[Kosh]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7327393.stm



I'm not surprised, not one bit.

[DeepSpace9er]

Really? You arent surprised that the sun might have had something to do with the earth's warming seeing as its our ONLY source of heat?

[Kosh]

Really? You arent surprised that the sun might have had something to do with the earth's warming seeing as its our ONLY source of heat?

Re-read the article, it said "Sun NOT linked to global warming"

[BlackDove]

Your star burns.

I require frozen treats.

[Herra Tohtori]

There's a difference between the temperature changes caused by sun's radiation irregularities and/or slowly but steadily growing intensity levels and tempreture/climate pattern changes caused by other factors.

What the article seems to say to me is that supposedly the most recent climate pattern change has not been primarily caused by solar input. Which doesn't really surprise me either to be honest, but neither was I expecting it.

[Excalibur]

Does that mean we can heat our own planet with no light?

  <--- did someone spell devil wrong, or is there something else to it?

[Flipside]

Dr.Evil

And, on topic, it's an interesting part of the equation to remove.

[Nuke]

aside from the sun the only other source of heat is the tidal forces of a large gravitational object. unfortunately were not close enough to anything massive enough to cause any large amount of heat to be created. the moon can provide a small amount but i dont think it would be enough to prevent the earth from solidifying in the absence of solar radiation.

[Bobboau]

um... actually the article is about cosmic rays effecting the earth's temperature, the whole 'sun's energy output may have changed a little over the eons resulting in climate shifts' idea is not really touched upon.

and you all are forgetting about nuclear energy, that is a surprisingly large amount of the energy the earth is useing now.

[Stealth]

Really? You arent surprised that the sun might have had something to do with the earth's warming seeing as its our ONLY source of heat?

haha. brutal.  i like it.

[DeepSpace9er]

Re-read the article, it said "Sun NOT linked to global warming"

Re-read what I said. I said it MIGHT have been, I didn't say it was.

[Mika]

um... actually the article is about cosmic rays effecting the earth's temperature, the whole 'sun's energy output may have changed a little over the eons resulting in climate shifts' idea is not really touched upon.

This is also how I understood it.

Mika

[Mika]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

And what to make of this then?

Mika

[Zoltan]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

And what to make of this then?

Mika

Mr. Jarraud is hilarious. He says, "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."

Does he realize that all of the global warming trends are based off models only going back about a hundred years? If you look at a much broader model, it's clear that this period has been relatively cool, and that there has been no major increase in temperature.

[IceFire]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

And what to make of this then?

Mika

Mr. Jarraud is hilarious. He says, "When you look at climate change you should not look at any particular year," he said. "You should look at trends over a pretty long period and the trend of temperature globally is still very much indicative of warming."

Does he realize that all of the global warming trends are based off models only going back about a hundred years? If you look at a much broader model, it's clear that this period has been relatively cool, and that there has been no major increase in temperature.

100 years is longer than 1 year

Also...where did 100 come from?  We have climate data that goes back a long way.  Its not quite as accurate as surface data but we can go back hundreds of years if not thousands.  Lots of charts...to be honest I'm not sure of all of the methods of data collection.  But certainly we know more about what the earth has been doing than 100 years.

[Bobboau]

10,000 years is longer than 100 years.
we actually have some evidence for temperatures going back hundreds of millions of years (though I wouldn't put much stock in anything that was older than the vostok readings), all of it indicates that the earth was both a lot hotter and had much higher levels of CO2 than at present.

[Mika]

You wouldn't believe how difficult it is to find out the history of research in some areas. With the global warming phenomenom, this is especially so (even in IPCC report things are scattered around to make it difficult to remember what has been done). After spending a good while in the internet reading through some papers, I finally found out a webpage where the information what happened in which year and who did what was written in a compact form. And no I don't provide a link since I forgot to bookmark that page.

It seems that the current understanding is that the fluctuations in the solar output could not cause global warming since they have seemed to remain relatively unchanged  -and at this point I don't know what to make of the sun spot correlation with the warming of the Earth. Unfortunately, ESAs satellite mission that was to map the solar flux above Earth produced more miniscule satellites than hoped when Ariane blew up.

Interestingly, what scientists consider reliable data of the solar irradiance is only available till 1950s. For this reason, cosmic rays have been considered the only remaining suspect for triggering current warming. The first poster's link to BBC's report nullifies this argument, from which the claim "Sun not linked to global warming" follows. Personally, I would rewrite the title to something like "Sun not linked to current global warming", since the title BBC choose is a pretty bold statement.

Then again, the 2008 seems to have been the coldest year for several decades in several different places on Earth, barring Finland of course. From my point of view, it's only fair. It is also worthwile to note that the Soviet researchers figured out a way to stop the global warming, should it become a problem back in the 1930s (and yes I have difficulties to remember years, natural constants are far more easier). Unfortunately, their solution will never be accepted by oh-so-well-meaning environmental agencies. What was it then? Spraying soot in the upper atmosphere to prevent a certain percentage of the sunlight from warming earth, similar to the way volcano eruptions seem to have a cooling effect.

Mika

[Admiral_Stones]

um... actually the article is about cosmic rays effecting the earth's temperature, the whole 'sun's energy output may have changed a little over the eons resulting in climate shifts' idea is not really touched upon.

and you all are forgetting about nuclear energy, that is a surprisingly large amount of the energy the earth is useing now.

Moar nuclear power plants.
****ing greenies with their solar and wind power.

[DeepSpace9er]

Im just curious to see what happens if the climate takes a cooling trend for the next decade or so. The global warming mantra will cease and it will be 'climate change' all caused by humans of course.

I honestly hope it doesn't cool down. Historically cooling periods have been harmful to the world, spreading disease, causing famines, killing temperature sensitive crops like potatoes in Ireland, vineyards in northern Europe. Warming periods, on the other hand, have always been periods of prosperity. So the relevant question is, why are people so afraid that the climate might be changing? Are they afraid that the climate SHOULD be the same today, tomorrow, and 1000 years from now? What people got it into their heads with scare tactics that a warming climate is a BAD thing?

[Jeff Vader]

I honestly hope it doesn't cool down. Historically cooling periods have been harmful to the world, spreading disease, causing famines, killing temperature sensitive crops like potatoes in Ireland, vineyards in northern Europe. Warming periods, on the other hand, have always been periods of prosperity.

I vote for the cooling period. Most, if not all, current problems, like famine, poverty and diseases are a result of overpopulation. If one, or maybe two, billion people were eliminated, things just might be better around here.

Or just stick to the old saying: let the starving people eat the unemployed. That'll take care of two issues at the same time.