A cold spell soon to replace global warming
Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world.
Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases.
The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason—solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate.
(…)
Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution.
The principal among those diverse links is Earth’s reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period.
What can’t be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow.
Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north—but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that.
Pedro Sette-Câmara
André Azevedo Alves
Carlos Guimarães Pinto
Helder Ferreira
Bruno Garschagen
João Luís Pinto
LA
Bruno Alves
Miguel Botelho Moniz
ruicarmo
Miguel Noronha
Elizabete Dias
António Costa Amaral (AA)
LT
Rui Oliveira
BZ
dos ∫antos
André Abrantes Amaral
planca12
rui a.
Rodrigo Adão da Fonseca
Adolfo Mesquita Nunes
Michael Seufert
Luciano
Carlos M. Fernandes
Maria João Marques
jtcb
Nuno Branco
elisabetejoaquim
filipeabrantes
Tomás Belchior
Bruno Gonçalves
Ricardo G. Francisco
Tiago Loureiro
Ricardo Campelo de Magalhães
Filipe Faria
Ricardo Arroja
“Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence—not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect.”
Segundo este parágrafo, quanto mais CO2 maior a intensidade das Tempestades e dos Ciclones…
Comentário por ulaikamor — Janeiro 5, 2008 @ 09:06
Só para ficar claro, o excerto no meu post anterior parece fazer a ligação entre a concentração de CO2 na atmosfera e o advento de Ciclones mais destrutivos (ex: Katrina).
Alguém arranja um estudo estatístico relativamente à intensidade das Tempestades e dos Ciclones nas últimas décadas…?
Comentário por ulaikamor — Janeiro 5, 2008 @ 09:14
Ulaikamor, faça pesquisas pelo Indice ACE (Accumulated cyclone energy). Pode começar por aqui: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accumulated_Cyclone_Energy
Comentário por Cusco — Janeiro 5, 2008 @ 11:20
E não, não existe qualquer relação entre o CO2, o hipotético aquecimento global e os ciclones tropicais. O ano louco de 2005 e o Katrina em particular, deu muito jeito para fazer o documentário do Al Gore e para servir de inspiração a tantos e tantos textos apocalípticos, mas os 2 anos calmos que se seguiram, 2006 e 2007, já não interessaram a ninguém
O costume…
Comentário por Cusco — Janeiro 5, 2008 @ 11:25
Caro Cusco,
Obrigado pelo link. Continuarei a ler.
E não te preocupes, não faço parte dos que andam na carrinha do “apocalipse vem aí e a culpa é do homem.”
Comentário por ulaikamor — Janeiro 5, 2008 @ 13:41
Há 1000 anos atrás, na Gronelândia cultivavam-se legumes. Os vikings chegaram lá muito antes dos portugueses e espanhois se aventurarem em barcos seja para onde fôr. Em Portugal, Óbidos foi um porto de mar.
O problema é que os cientistas da treta que dominam estas questões da meteorologia e climatologia nem sequer conseguem prever o tempo a um mês, quanto mais a uns anos. Problema maior é o facto dos americanos não terem história, e tudo ter começado para eles há cerca de 200 anos.
Como me dizia uma professora de história, para prever o futuro, é preciso perceber o passado…
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com
Comentário por EcoTretas — Janeiro 6, 2008 @ 12:06