What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.306 Comments
- Angostura, on 10/12/2007, -12/+85Interesting study, misleading headline. As the researcher says in the article:
"Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater " - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -24/+57Brighter sun leads to increased temperature and increased heat through solar radiation which leads to less greenhouse gasses dissolved into the ocean which equals more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
He says it's impossible to tell which has the greater effect, but this is a positive feedback loop with only one exit and that is for the sun to change again. As the Earth gets hotter more greenhouse gases will be released thus increasing the temperature even more, thus releasing more greenhouse gases. Only by the sun changing or by volcanic eruption blocking out some of the sun will this feedback loop change.
The current state of the Earth is not our fault, it has happened before and it will happen again, as all things in this universe cycle. - tpodr, on 10/12/2007, -3/+33Anyone have any luck finding this study in a peer-reviewed science journal?
No mention of this study at Dr Solanki's homepage
http://www.mps.mpg.de/homes/solanki/
or a mention in his publications (including 'in press')
I am not trying to cast doubt on the validity of the article. I just want to read the orginal study myself. - rasterbator, on 10/12/2007, -25/+52The truth is we will have an ice age before any sort of global warming event would ever occur. The last two ice ages came about 10,000 years apart and we are currently overdue for another one. Meteorologists know that this is not global warming but just climate shifting. Global warming is a term that politicians use to scare people into giving them money or voting for them.
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27The study was from Swiss and Germany? How did the US Government get involved?
"A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes." - kiwiboyus, on 10/12/2007, -10/+32Th fact is we can't control the Sun but we should be able to control ourselves.
- plingboot, on 10/12/2007, -36/+58Really interesting article.
But yet again I'm amazed by the average digg user's devotion to their hard right government. That you'll mod down any comment that suggests the burning of fossil fuel causes global warming is truly astounding.
It just seems really weird to me, a non American, that there are right wing, fossil fuel fanbois.
Where I live only the old or slightly backward would own up to supporting a conservative view. They are seen as backward, misinformed and old fashioned, possibly racist. Hell, even the Conservative party are trying reinvent themselves as center/left.
Anyway, back on topic. Even if Co2 has no effect on global warming at all - hell, even if there is no global warming. Pumping out Co2 isn't a good idea. The sooner we stop the better.
Now bury me you weirdo neo cons!
- mattyG, on 10/12/2007, -15/+36http://www.glennbeck.com/dayaftertomorrow/poster5.jpg
http://www.rightwingnews.com/graphics/evilcon1.jpg - kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -11/+32The truth about scientific consensus on global warming:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
In 1994 Science Magazine anylized 928 abstracts, published in peer reviewed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change".
Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position that fossil fuels were a major contributing factor to global climate change.
The only controversy with this comes from politicians, oil companies, and the popular media. - pbaehr, on 10/12/2007, -6/+24To be on the safe side, a virgin sacrifice here and there in the name of the Sun God wouldn't hurt. I think that should be on the list after cutting emissions.
- twinklyJesus, on 10/12/2007, -33/+50"The temperatures are rising and there are only very few viable tricks to slow it down and decrease the maximum temperatures. "
As if we could really control the weather or the average temperature OF A PLANET! You can't even get to work on time! Seen the freeways lately? We can't control traffic at an intersection, let alone the temperature of our planet.
The only issue I actually have with environmentalists (get ready to bury me) is that they suffer under the delusion that we have this power over the earth enabling us to control weather, species extinction, (wild rabbits die in captivity, you can't keep them as pets) and the F-ing ozone layer. By the time they had the equipment to detect the hole in the ozone layer, it was too late. The ozone layer is gone. We can't fix this stuff. We watch too many sci-fi movies where we go to the center of the earth and restart the core. THE CORE for God's sake. Get real, we aren't close to being able to do stuff like this.
This is like being stuck in a mental institution between the guy that thinks he's Jesus and the other dude who is Napoleon. - sandrat44, on 10/12/2007, -4/+19Good article. Headline here is rather misleading. Basically solar radiation does go through periods where the sun is brighter/hotter - It *may* be compounding the global warming - does not say to what degree. But it seems all can agree there is some effect.
Still not the "silver bullet" model. But a step in the right direction to find it.
I think it will be another SPF 3000 day out there folks! - thiagoleite, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Thank you lordy! I was about to sell my coal engine Hummer!
- Railer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13The only thing I did not like was this line:
"He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase."
But he neglected to mention that over those same 20 years the intensity of those flares HAVE increased. So the overall energy hitting earth over the last 20 years has increased.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/xtreme_flare_031105.html
"Most of those pulses from the descendent solar activity phases had important geophysical effects on the terrestrial environment." - http://star.arm.ac.uk/preprints/391.pdf - Rasputen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I am regularly angered by articles about global warming in that the objectivity that is suppose to be prevalent in science is absent.
Man's actions can have an affect in the environment and mostly likely have had an effect. CO2 production is a green house and unnatural production of it will change the balance of the natural world
but there are natural causes for change as well. The Suns changes can affect weather patterns. Also, we have seen larger changes than this in the past. Ice core samples revealed a change of 30 degrees in 50 years.... which is just insane. We also need to consider the urban heat index and how we compare temp readings.
Yes we have to act and yes we have to change our ways but global warming is not a one sided issue and most articles regardless of what side they are one, seem to present it that way. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10The sun is a real jerk sometimes.
- ajwillys, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14Ah, so the sun's to blame you say? Now we must plot a way to rid ourselves of this 'sun'.
- HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Ocean levels rising...
Must buy property 50 miles inland...
Then plan for that property to become ocean front and rake in the cash!!! - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10What the Sun giveth, it can giveth too much.
- bugsy187, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10This story is old (Filed: 18/07/2004). This could have been discredited or even supported since then.
What's the point of posting old science news? It's not even the original scientific paper. - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_emissions_by_country
People need to stop saying things before knowing they're at least backed by one source. - infra172, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16Better than the self-loathing type.
- wupike, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10haha dugg because they effectively used "poppycock" in a sentence
- sigalrm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8It's time for reasonable people on both sides of the global warming debate to acknowledge that this is a ongoing discovery of a subject that is, like our universe, enormously complex. Fanaticism--whether in religion or science--blurs introspection, eroding one's ability to see that there are legitimate perspectives outside of your personal "scientific" orthodoxy.
Statements such as "global warming is caused (x%) by ______" fail to take into account the tremendous complexity of Earth's systems, both intra- and extraterrestrial. - adolfojp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Whoever blames the Sun for global warming has not used Sun Fire T1000 and T2000 servers.
/yes, it was a joke - Optimus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+14"The only issue I actually have with environmentalists (get ready to bury me) is that they suffer under the delusion that we have this power over the earth enabling us to control weather, species extinction, (wild rabbits die in captivity, you can't keep them as pets) and the F-ing ozone layer. By the time they had the equipment to detect the hole in the ozone layer, it was too late. The ozone layer is gone."
Inaccurate.
TOKYO - The ozone hole over the Antarctic is likely to begin contracting in the future and may disappear by 2050 because of a reduction in the release of chlorofluorocarbons and other ozone-depleting gases, according to a team of Japanese scientists.
Some, however, have suggested the hole won%u2019t heal until much later because old refrigerators and air-conditioning systems %u2014 many in the United States and Canada %u2014 are still releasing ozone-killing chemicals.
---
The Ozone layer is definately not "gone". - f00xx0riz3r, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Blame Canada!
- rblinne, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Early in the Bush administration there was skepticism about how accurate the global models were. So, the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative was established where the adminstration makes reports to Congress that studies in greater detail our understanding on climate change. The first such report of around 20 was just published. It looked at the temperature trends at different levels in the atmosphere and how accurate the computer models were at the different levels of the atmosphere.
The way the temperature trends in the different layers allow you to determine what is causing the warming. If the sun was causing the warming it would warm at the surface, warm at mid-level and warm at the upper-level atmosphere. If on the other hand it was caused by greenhouse gases, the surface would warm, the mid-level atmosphere would warm even more due to amplification, and the upper-level atmosphere would cool (except during large volcano eruptions which causes the temperature to spike in the upper atmosphere). The Bush adminstration found the latter is what is happening. This report was signed by two cabinet secretaries and the President's science advisor. In their cover letter, the adminstration officials praised the scientists who did the report for their thoroughness and accuracy.
If the evidence can satisfy the skepticism of the Bush administration, then it shows how far into kooksville this Daily Telegraph story is. The Daily Telegraph has probably the worst scientific reporting in the whole world for a major newspaper. - infra172, on 10/12/2007, -6/+13What? The 1.9891×10^30 kg fusion reactor is more responsible for heating the earth than cow farts? Insanity!
- will42, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Oh that's fine then; Mars is just a lovely environment to live in.
- (.)(.), on 10/12/2007, -11/+18Anyone who blindly believes that humans are the sole reason for global warming is ignoring some obvious facts:
1) The earth is NOT a static environment
2) There have been 3 major ice ages on Earth, which means there must have been some great warming trends in the past
3) Any statistician will tell you that it is stupid to extrapolate trends for earth in just the past 100 years. Its like finding out how long it takes you to walk 1 step, then trying to figure out how long it would take to cross the U.S.
4) I question the accuracy of any temperature measuring instruments that are around 100 years old.
Alot of global warming zealots are more interested in bleeding out money from the US economy, than solving actual environmental issues. - jonrad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I'd also like to point to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 which has an article about why Mars' temperature is changing as well. I'm not sure how reputable the source is, but it's definitely something to think about.
"Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms..." - theodicey, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Solar forcing of global warming has been studied a ton already, and its influence on earth temperatures is statistically small.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=171
More importantly, climate models that assume no solar forcing and rely on CO2 emissions and known physical properties can reproduce the global temperature increase since we've started to study global warming. Since solar forcing is unnecessary, it's likely quite small. - HMTKSteve, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Everyone knows Mars is getting hotter because we just landed those Martian Rover SUVs up there ;)
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Ummm, yeah...actually you do.
Since the scientists claim that the world has warmed 1 Degree C it really would be nice to have measurements in the tenths of a degree. One could say it would be SIGNIFICANT even., - Edmundo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11Does this mean we don't control the weather?
- iSEPIC, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I think we should plug all volcanos too, because just one single eruption causes more CO2 than all of mankind.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -68/+74CO2, we call it life!
It's the sun's fault!
There's no way we can be sure what's causing this!
Best not to wean yourself off of fossil fuels, it might not be true....!
This message brought to you by the extraction inustries of the world and their wholly-owned political parties. This message has been sufficiently money-laundered to represent no formal connection with the Republican Party or it's minions. All "facts" are presumed to be made up, unless proven otherwise. A vast marjority of published peer-reviewed scientists who dislike us clearly have some sort of agenda that involved disliking us for its own selfish sake, and has nothing at all to do with whatever it is we're supposed to have done. Your mileage may vary. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12snowkittenz, your comment "only 10% of global warming is caused by the sun" is quite possibly the most moronic thing I've read all day! If the Sun isn't warming us up, what is?
Thanks for the belly laugh! :-D
Before you mod this down, stop a minute and think about it. - paul2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7You guys are idiots. Everyone knows it's because of the decline in pirate numbers.
- Grig, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I took some measurements last fall and proved that the sun was setting earlier and earlier each day. Before too long the sun will go down and NEVER come back up again if this keeps up. WE'RE DOOMED!!!
- nailbunny, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6you say that a cut in our emissions will ruin our economy.
we can make electricity with nuclear power, lots of it, not to mention the hippie renewable sources of electricity.
also, we can fuel our cars with sugar and corn based ethanol. coincidentally, one of our nation's primary raw resources and the fundament of our economy is our agricultural industry. imagine if all the money that we spend on oil stayed inside the country. we could even see an end to farm subsidies. - citres, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8lmao, "my friend told me." well thats good, in that case i'm gonna go back to burning fossil fuels without guilt.
- kremvax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ah yes, a monumental work from the same popular science fiction genius that gave us "Congo."
He must know something that the scientists don't!
(Namely, that extraction industry funded speaking engagements pay gloriously well.) - phunlee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Yeah. Let's try to fix the part we can control.
I mean, I LIKE clear skies and breathable air. Whether or not it produces a greenhouse effect, I don't want smog and CO2 in the air.
I do happen to believe it does contribute to warming.
The earth, tho, can take care of itself. At worst all humans will die and then it'll clean itself up... - TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5When you give a population of bacteria less food they will reproduce less, in third world countries where there is little food people reproduce far more than in developed countries.
Of course its probably more to do with education than food levels, the point is we have much more control over our reproduction than bacteria. - skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -14/+19Or perhaps we're not doing a goddam thing.
Since when has everybody forgotten that it is better to be safe than sorry?
This is our PLANET we are talking about. It's all we have.
Better safe than sorry. - Crimsoneer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6An interesting article. Sadly, if this is the case, solutions are not exactly easy to find now...Its rather problematic
- CosmicJustice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Ok. Let's fix it. What are you willing to give up to lower your Carbon Footprint? The supposed solutions we get here always seem to start with "They should."
THEY should build more efficient cars.
THEY should develop cleaner sources of energy.
THEY should pass stricter environmental laws.
Guess what THEY aren't going to do a damn thing as long as YOU keep buying new cars, electronics, clothes, furniture and fuel like there's no tomorrow. - kg4gyt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8@tpodr:
Here are a few links, I'm not sure which study this article refers to exactly, but here are some papers that are by the same author, hopefully all of these work for you, I'm at currently at a College Library that subscribes to journals of this type.
http://www.ras.org.uk/images/stories/ras_pdfs/Solanki.pdf
http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/2002ja009343.pdf
http://link.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v91/e211101 -
Show 51 - 100 of 304 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
