This August is definitely not so warm as July but we still are in the low nineties on days the sun shines.
It doesn’t matter if the northeast is cold and damp. It is meaningless if the atlantic seaboard is mild and cool. It is irrelevant if it snows across alaska, or austrailia...if europe is cool, or the antarctic ice cap expands to the equator. It can snow on the dnc convention in colorado, or the burning man festival in nevada..I can absolutely guarantee that jim hansen, and his band of muppets at nasa will proclaim that august 2008 will be within the top 5 hottest since the jurrasic period.
A dying fire does not “cool” you...it just doesn’t warm you as much. The heat radiates out (well, convects and conducts by a campfire, but radiates with the earth) and is not replaced as much...but the sun doesn’t “cool”... That’s why the phrasing seemed odd.
What he means is: The sun IS the source of the world’s 9average) climate. As it increases (net radiation + cosmic ray shielding) temperatures rise above their nominal. When the sun’s activity decreases, temperatures on earth cool (go down) from their nominal point.
Over the very long term, the sun either heats things up (1908-1935, 1970-1998) or cools things off (Maunder Minimum/Little Ice Age, 1940-1970, 2007-2008).
The author links the El Nino, La Nina, Pacific and North Atlantic changes closely as well to the same center of gravity changes.
Decreased insolation leading to a relative change from a nominal point is "allowing it to cool"--not "cooling it"--which is perhaps why he's so off-base with this statement: "Curiously, the Sun never has been seen as a cooling agent [...]" Of course it hasn't--since it isn't!
It’s not like William Stanley Jevons wouldn’t show up in a good literature search, either.
8<)
Thank you.
It got over a 150 F today! BWAHAAAAAA!
Glad I already got two tons of pellets for the winter...
We are getting caught up in semantics. You're right, the sun doesn't cool you directly, for that to happen it would have to be colder then we are, but it does cool as it radiates less energy. Its surface temperature goes down as its activity decreases and therefore it is cooler then it was during a more active phase.
The heat radiates out (well, convects and conducts by a campfire, but radiates with the earth)
You had it right with "radiates", unless you are sitting directly above the fire there is very little convection transferring heat to you and the same can be said for conduction. That leaves radiation as the primary mode of heat transfer. As the fire dies it also radiates less heat so that you do indeed cool.
Think of it this way:
You are pumping water with an old fashioned hand pump into a bucket with a hole in the bottom. The water level in the bucket depends on how big the hole is and how fast you pump. The effort you put into pumping represents the sun's energy input to earth (the bucket), the hole represents the energy lost from earth by radiating into space. The water level represents the earth's average temperature. If you think about it most any level of pumping will result in a stable water level, the faster you pump the deeper the water gets. That is as long as the sun lasts the earth will continue to be warmer then the cosmic background (although not necessarily in the range that supports human life!). It's activity level determines our average temperature, just as pumping harder will raise the water level. Radiative heat transfer depends on the absolute temperature difference between heat source and heat sink. The flow of heat is just like water, it always runs downhill. The only exception is when we input energy and pump it back uphill (refrigerators, air conditioners, and yes, heat pumps). The sun (at about 11,000° Fahrenheit radiates to us at room temp and in turn we radiate to the rest of the universe at −452°F.
Some think the universe will eventually end when all matter has reached the same temperature and no further thermal energy transfers are possible.
Regards,
GtG
Actually, you are describing heat radiating in, to the body from the fire. Heat escaping radiates, but also convection is very important, both with exhalation of warm air and ambient air (think of how much chillier it is when there's a breeze).
But yes, it's semantics...and that was my point. He was using semantics to make it sound like this is a new idea, but it's not at all. His statement was silly...even people who think that winters are colder because the earth is farther from the sun (obviously not the reason, even for southern hemisphere) realize that the temperature is related to variations in insolation.
The sun (at about 11,000° Fahrenheit radiates to us at room temp and in turn we radiate to the rest of the universe at −452°F.
Is that a racial comment? ;-)
Some think the universe will eventually end when all matter has reached the same temperature and no further thermal energy transfers are possible.
Nah...we can just drill some more....it's all those Dems' fault. ;-)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.