digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at openpresswire.com

Sun approaches Solar Cycle 24, could wreak havoc

openpresswire.com — A new 11-year cycle of heightened solar activity, bringing with it increased risks for power grids, critical military, civilian and airline communications, GPS signals and even cell phones and ATM transactions, showed signs it was on its way late yesterday when the cycle ’s first sunspot appeared in the sun’s Northern Hemisphere, said NOAA.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 7012, on 01/07/2008, -32/+20On March 1st, 2008, it's gonna feel pretty ***** real to you too. Anybody not wearing 2 million sunblock is gonna have a real bad day. Get it?
    • rootbeerinacan, on 01/07/2008, -3/+10You're a ***** retard....
    • thedude42, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5LMAO.... did you read the article? The max doesn't occur till 2011 or 2012... and this isn't news, unless announcements from NASA nearly 2 years ago is news.

      As for sunspots, yeah, NASA was already asked that question:

      "Fortunately for beach-goers, elevated levels of solar activity around the peak of the sunspot cycle do not substantially increase the risk of sunburns on Earth. Our planet's atmosphere acts as a shield against the most harmful forms of radiation -- and the shielding actually increases slightly near the peak of the solar cycle. So, if you failed to buy any super-protective Solar Max Sunscreen for your Labor Day on the beach, you can relax. There was nothing to worry about beyond the usual forms of skin cancer and exposure-related maladies"
      • x0epyon0x, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4LMAO....have you seen the movie Terminator 2: Judgment Day? Apparently not, otherwise you wouldn't have taken his comment seriously.
    • HalBSure, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6Thanks, Sarah!
    • diablozx9, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3GREAT movie quote......
  • theexitwound, on 01/07/2008, -14/+66Not mentioned in the article, but the climate on Earth is very closely linked with the sun's activity.
    • MortalCoiled, on 01/07/2008, -6/+61Yes; after all, the sun is ultimately responsible for global warming.
      • lemon67, on 01/07/2008, -23/+4Yes; after all, the sun is ultimately responsible for the solar system...

        and nope, global warming is due to humans being retarded and destroying the ozone layer. plain and simple.
        • khaosx2030, on 01/07/2008, -2/+3One could play with the semantics of his comment.
          "ultimately" could be seen as referring to the fact that without the sun, there would be no humans, therefore no global warming.

          However, I do agree that the Sun is directly involved with global warming.
        • noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -0/+14Oh so global warming is caused by ozone depletion now? Will you at least go an learn about the stupid arguments you're going to use?
        • rarson, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Funny, call me stupid, but I could've sworn that he meant the big hot ball of fire in the sky is the thing that keeps the Earth warm.

          Although, one could argue that the Earth wouldn't stay warm enough to support life without the atmosphere, but it wouldn't be warm in the first place with The Great Easy-Bake.
      • LordByr0n, on 01/07/2008, -5/+2I agree but i wouldn't say 'ultimately'
        • stephant, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4No, "ultimately" it's Republicans and American greed that is responsible, right? You do understand that virtually ALL energy on the planet comes from the sun, don't you? Seriously, this climate debate has become so transparently a poitical attempt to influence policy and culture that it's scary. People have been saying "THE END IS NEAR!!!" since the beginning of history. And every time someone says it we all have to adopt their political or religious views to fix the problem. Strange, isn't it.
          • LordByr0n, on 01/07/2008, -3/+1Where the ***** are you coming from? You must love your bashing rants on random people on the internet. Leave the house much?
          • NSMike, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1@LordByr0n -

            Um, without the friggin SUN, there would be no heat to trap, no matter how much CO2 was in the atmosphere. So, ULTIMATELY, the sun IS responsible for global warming.
    • webaddict, on 01/07/2008, -1/+26I'm not trying to be an ass here, but would an article about the sun's cycle really need to mention that the earth's climate is closely linked with sun's activity? You would think that would be 5th grade common knowledge. Then again, it is surprising to see all those plants growing when the sun comes out... ah, the mystery of it.
      • stephant, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6I'm pretty sure you are trying to be an ass and, yes, after reading the comments on digg, every article about the sun needs to mention that it has a major impact on the earth's climate (and might even be solely responsible for it). The reason, and you already know this, is that there is a group of people in the world that think mankind is primarily responsible for the climate on earth and that we can essentially override the influence of the sun through our evil and wasteful living.

        I have no idea how people can be so certain that a .7 degree difference in the average earth temperature over a hundred or more years can be solely the responsibility of man and has nothing to do with the sun or any other factor. I'm not sure how they would explain ice ages or former periods of earth warming but it probably has something to do with George Bush.
    • 01l0, on 01/07/2008, -7/+8According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978, when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has not changed.

      There has been work done reconstructing the solar irradiance record over the last century, before satellites were available. According to the Max Planck Institute, where this work is being done, there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940.
      • transcendz, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1The radiance is nothing without the gas which create some heating locally (the temperature at an altitude of 10000 meters is about -50°C to -60°C, and even colder in space). If this gas changes, the effect of the radiance will be stronger or weaker. Nowadays, we have a stronger "warming gas" in our atmosphere, and sun's activity tends to go up, which makes 2 causes to explain our global climate change.
      • strictnein, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2NASA disagrees:
        "Since the late 1970s, the amount of solar radiation the sun emits, during times of quiet sunspot activity, has increased by nearly .05 percent per decade, according to a NASA funded study."
        http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/ ...
    • jmpeagle, on 01/07/2008, -1/+14I heard it would be very difficult for us here if the sun just disappeared.
      • latrosicarius, on 01/07/2008, -7/+1if it did, we'd still be good for 8 seconds so its alright
        • gm33, on 01/07/2008, -1/+19I think you mean 8 MINUTES
          • giveer, on 01/07/2008, -0/+7Someone's digging gm33 down because he has his scientific facts correct? That's not very Digg-ish.
          • burjzyntski, on 01/07/2008, -3/+1I think it was because he yelled "minutes" unnecessarily at all of us.
          • gm33, on 01/07/2008, -1/+0sorry, I was trying to emphasis minutes since html/bold isn't allowed...
          • latrosicarius, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Yeah, minutes. Woops. my joke failed.
    • Mononuclear, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Yeah you know all those crazy seaons we get. Where I live there are 4 seasons every year. I am moving in a week from the northern hemisphere to the southern hemisphere near the equator. Right now here it's winter and is snowing but there it's the middle of summer. I think it's all caused by the sun!! Who would have known eh?
    • rootbeerinacan, on 01/07/2008, -4/+3NO ***** SHERLOCK!!! The sun comes out, it gets warm. You guys are crazy talking about global warming. This guy meant the obvious, if theres sun, there's heat. How the hell did you guys get on Global Warming???
  • Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -2/+42Wait a minute. This story has Cycle 24 as being early? It's not early, it's almost a year LATE. It was originally scheduled for Mar 2007. When that date came and went, it was rescheduled for Mar 2008. You had better enjoy 24 'cause according to NASA, 25 is gonna be a Downer. So much so that it will probably be the start of another, hopefully 'Little' Ice Age. We are scheduled for a 'Big' Ice Age anytime now.
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_long ...
    http://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
    • Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2Well, the link worked when the clock was running... The link to the NASA story is;
      http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_long ...
      If DIGG breaks it again, just remove the space after the 'h'
      h ttp://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
      • Mononuclear, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4The only time links break is when you paste a link and then go back and edit a comment. Each time you edit a comment you have to redo the link before clicking submit comment.
        • rarson, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2I was beginning to think I was the only one that noticed this. It's pretty obvious if you just read your post before resubmitting it.
      • Angostura, on 01/07/2008, -4/+1I bloody well hope so... it might buy the climate a bit of time.
        • noahhoward, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Idiot.
        • rarson, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1The climate will fix itself. It's humans that we need to worry about.

          Global warming should be less about what we can do to try to control it and more about what we can do to deal with it. We'll never be able to stop the climate from heating or cooling, so at least we can be prepared to brave the changes.
    • Mononuclear, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2The actual article at http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080104_ ... says it's an early omen of whats to come. Like as in the first sun spot signifying the cycle to come. Not that it actually early. The example being the first Robin of spring to hatch which doesn't mean it hatched early but that it is just showing that we are into spring. The blog reworded what the original story said and then added their own commentary which changed the entire meaning.
    • vdgmr1213, on 01/07/2008, -1/+7I hear they moved it to the Day After Tomorrow.
    • burningmanstan, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2The building does exist however the address he lists is on the "intelligent office" [1] list of locations. Which means he is a one man band and a shill. What kind of solar research center needs a virtual office. His predictions are completely off the wall, current solar models don't have any conclusive predictions.

      1. http://www.intelligentoffice.com/locations.html
  • andrewcsayer, on 01/07/2008, -11/+6This is it! This is the sign!
    • VelvetoneFusion, on 01/07/2008, -0/+5Yeah, its a sign, alright..."Going Out Of Business"...

      Thank you for that opportunity, sir
      • tyywebb, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Wish I could digg you 1000 times. That being said, I'll see all of you on my roof with beer, folding chair, and tinfoil hat in February 2012.
  • gds923, on 01/07/2008, -4/+11I amazing to think how many things like this go on in the universe that we have absolutely no control over.
    • webdeshel, on 01/07/2008, -13/+2Yes, thank God HE does, otherwise we'd be screwed.
      • tyywebb, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6............................................________........................
        ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
        .............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
        .........................,/...............................................”:,........
        .....................,?......................................................,.....
        .................../...........................................................,}....
        ................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
        .............../...................................................,:”........./.....
        ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
        ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
        .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
        ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
        ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
        ...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
        ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
        ............/.`~,......`-...................................../...................
        .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__...........
        ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,....
        .....`=~-,__......`,.........................................................
        ...................`=~-,,.,......................................................
        ................................`:,,...........................`..............__..
        .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
        ........................................_..........._,-%.......`...............
        ...................................,
      • Ramble, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1That bastard! God knocking out my friggin GPS.
    • p51d007, on 01/07/2008, -3/+3You mean that GW isn't responsible for the sunspot problem? Oh wait...I forget...it's the VP's fault.
      Digg.com....the new home of the democraticunderground.com
  • roffelmeh, on 01/07/2008, -10/+76"The major climax of this new cycle is predicted to be in 2011 or 2012."


    Maya Calendar ends 2012

    • 01l0, on 01/07/2008, -14/+5The earth's magnetic poles are due for a reversal around 2011 or 2012, I'm interested in the effect this in conjunction with the solar cycle maximum will have on the aurora.
      • ncdave101, on 01/07/2008, -1/+21[citation needed]
        • h3lx, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1From the history of things, nothing is going to happen that hasn't happened at least a 100,000 times or more. There is absolutely nothing to be concern about regarding the magnetism of the Earth in relation to the Solar Cycle. Strangely, there is a *****-load of hoopla about this whole mayan calendar ending bit... asteroids, comets, black holes, total annihilation seems imminent if you buy into that sort of thing.

          http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6 ...

          The sun reverses its magnetic field like clockwork every eleven years at the peak of the sunspot cycle. The next solar flip is due in 2012. South-pointing magnetic flux moves from sunspots, which are intense magnetic loops near the equator of the sun, along “meridional flows” to the north magnetic pole, and vice versa. As the oppositely-directed charge accumulates at the poles the field declines, until eventually the reverse charge predominates.
    • beggersfunk, on 01/07/2008, -3/+1I agreed to it .
    • LucasVB, on 01/07/2008, -4/+13And why are you bringing this entirely coincidental and unrelated fact to the discussion?
      • tyywebb, on 01/07/2008, -1/+3Because during a magnetic pole reversal we would be temporarily unprotected from all the radiation coming from the sun. Couple that with the climax of a sun cycle and it's curtains for everyone!
        • Cl1mh4224rd, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1> "Because during a magnetic pole reversal we would be temporarily unprotected from all the radiation coming from the sun."

          Uhh... "At present, the overall geomagnetic field is becoming weaker at a rate which would, if it continues, cause the dipole field to temporarily collapse by 3000–4000 AD."

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal# ...
    • latrosicarius, on 01/07/2008, -2/+6omgomgomgomg
    • yohnkrb, on 01/07/2008, -0/+39My calendar ends in 2008...
    • ChileanGoD, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2what if a powerfull iteration of the ocean current el niño shows up at the same time ? We're going to have good times ahead of us.
    • TheNepenthe, on 01/07/2008, -1/+0omfg. >: That's exactly what freaks me out.
    • Vulphaestion, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3For the last time; the Mayan calendar "ends" in 2012 just like how our calendar "ended" in 1999. It's the end of a bak'tun, and they celebrated this.
    • JoeRW, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1December 21st 2012 is the date that the 13 Baktun count (5125 years) comes full circle. But it is also the date at which the galactic center is conjunct with the sun and earth which occurs every 26000 years.
      • JoeRW, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1From "http://www.gaianxaos.com/GalacticMayanFinalMission ..."

        The most well known prophetic icon in Mesoamerican culture is the sunstone calendar which depicts the five ages. Along the circumference of this image we find the twenty day glyphs that we’ve been talking about. The four square boxes located around the center circle symbolize the four previous ages. The figure in the center represents the present fifth and final age. As described in the previous section, a world age can be represented by the 5200 tun Great Cycle. Five Great Cycles (5 x 5200) equals one Grand Cycle of 26000 tun (remember 1 tun equals 360 days). The details of the creation and dissolution of these five ages are summarized in the Popul Vu creation myth.
        This cycle, slightly less than 26000 years, is specifically related to the precession of the equinoxes, which is caused by the 23 degree tilt in the Earth’s axis. As the Earth orbits the sun, it wobbles like a top, exhibiting a property known as precession. The orientation of the north pole, which is currently aligned with Polaris, traces an ellipse against the background of stars. The 26000 tun cycle can also be mapped using the Tzolkin by allowing each unit to equal 1000 tun, or 50 katuns. This is indeed another astonishing application of the Tzolkin.
        From this perspective, we are not only nearing the end of the Great Cycle of history, but we are about to close out an entire 26000 year Grand Cycle period of evolution. Interestingly enough, if we look back 26000 years we find ourselves in the times of Cro-Magnon man which preceded Homo Sapiens. Perhaps the 260 day gestation period of an individual human can be correlated with a 26000 year gestation period of the human species.
  • itanius, on 01/07/2008, -8/+561. Mayan calendar ending 12/21/2012
    2. Solar Cycle 24
    3. ??????
    4. PROFIT!!!
    • ArmyOfOrr42, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1actually its 12/23/2012
      • dogofpeace, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Terence Mckenna claimed it to be 12/22/2012
    • aroundtown, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3That's okay, the Mayan's were long gone before that date anyhow.
  • inverted7001, on 01/07/2008, -26/+7Jesus is coming back to vote for Ron Paul =)
  • seanhive, on 01/07/2008, -2/+13Dust off the Icarus, we're goin in.
  • TheGooseyOne, on 01/07/2008, -6/+33Obviously caused by global warming.
  • iloveazngurlzs, on 01/07/2008, -4/+36Galactic Warming?
    • stephant, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2And if we don't do something about it this instant we're all going to die. The end is near I tell you. Only [insert religious affiliation or political party preference here] has a plan to prevent it.
  • webdeshel, on 01/07/2008, -2/+7This is great news for all the Amateur Radio ops (Hams to the mass population) out there. We have the most fun when the solar cycle maxes out. All I can say is: too bad we have to wait until 2011.
    • ryan83189, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Why? Does it have something to do with the ionosphere?
      • Nothlit, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Yes, the more energized the ionosphere (due to increased solar activity) the better radio waves can bounce around the globe.
        • Ramble, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Happens in summer too, better radio quality due to higher solar radiation.
  • rowlodge, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5the sky is falling !
  • DonkeyBeliever, on 01/07/2008, -4/+3Blog Spam!
  • identifiedlogo, on 01/07/2008, -3/+2We are toast
  • moocow1452, on 01/07/2008, -2/+13Some theorists have this crazy idea that the sun will emit something to the like of an EMP that will wash over the entire planet, frying everything in it's path and leaving us in the Amish Age.

    Bring Futurama DVD's and a crank generator, this may get ugly.
    • silverchrysalis, on 01/07/2008, -1/+9at least Amish people make good mashed potatoes. so no one will starve
    • Gemfinder, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Fire up all the horses/Head out on the highway/Looking for adventure/And whatever comes our way...
      Hey, I'm ready. Horse-drawn carriages run around $1800...
  • MarkusGarvey, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1oh well...my networks always seem to go goofy during high sunspot activity=Profit!!
  • ChewyBass, on 01/07/2008, -2/+4This is what the Russians are saying. I've been hearing out this cooling period coming sometime around 2012 for a while. We'll see in about 4 years if it is true. http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/08/25/ru ...
  • ryan83189, on 01/07/2008, -10/+3Why did i think of Sun Microsystems when i read the title?
  • mrblonde314, on 01/07/2008, -3/+17I feel mongered with fear =*(
  • cambob76, on 01/07/2008, -6/+2I don't think the sun likes us. :(
    • thesparrowband, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1the sun doesn't care about you
      • Metatron197, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4it doesnt care about you either
        • sirdaz, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1or you

          but me..
        • Metatron197, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1the sun will vaporize you first because it loves you soo much
  • luxcanon, on 01/07/2008, -2/+0Been there.
  • Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -0/+6April 26, 2007
    NOAA Space Environment Center
    The next 11-year cycle of solar storms will most likely start next March and peak in late 2011 or mid-2012 - up to a year later than expected - according to a forecast issued by the NOAA Space Environment Center in coordination with an international panel of solar experts. The NOAA Space Environment Center led the prediction panel and issued the forecast at its annual Space Weather Workshop in Boulder, Colo. NASA sponsored the panel. Expected to start last fall, the delayed onset of Solar Cycle 24 stymied the panel and left them evenly split on whether a weak or strong period of solar storms lies ahead, but neither group predicts a record-breaker.
    http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2847.htm

    This Digg story is in accurate! It states;
    "It has been stated by officials at NOAA that due to the early appearance of these spots it shows that this could be a very strong solar season with bigger storms and more sunspots than previously monitored sun cycles."

    Cycle 24 is ONE YEAR LATE! NOAA actually said' "Expected to start last fall (2006), the delayed onset of Solar Cycle 24 stymied the panel and left them evenly split on whether a weak or strong period of solar storms lies ahead..."
  • mitch77, on 01/07/2008, -3/+8The science journals from 10 to 20 years ago stated all these climactic upheavals would occur.
    None of this stuff thats going on is a surprise to anyone who has read the science.
    And they all know CO2 has nothing to do withit.
    Article published today: http://tinyurl.com/2zhnu9

    THE STARK headline appeared just over a year ago. "2007 to be 'warmest on record,' " BBC News reported on Jan. 4, 2007. Citing experts in the British government's Meteorological Office, the story announced that "the world is likely to experience the warmest year on record in 2007," surpassing the all-time high reached in 1998.

    But a funny thing happened on the way to the planetary hot flash: Much of the planet grew bitterly cold.

    In South America, for example, the start of winter last year was one of the coldest ever observed. According to Eugenio Hackbart, chief meteorologist of the MetSul Weather Center in Brazil, "a brutal cold wave brought record low temperatures, widespread frost, snow, and major energy disruption." In Buenos Aires, it snowed for the first time in 89 years, while in Peru the cold was so intense that hundreds of people died and the government declared a state of emergency in 14 of the country's 24 provinces. In August, Chile's agriculture minister lamented "the toughest winter we have seen in the past 50 years," which caused losses of at least $200 million in destroyed crops and livestock.

    Latin Americans weren't the only ones shivering.

    University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that "unexpected bitter cold swept the entire Southern Hemisphere in 2007." Johannesburg experienced its first significant snowfall in a quarter-century. Australia had its coldest ever June. New Zealand's vineyards lost much of their 2007 harvest when spring temperatures dropped to record lows.

    Closer to home, 44.5 inches of snow fell in New Hampshire last month, breaking the previous record of 43 inches, set in 1876. And the Canadian government is forecasting the coldest winter in 15 years.

    Now all of these may be short-lived weather anomalies, mere blips in the path of the global climatic warming that Al Gore and a host of alarmists proclaim the deadliest threat we face. But what if the frigid conditions that have caused so much distress in recent months signal an impending era of global cooling?

    "Stock up on fur coats and felt boots!" advises Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and senior scientist at Moscow's Shirshov Institute of Oceanography. "The latest data . . . say that earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012."

    Sorokhtin dismisses the conventional global warming theory that greenhouse gases, especially human-emitted carbon dioxide, is causing the earth to grow hotter. Like a number of other scientists, he points to solar activity - sunspots and solar flares, which wax and wane over time - as having the greatest effect on climate.

    "Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change," Sorokhtin writes in an essay for Novosti. "Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind." In a recent paper for the Danish National Space Center, physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen concur: "The sun . . . appears to be the main forcing agent in global climate change," they write.

    Given the number of worldwide cold events, it is no surprise that 2007 didn't turn out to be the warmest ever. In fact, 2007's global temperature was essentially the same as that in 2006 - and 2005, and 2004, and every year back to 2001. The record set in 1998 has not been surpassed. For nearly a decade now, there has been no global warming. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate - it's up about 4 percent since 1998 - the global mean temperature has remained flat. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change.

    Yet so relentlessly has the alarmist scenario been hyped, and so disdainfully have dissenting views been dismissed, that millions of people assume Gore must be right when he insists: "The debate in the scientific community is over."

    But it isn't. Just last month, more than 100 scientists signed a strongly worded open letter pointing out that climate change is a well-known natural phenomenon, and that adapting to it is far more sensible than attempting to prevent it. Because slashing carbon dioxide emissions means retarding economic development, they warned, "the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it."

    Climate science isn't a religion, and those who dispute its leading theory are not heretics. Much remains to be learned about how and why climate changes, and there is neither virtue nor wisdom in an emotional rush to counter global warming - especially if what's coming is a global Big Chill.
    • ryan83189, on 01/07/2008, -1/+4Notice how they aren't calling it global warming anymore, it's "climate change", so they can say that their wickerman is causing record cold temperatures and snowfall too. God forbid if the earth cools naturally after this, they will think they single handedly saved it, and be so full of themselves.
    • JoeVet, on 01/07/2008, -2/+2There is no increase in radiant energy during these sun spot occurrences so there is no link to global warming.

      "University of Oklahoma geophysicist David Deming, a specialist in temperature and heat flow, notes in the Washington Times that...." When scientists are publishing opinion pieces in the local paper you can bet it is an opinion paid for by big oil. The real scientists publish in peer reviewed science journals.

      Pointing out local weather occurrences to justify denial of global climate change shows ignorance of the tems and issues.

      Most of the "scientists" who are trotted out to bolster the deniers are economists and meteorologists, not climatologists. I am a scientist and my opinion is just as valid as any economist when we are talking about climate. That is, neither one of us is qualified.

      Science is not a religion and is always open to discussion. The problem with the deniers is that their discussion is not occurring in science journals were scientists present their data. The deniers are presenting argument in local newspaper opinion pieces which do not have the same emphasis on fact and data. The theory of anthropomorphic climate change is based on very strong data. To dismiss the data because you are afraid of all the implications that means is foolish.
      • vikingcoder, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1It's anthropogenic - not anthropomorphic.

        anthropogenic = caused by humans
        anthropomorphic = resembling human form
    • vikingcoder, on 01/07/2008, -2/+2Based on the Dec-Nov figures, 2007 is the second warmest year, ahead of 1998 & behind 2005. The figures for the previous month are posted on or about the 10th. At that point, we can see where the Jan.-Dec. record falls - probably the same.

      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts ...

      A regional trend does not disproving its subsuming larger trend.
    • Roberib, on 01/08/2008, -0/+2Cooler weather during periods of low sunspot activity
      in approximately 11 year cycle is a long term pattern.
  • chili555, on 01/07/2008, -7/+8I betcha Al Gore can fix this! Go get 'em, Al!
    • LordByr0n, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2"Wwwwwshshshwwshshsh..."
    • diablozx9, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1I love it,,, Go Al Baby...LOL.
    • Narasil, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1If he thinks he can get another Nobel out of it...or better yet ANOTHER recount in Florida he'd prolly be doing "Sun dances" or whatever he could think of.
  • rossmills, on 01/07/2008, -3/+0Is this the same kind of "havoc" as "Millenium Bug" havoc?
  • Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -2/+7Read this story from a Member of the IPCC!

    Christopher Monckton, Denpasar, Bali
    As a contributor to the IPCC's 2007 report, I share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Yet I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords - through our hereditary element the most independent-minded of lawmakers - profoundly disagree on fundamental scientific grounds with both the IPCC and my co-laureate's alarmist movie An Inconvenient Truth, which won this year's Oscar for Best Sci-Fi Comedy Horror.
    Two detailed investigations by Committees of the House confirm that the IPCC has deliberately, persistently and prodigiously exaggerated not only the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature but also the environmental consequences of warmer weather.

    At the very heart of the IPCC's calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: "The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005)." Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

    Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physicalthe Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once.

    At the very heart of the IPCC's calculations lurks an error more serious than any of these. The IPCC says: "The CO2 radiative forcing increased by 20 percent during the last 10 years (1995-2005)." Radiative forcing quantifies increases in radiant energy in the atmosphere, and hence in temperature. The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1995 was 360 parts per million. In 2005 it was just 5percent higher, at 378 ppm. But each additional molecule of CO2 in the air causes a smaller radiant-energy increase than its predecessor. So the true increase in radiative forcing was 1 percent, not 20 percent. The IPCC has exaggerated the CO2 effect 20-fold.

    Why so large and crucial an exaggeration? Answer: the IPCC has repealed the fundamental physical, the Stefan-Boltzmann equation - that converts radiant energy to temperature. Without this equation, no meaningful calculation of the effect of radiance on temperature can be done. Yet the 1,600 pages of the IPCC's 2007 report do not mention it once.

    The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth's surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the "surface forcing"), and the temperature will scarcely respond. It imposes a strict (and very low) limit on how much greenhouse gases can increase temperature. At the Earth's surface, you can add as much greenhouse gas as you like (the "surface forcing"), and the temperature will scarcely respond."
    http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp? ...

    The IPCC knows of the equation, of course. But it is inconvenient!!!!!!!!!

    • RichStradler, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1Great post
    • JoeVet, on 01/07/2008, -2/+2"I and many of my peers in the British House of Lords....." I didn't realize that the House of Lords was a scientific body. Most politicians, like most journalists do not understand the complexities of science. If you are not getting you information from the scientists then you are getting false data and inaccurate interpretation of the results. There are politicians involved in the IPCC and while they do rely on the science which forces them to conclude that anthropomorphic climate change is real, the politicians still influence the proceedings. Luckily the IPCC publishes their references so the educated can see all the data themselves without political shading. Within science journals there is no credible evidence opposing global warming and its human origins.
  • banido, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2* TOASTY! *
  • etherreal, on 01/07/2008, -7/+1THis is obviously the workings of Ron Paul and his racist Illuminati buddies. They hire Al Gore to just be a diversion, he does it so that he has a seat on the ship to Europa.
  • WiseElben, on 01/07/2008, -4/+4This article is horribly written. It's so horrible, in fact, that I cannot help but dismiss the little information I obtained from it.
  • zoezack, on 01/07/2008, -5/+3This seems like a bogus site, Tbar1: http://www.spaceandscience.net/ There is no organization called SSRC.... google it and it is not "Space and Science Research Center" Bogus! It's probably part of Exxon's anti-global warming campaign. SSRC = Social Science Research Center.
  • crazywarthog, on 01/07/2008, -4/+4Do you really think I'm stupid ? Everyone knows C02 from SUVs and coal fired electrical plants cause these problems. The sun has zero effect on our earth !
    • Roberib, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1There is not much we can do about the suns cycles.
  • Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -3/+2zoezack that site may seem a little strange, I did check it. It is a NEW company, check Google Earth the building is there. I will PERSONALLY call them tomorrow ;-) But, if you actually read the article, they are referring to the NASA Article that IS REAL. The NASA link is at the bottom of that article. That 'Space and Science Research Center' article just reiterated what the NASA article said. I found the 'Space and Science Research Center' link on another site, and that site's Owner seems satisfied. Look here;
    http://www.iceagenow.com/Lack_of_sunspots.htm
    • cjmal, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Can we really take a website with a brick pattern as their background seriously?
      • selrahc, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Maybe, if it had something to do with masonry.
      • Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1Those are not masonry bricks. That is the inside of a very large igloo!
        Or a regular igloo built with weird shaped ice-cubes....
        ;-)
    • burningmanstan, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1The building does exist however the address he lists is on the "intelligent office" [1] list of locations. Which means he is a one man band and a shill. His predictions are completely off the wall, current solar models don't have any conclusive predictions.

      1. http://www.intelligentoffice.com/locations.html
    • slowdown, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1'Space and Science Research Center' looks to be a scam, I would not trust anything from them
      "John L. Casey the "Director" of the SSRC, appears to be a real individual with a history of creating factious fundraising organizations which only exist on paper, dummy Internet websites, mailing drops and telephone answering services. The biggest venture may have been “Casey Aerospace Corporation” a space tourist company and was seeking a capitalization of $50 million. Some of the organizations associated with this individual include the following.
      1. “Space and Science Research Center” SpaceAndScience.net (Active website)
      2. “Global Foundation for Sustained Development” GFSDevelopment.org (Domain in premature deletion)
      3. “International Space Science Fund” ISSFonline.org (Domain controlled by squatter since 2006-12-14)
      4. “Afghan Women And Children Fund” AWACF.org (Domain released after 2005-03-13)
      5. “The Iraq Women And Children Fund” IWACF.org? (Domain not verified)
      6. “Fideligent Corporation” Fideligent.com (Released about 2006-04-02)
      7. “Verity Management Services Inc.” (VMS) (No website found)
      8. “Casey Aerospace Corporation” caseyaero.com (Domain released before 2000)"
      http://junkscience.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/200 ...
    • Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -0/+2Well, I emailed the owner of IceAgeNow.com late Friday and told him it might be bogus and to check it. The site has been updated Twice since then and the story remains.

      There are other Solar scientists that say the same thing. One prediction, made back in July 07 can be found on page 15 of this article;
      http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/archib ...

      And I will say it one more time, the 'Space and Science Research Center' is reiterating a NASA article which is not a SCAM. You can call John L. Casey a Scam if you wish, but you can't say the same thing of NASA's Solar physicist David Hathaway or Solar scientist David Archibald or Solar physicist Ken Schatten, etc, etc.
      http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_long ...
      ;-)
  • DeVrede5, on 01/07/2008, -2/+1*****.
  • fyrfyter, on 01/07/2008, -3/+1I'm going to find the Enterprise, dust her off and get her started. We are going to need all the help we can get on this one. Can someone please go to the retirement home and get Captain Kirk, Mr. Spock, and Chief Engineer Scotty. Hopefully they can help us solve this problem, its a real humdinger! I just can't do it captain, I'm givin' her all she's got!
  • jeexbit, on 01/07/2008, -2/+012.21.2012 here we come! cosmic surfers unite.
  • bxblox, on 01/07/2008, -2/+8my money is on nothing happens...
  • MrXfromPlanetX, on 01/07/2008, -2/+5There are a couple of videos on the global warming issue on http://nprsucks.blogspot.com

    NPR has been running a story every day to scare the crap out of people about global warming, but the ice caps are melting on Mars as well, per NASA. Did NPR mention that . . . No. They just trashed the guy from NASA when he said he didn't know if global warming was being caused by humans.

    Don't get me wrong, I agree we the person who wrote the page. I won't to do something about pollution, but I don't think the UN should be policing the world to enforce carbon credits.
    • vikingcoder, on 01/07/2008, -0/+1The Martian warming is due to albedo changes from the planet-wide dust storms.
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7136/ab ...
      • Narasil, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1So what accounts for Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, and Uranus?
        • vikingcoder, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1I see you read Inhofe's blog. It was one of the top pages pulled up by google for 'jupiter warming'. It is amusing to watch people latch on to *any* reports of non-terrestrial warming to support their belief that "It's the Sun, stupid!"

          Why point to supposed secondary effects when the purported primary cause is readily measurable?

          The gas giant planets give off more energy from the slow escape of gravitational energy, which heated the planet's interior during their formation, than they receive from the Sun.
          • Narasil, on 01/08/2008, -1/+1No I didn't read it in a blog, I read it on physorg a while back I think, and it's not just the gas giants themselves, some of their moons show an exact 1 degree temp rise too.
          • vikingcoder, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1Care to reference this "exact 1 degree temp rise"?
  • beersnob, on 01/07/2008, -1/+3Other than the fact that it appears Solar Cycle 24 is indeed starting, this article is complete alarmist crap. Do you remember your cell phone, ATM, or GPS crapping out in 2001 or 2002 when solar activity was at its peak during the last cycle? Don't think so! On the plus side, aurora watchers and Ham Radio operators are celebrating because increase solar activity means more auroras and enhanced HF radio communications.
  • zoezack, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1Tbar1, The director of SSRC is John L. Casey who is the space policy adviser to the White House and the site, science.nasa.gov is not nasa site, but a government run site. The White House is known to be in bed with Exxon.
  • 3leggedHorse, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1 Extinction.
  • cdeister, on 01/07/2008, -1/+3Time to break out the tin foil.
  • Tbar1, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1zoezack... And they call ME a Conspiracy Nut ;-) So, now your saying that the article by NASA solar physicist David Hathaway is bogus?
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_long ...

    What about this one, see page 15;
    http://www.nzclimatescience.org/images/PDFs/archib ...

    Is Solar scientist David Archibald in on it too?
    What about all those others that have stories at;
    http://www.iceagenow.com
    Them too?
    Man no wonder the USA is going broke, look at the people they've bought off! You think al-Gore might be on someone's payroll?
    What about this guy?
    http://www.thejakartapost.com/yesterdaydetail.asp? ...
    ;-)

  • obxjdt, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1Who ever wrote this must be stopped at all cost!!!
    /sarcasm
  • smurfsahoy, on 01/07/2008, -0/+3I'm pretty sure we had airplanes and power grids 11 years ago...
  • thedarkrabbit, on 01/07/2008, -0/+4Screw the Mayans... My Calendar ends on 12/31/08....

    Of course... then I'll just get a new one. WHEW... crisis averted.
  • EEdesigner, on 01/07/2008, -1/+1No refutations of warming in scientific journals? Gads, man, do you actually get/read any? There are PLENTY of refutations. Trouble is, they contain things such as "equations", "non linear theory," "actions of systems which react chaotically, etc. Sounds like you need to ditch the English degree and go back to school. Prepare for low, low grades.
  • trollick, on 01/07/2008, -1/+2The sky is falling yet again.
  • Narasil, on 01/08/2008, -0/+1BUT it has nothing to do with the rise in the temperature of the Earth.... :)
  • ssnively, on 01/18/2008, -0/+0Am I the only one that thinks this is a good thing?

    Solar Winds -> Charged particles -> Earths magnetosphere -> Ionize Oxygen = Restoring Ozone Layer + Pretty Colors
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.