Now Mexican Scientist are Predicting Global Cooling due to Reduced Solar Activity.?

Question

"experts at the Independent National University of Mexico foretold that around ten Earth years he will enter a “small era of ice” that will last of 60 to 80 years and will be caused by the diminution of the solar activity"

"The models and prognoses of the IPCC “are incorrect because they are based on mathematical models and only they present/display results in scenes that they do not include, for example, the solar activity”

http://www.milenio.com/mexico/milenio/nota.asp?id=651680

When will American Scientists catch up to their Russian and Mexican counter parts? Why do American Scientist lag so far behind scientist from around the world? Is it because American scientists are more politicians than scientists?

Answer 1

You can see how 'science' follows the money, rather than following the evidence.  

If institutions throw money at anyone who can prove global warming - pretty soon researchers are going to discover global warming.  In oil exporting countries, discovering global warming isn't the meal ticket it is in most western nations.

Answer 2

"UV is what causes sunburn and damages organic life but dosen't generate heat."

Actually, UV warms just like visible and IR does. But that isn't what is important. Changes in UV causes a complex set of feedbacks in our atmosphere, and may have a profound effect on climate.

"A few do disagree, but the data clearly proves them wrong. "Solar activity" is just sunspots, which have little effect on warming. It's solar radiation ("solar forcing") that counts."

Bob's only responses to whether the sun is having an effect are either wrong, irrelevant or cherry picking (like the title of the Lockwood and Frohlich paper).

Answer 3

Wow, that's hilarious.  One minute you're saying we shouldn't trust any communists or socialists, and the next minute you're saying those "commie" Russian scientists are smarter than American scientists.  Which is it?

Answer 4

It's not "American scientists".  It's the vast majority of scientists all around the world who say that global warming is real, and mostly caused by us.

A few do disagree, but the data clearly proves them wrong.  "Solar activity" is just sunspots, which have little effect on warming.  It's solar radiation ("solar forcing") that counts.

Lockwood, Frohlich, Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature, Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880

Answer 5

These aren't the only scientists to worry about this but they did so more publicly than the rest. Our current solar cycle is still almost non-existent with the surface of the sun being totally blank, meaning no sunspots at all. This has been the trend for two years now, one cycle ended and the next has barely been observed, though it was predicted to me very robust. We're not sure what mechanism is behind this but theories abound, and we're not sure why it impacts our global temp, but it does. The last time the sunspot cycle was inactive for a prolong period was the coldest part of the Little Ice Age. And yes, Virginia, there really was a Little Ice Age, and there may be again. We're powerless to stop it either, no matter how much CO2 we produce it would never stave off this kind of event.

Mymetrocard brings up a good point, though. The IPCC is sanctioned by the UN to...find evidence that humans are responsible for climate change. With that as their founding principle it would be impossible for them to find evidence to the contrary, let alone publish it. Which is why they have such a curious set-up for all their reportage, reports not written by the scientists as a whole, summaries often written by non-scientists. And political appointees play prominent roles in all the committees. Which means I wouldn't rely on the IPCC to accurately forecast the time 24 hours from now, let alone the weather.

Bob...well, hiya Bob. Sunspots do influence our climate, how could anyone argue that something as massive as fluctuations in the magnetic field of a body a million times as big as our planet couldn't influence us. One leading theoris is that without that solar wind to sweep aside gamma radiation (cosmic rays) from the rest of our galaxy and other galaxies as well, that radiation reaches Earth. Maybe it interacts with water vapor in the atmosphere to form more clouds, the process may be more subtle than that. But you can examine a chart comparing temp and sunspot activity and find a far more obvious correlation than you can with temp and CO2.

Jim Z makes an excellent point about extraterrestial 'fossil fuels'. How can they be fossil fuels if no carbon-based life ever existed there to become fossilized into a hydrocarbon? Maybe a giant Exxon meteor struck them at some point in the past?

Answer 6

the IPCC is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It's sanctioned by the United Nations and includes scientists from all over the world. If you say that they're wrong and therefore all American scientists are wrong, then that also means that every other country that has scientists in the IPCC are wrong as well.

If we have decreased solar activity, then global climate change may be reduced because of it, but that doesn't solve all of the potential problems. It may help reduce the severity of heat, but if global warming does occur, it might not be enough to completely reverse it.

However, I don't think your question is necessarily about the consequences of lowered solar activity on global climate change so much as a way to try and discredit an entire nation of scientist based on political/personal beliefs, so I expect this isn't the answer you were looking for.  

Answer 7

"The models and prognoses of the IPCC “are incorrect because they are based on mathematical models"

Unfortunately for this Mexican scientist? the data on current solar activity is not based on "mathematical models" it is based on direct satellite data that started in the late 70's.

And a full translation of the link says nothing about any Russian.

Rick:

"Isn't it interesting that alarmists ignore the fact that the Sun's emissions can vary 6-8%! "

It is more interesting how deniers either leave out information or just don't read their own links the 6-8% is UV output only, irradiance which becomes IR when radiated back off the surface of the Earth 'according to your own link' varies by ~0.1%, UV is what causes sunburn and damages organic life but dosen't generate heat.

Answer 8

They did---  no one is listening--

http://www.progressiveu.org/113938-nasa-...

Answer 9

I think a better question should be "When will Jello catch up?"

You discredit mainstream scientists who make predictions...

"If you can tell me what the weather will be like 2 weeks or 2 years from now." (paraphrasing you).

Then you latch on to anything you hear that is a PREDICTION of a cooling planet and support that. Sounds like you just support predictions that adhere to your beliefs system rather than science. How you became a top contributor is beyond comprehension!

Answer 10

Isn't it interesting that alarmists ignore the fact that the Sun's emissions can vary 6-8%!

http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Con...

They are foolish to call  skeptics unintelligent - they can't even consider facts.

Yes  - Some Scientists are more Political than Factual:

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warm...

Answer 11

global warming causes ice ages  get a better education!

Answer 12

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=...

(Google translation of the link, which is in spanish)

says

"an expert"  - -  *one* person

Answer 13

I read that one yesterday.  I am skeptical of his claims but no more than I am skeptical of alarmists.  I am definitely more worried about cooling than warming but not too worried either way.  It does provide another example of lack of concensus.

I absolutely agree with what Ben said:

"You can see how 'science' follows the money, rather than following the evidence"

I would go further.  Money actually drives the science.  When money is spent on an expected outcome, then that money tends to fund massive research to find any evidence for that outcome, regardless if it is true or not.  There have been studies to demonstrate this (I assume they didn't spend too much money on that study).  Governments tend to spend money on things that might be problems (ideally anyway).  Why would anyone want to spend money on a study that CO2 wasn't a problem.  When you reach a conclusion that it is a problem (i.e we are all going to die from too much CO2), politicians have an incentive to throw money at it.  When the science becomes political, I think we all know how it tends to get emotional and those people that are caught up in the frenzy of the exaggerated science tend to think the skeptics are getting in the way of their effort to save the world.

I had to unhide Bob's response to see what he said.  I was surprised that he suggested sunspot activity didn't influence climate.  There are certainly scientists that would disagree with that.  I put him back on hide.

There is a theory of how oil is formed that in my opinion fits the evidence far better than the fossil fuel theory.  It also effectively explains high grade coal, methane, and methane hydrates.  It is an abiotic theory.  American scientists are stuck in the mud as far as I am concerned, but Russian scientists have embraced the new theory.  In this example, Russians seem to be more willing to look at new evidence and change their minds. I marvel at how most American scientists can see rivers of methane on the moon Titan and methane on Mars and conclude that it is not from biologic sources (at least on Titan) yet methane is necessarily of biologic origin on the Earth.  Methane on Titan, Mars, and Earth can be easily explained using the abiotic theory of petroleum formation (petroleum does have a biologic component in this theory, a deep hot biosphere).

I always get a kick when I see these leftists give me down arrows when all I provide are facts and I am not the only one (I guess Bob got shot down as well).  That is more evidence that global warming is much more about politics than science.  I am quite confident that those down arrows were from alarmist who pretend to have science on their side and most don't have a clue what I (or they) are actually talking about.