What is Digg?163 Comments
- Akaji, on 10/12/2007, -6/+45You know, in all honesty, the cause of global warming is a moot point in the grand scheme of things. Global pollution is a serious issue for the health and survival of all life on Earth, and not just for heat reasons. If the cause of global warming is pollution, then pollution needs to be brought under control. If the cause of global warming is not pollution, pollution STILL needs to be brought under control for tons of other reasons.
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+44Bless the Sun, As Edmonton goes through one of the longest winters I've seen in Decades, I really want the sun back!
But I feel I should point out some issues with this article.
1. the Dimming Trend was 1960 Thru 1980, not in the 1990's which matches almost exactly the the satellite Global Climate Warming.
2.“I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.” - thats a HELL of a fluke, The great red spot that has remained stable for 400 years suddenly start to disappear the same time we are warming up?
3.“The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann. - Mann of course an "unbiased opinion" - as for the suns energy even a slight tilt on a planet like earth can have an 80 Degree C change in temperature so even a "fraction" of sun temperature can make a huge difference on a tiny planet like ours. - ThinkBox, on 10/12/2007, -3/+37I guess we need to blot out the sun to stop global warming - where's Mr. Burns?
- nzknzknzk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26The sun? Warming the Earth, eh? You don't say!
- awm4, on 10/12/2007, -11/+30An interesting quote from the article:
As for Abdussamatov’s claim that solar fluctuations are causing Earth’s current global warming, Charles Long, a climate physicist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratories in Washington, says the idea is nonsense.
“That’s nuts,” Long said in a telephone interview. “It doesn’t make physical sense that that’s the case.”
It seems a bit presumptuous to say that the sun (which has been responsible for many warming and cooling trends over the lifetime of our planet) doesn’t make physical sense in this case.
So a possible increase solar activity has no effect on global warming?
Or is it that an increase in solar activity being the cause of our current global warming problem could negatively effect the large grant that you have applied for in order to study "man made" global warming?
When I see quotes like this it really makes me wonder if these scientists have ulterior motives. - BigManOnCampus, on 10/12/2007, -9/+27Hah! he quotes Michael Mann??? lol, he just buried his own argument.
Mann is not a solar scientist. Mann is not an astronomer. Mann is not even a physicist.
Mann is a paleoclimatologist. This means he takes data from people in other sciences and tries to baseline them for temperature to create a temperature record of the past. He practically invented the field, and has done a piss-poor job of it thus far. His method of generating a hockey stick has been thoroughly rejected by the finest statisticians we have.
He has nothing to say on solar influence. - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -7/+25That should read "entirely fuelled".
I will pre-emptively point out that everyone agrees that climate fluctuates naturally; that the sun cycles do affect climate; that there are other greenhouse gasses than CO2; that there are other sources of CO2 than human burning of fossil fuels; AND that the CO2 from human burning of fossil fuel is affecting climate. - sctechguy, on 10/12/2007, -3/+20"Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth"
Most obvious statement ever. - Muyoso, on 10/12/2007, -7/+22"Solar activity can affect Earth's climate"
Oh no, YOU THINK??????? - Plasmatica, on 10/12/2007, -3/+17It's Ra and he's pissed nobody worships him anymore. You infidels will burn in the scorching heat, while you're looking for shade and consuming superfluous amounts of refreshing drinks as you try to resist the relentless punishment of slight discomfort!
- edzieba, on 10/12/2007, -3/+16"Others argue that such claims are misleading and create the false impression that rapid global warming, as Earth is experiencing, is a natural phenomenon."
You mean all the wild climate changes in the past WEREN'T natural phenomena? - Detritus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15PETA also suggests that we stop giving milk to children in schools and instead switch to beer.
- Plasmatica, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14This must be the work of Captain Obvious.
http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Captain_obvious - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Is it sad that my first thought of seeing the word Sun is Sun Microsystems?
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -13/+22Their entire career is based off of funding from political entities. The term "scientist" doesn't mean what it used to.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"How arrogant and prideful we are."
It's been proven that cities cause what's known as "heat islands"- the area in and around cities is generally hotter, and more humid, than rural areas, thanks to all the pollution and concrete. This is a specific example of our manipulation of the environment. Why is it okay to believe that humans can affect the weather around cities, but not globally?
At what point does our estimation of our ability to affect the climate become "arrogant and prideful"? - thewump, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12This article is retarded. It does not take into consideration that the sun goes out at night.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+14"That's complete and utter *****. There are tons of legitimate scientists who know that CO2 has NO effect on the global climate, and that it NEVER HAS."
Ah, actually, if you bother to actually check up on that little factoid, you'll find that there are a *handful* of scientists who "know" that CO2 has no effect on global climate... but many, many more who disagree with them. - CrazedGeek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Can we blame global warming on Java?
- gcauthon, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12You can go back to watching American Idol now. We're so sorry to interrupt you over such trivial subjects as war and the Earth. I'll be sure to only digg topics about Anna Nichole Smith and Brittany Spears from now on.
- arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+51) About 0.3%.
2) It doesn't.
3) They're not.
4) Ah, if only it were that simple. A long growing season in the Arctic will result in the release of methane hydrates trapped in the permafrost, cause the release of carbon due to increased decay of previously frozen plant matter, change the regional albedo which will probably have an effect on cloud formation and related weather phenomena. And so on and so on and so on.
5) The "hockey stick" precedes the awarding of grants not an increase in global temperature. - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Seeing as bovine pollution comes mostly in the form of methane (which, kilo for kilo, does 25x the heat insulation as CO2), it seems like a good idea to hook cow ass up to a methane collector. Same for compost heaps.
I mean, we seem to have every other orifice of a cow completely managed; why not the ass? - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5People keep bringing up the "bovine flatulence" argument to show how preposterous the whole idea of greenhouse gasses are... but in reality, what they're showing is the utter unsustainability of 6.5 billion (and population growth is still accelerating) humans. Yes, there are so much livestock in the world that yes, their farts do add to the greenhouse effect. That isn't preposterous - it's simply that pretty much anything can have large-scale effects if there's enough of it.
- ashmon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Just a bunch of solaris bashing bastards. What did Sun ever do to you? Get back to bashing the real cause of all that is evil. Microsoft. Or the Novell/MS deal. Or Bush. Take your pick, but leave Sun out of it.
- STKD, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8*cough* Ice cores *cough*.
- KingMoses, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4***** you and all the rest of the anti-humanity dolts.
- neave, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7If you're going to watch that "Swindle" TV program, read this too: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/
- jhnewt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Beyond the well known fact many digg readers don't actually look at the article, I now know that many digg readers don't even look at the description. For those of you that didn't make it past the headline, this is NOT blaming the sun for the current global warming trend. Rather, it points out the obvious fact that the planets gather heat energy from the sun, and can affect their climates.
- OsiVert, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@bobcrotch
The problem in these fields are that the "facts" can be debated. The one fact that everyone can see however, is that a lot of the air we see has turned brown from the pollution we cause. Even if it doesn't affect our climate, I like the attention brought because a side effect of making everything cleaner is that all the pollution I see over LA will improve. - arpad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Somehow though that just doesn't seem like a firm enough basis to pass law that'll effect the lives and fortunes of billions of people.
I think I'd like a slightly more thorough understanding of the climate, it's natural direction, what, if any, effect humans have on the climate and what the likely effects of those changes, human-caused or not, are likely to be. The Chicken Little, there's-no-time-to-ask-questions approach seems much more like a self-serving effort to stampede humanity then to save us. - jamessavik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Solar activity definitly has profound effects on earths global weather patterns. It has been a major influence on global weather patterns since the beginiing of time. It has been proven over and over throughout our planets geological record.
When solar plasma is at high levels, it collects and charges in the upper atmosphere and has effects far beyond producing the Northern Lights. The electrical charge that collects in the upper atmosphere where it propagates the formation of clouds. More clouds = more powerful and widespread weather.
Simple and proven. In fact a Danish physicist published a paper just this year with the relevent data.
This is an excellent example of an overlap between several different scientific diciplines: climatology, plasma physics, geophysics and paleoanthology. If you aren't familiar with current work in all four, you would tend to think of such a claim as balderdash. - Kyle660, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Profoundly. :)
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Get real, idiot. Volcanoes produce 110 million tons of CO2 per year. Mankind produces 10 billion. Furthermore, Volcanoes have a cooling effect due to stratospheric haze.
http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4If we all become vegans, then MORE forests would have to be clear cut for "organic" farms (Which produce a MUCH MUCH smaller yield than "non" organic farms.
That means even MORE CO2 (according to the GW Religion) - loganhid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6my son did what
- ProximaC, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7well, to be fair, some heat comes from geothermal, it's not ALL from the sun.
- Barbarino, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12I think it's arrogant to come to a conclusion about our climate when the earth is 4 billion years ago and we only have modern weather records of 200 years. Lets protect our eath, but lets not get militant about it. To declare GW one way or the other is arrogant, it's far too complex to definitely say yes or no.
- STKD, on 10/12/2007, -2/+51: It was Channel 4, not the BBC.
2: Most of that "proof" is already destroyed in articles referred to above. - killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3It isn't "according to PETA." It is according to the UN.
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
"According to a new report published by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent – 18 percent – than transport." - archiesteel, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7"As for your left wing global warming blog link"
This is not a left-right thing, you tool, it's a scientific debate - and the *overwhelming* majority of scientists say that the risk is there. - jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ junkyarddawg
As the resident expert on CO2 what are your answers to these questions?
(1) What percentage of atmospheric gases is composed of CO2?
(2) Does a percentage increase in CO2 concentration(s) directly produce the same percentage increase in global temperature?
(3) Are current CO2 levels, as a percentage of atmospheric gases, at their highest point throughout earth's history?
(4) If the herbaceous inhabitants in the Arctic become more numerous and flourish during an extended growing season wouldn't they utilized some of the increased CO2 during photosynthesis?
(5) If Mr. Mann starts his hooky hockey stick analysis 100 or 200 years earlier is it still a hockey stick?
Overall this was more of 'a thinking out loud' session of speculation. Each point of contention seemed to be searching for a potential basis of a hypothesis. Every thing mentioned had its possibilities. - jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@dhalsim007
Okay, say we all become vegans. We all eat only plants. What happens if this herbaceous diet causes increased human flatulence, then what do we do, eat dirt? - Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Heh. I agree. Though, I still like the idea of low- to zero-emissions; as tech improves there should be no need to piss in the stream, after all.
- xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I can't wait for Al Gore's next film, "The Inconvenient Sun"
- neave, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Compare their conveniently distored graph http://i157.photobucket.com/albums/t63/izzy_bizzy_photo/capture.jpg
to the true graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
...as argued in the 2nd para here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/ - DigitalDud, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It was hell of a lot simpler when people would just blame the gods for things and moved on.
- uttles, on 10/12/2007, -9/+11Well of course, any global warming researcher would say that this theory is nuts, because then they'd be wrong. (and subsequently would not be funded)
- Merrick178, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5You mean the unimaginably hot ball of luminescent gas relatively close to the Earth is affecting it's temperature???!?!? OMIGOSH! What is this world coming to?
Obviously it's affecting the Earth's temperature... The only reason the Earth is getting hotter is because all of that heat that once escaped is now remaining in the atmosphere. Also known as the greenhouse effect... o.0 Wow. - Sakumi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Wow... Capitan Obvious has a story!
The sun.. causing warming.. oh my god.. - jihadforwhat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ arpad
Thanks for your answers. They confirm my conclusions based on previous research. albeit limited to Internet resources. Your #4 answer surprised me. I had not considered that probability.
If we get any answers from junkyarddawg they should be interesting. -
Show 51 - 100 of 159 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
