... ALL of the *warming* comes from the sun (OK, there's a bit of geothermal and human heat generation): the problem is insufficient *cooling* - that's where the CO2 etc. gets in the way!
New data indicates that changes in the Sun's output of energy were a major factor in the global temperature increases seen in recent years. The research will be unwelcome among hardcore green activists, as it downplays the influence of human-driven carbon emissions. As the Sun has shown decreased levels of activity during the …
Actually it says "may even have increased".
Bit like the news "Earth might not be quite six billion years old" being greeted with "told you it's only six thousand years old"
It's a chaotic system, being forced. With any luck there may be unknows which may work in our favour, such as this.
But it's a very long shot according to the reliable sources - I wouldn't count on it.
Well done. All global warming is caused by the sun. I expect you also point out that it isn't *actually* "raining cats and dogs" when people have the temerity to use that phrase, In general discussions about climate change, the words 'global warming' are usually ... and I hope you follow this ... used to describe the phenomenon of increasing global temperature when compared to recent historical norms.
Not sure what your points are. Guy was positing that it's correct that almost all warmth on Earth comes from the sun - I agree
You both seem to have missed the simple point and veered off onto other things - in the case of Chris 2 in rather a patronising manner too.
You can't grasp how an increase in incoming intensity (In the right area of the em spectrum, i know overall intensity is down) can cause an overall increase in temperature?"
I can grasp it quite clearly - just don't know what it's got to do with this thread - the article & research yes
By the way "The Greenhouse Effect" is conjectured to increase the amount of HEAT retained by the Earth system. How that happens to relate to temperatures is probably a lot more complex.
Yeah right so local extremes in climate reflect the global climate! This sort of thinking is typical of climatards and makes the arguments circle back and forth endlessly. How far back for historical norms do we go - especially as we have ice at the poles and are hence in an ice-age? Nothing less than no ice on earth or the climate of 20,000 years ago with an extensive ice sheet will be enough to convince you. Shame you'll be long gone before any change got that far.
Who gives a flying f*** if global warming 'exists' or not, it just makes sense to use renewable energy sources long term either way so stop arguing over a billion little details and get on with it.
It makes sense to consider renewable energy, but this doesn't necessarily mean covering the planet with wind farms. Take a look at http://www.withouthotair.com/ - and starting on page 32 is an analysis showing the rather starting lack of efficiency of wind power. Couple that with the impact of the turbines, plus the production, plus the running of them, and you have to question if it provides sufficient gains to be worthwhile in the long run? One thing is for certain, with our current power requirements, fossil/nuclear power will be around a while yet.
To be honest, I understand that most of the traditional style power plants heat water to make steam to drive a turbine to generate electricity. How much raw energy is being lost in this process? Maybe our next big breakthrough will be some way of harnessing nuclear activity in a more direct manner than steamy-spinning?
You're right. Not very nice, but right. Global warming is basically a scare tactic. It either exists or it doesn't, and if it does it's caused by humans, the sun, or Girls Gone Wild videos, but really none of that make any difference. Either way we should be doing the same thing: weaning off of oil and reducing pollution.
By the way, the reason we're not doing much about it is not caused by arguing over a billion little details. It's that rich people like to stay rich, so they argue over a billion little details as a delaying tactic. If you own an oil company, it just makes good financial sense to confuse the conversation with trivial questions.
Um... Don't wanna nit-pick, but there aren't rainclouds around the earth. Alternatively, you could put alu foil over your windows and the car want get anything like as hot despite the sunny weather.
The original post, as I see it, didn't so much ask for an explanation as to point out the comedy in the revelation that the sun is responsible for "global warming" when, um, the sun has pretty much been responsible for our warmth long before we existed on this lump of rock. Well, that's my take on it, anyway...
Beer 'cos, it is Friday now. Or as we say around here, TFIF.
The Grauniad has enthusiastically come to the opposite conclusion to the Reg ?
So which journalist/editorial team has the better judgement here ?
Since the graun journos are already in the mindset where they giggle at the splattergate kiddy snuff flick and don't even seem to notice the horrifying authoritarian message behind it.
It's obvious really.. Lewis and the Reg staff have the true story.
explosive icon: well thats obvious too, can we have an Andrew Orlowski article please
.. no pressure ;-)
But CO2 also adds to plant life by giving it more resources to grow with. It is all checks and balances. There have been periods of history when there was much more CO2 in the atmosphere than now (in fact, we are at an unusually low level of atmospheric CO2 compared to the overall history of the planet), and life didn't vanish.
I think the reporter needs to re-read the paper and the author's comments. His article is a non-sensical (though perhaps convenient) interpretation of the study. Assuming this finding pans out in re-analysis and review, you have it backwards Mr. Page. The modest "warming" they're talking about would be during solar minium (the opposite of conventional expectation), every 11 years or so, followed by cooling. In other words, a cyclical source of fluctuation, not an explanation for the nascent TREND over decades:
As Haigh suggested, the overall effect on the averages of recent decades would be a slight COOLING.
@Intractable Potsherd, much of Earth's history would've been inhospitable to large human societies and their agricultural systems. The issue today is the risk of accelerated climate change and ocean acidification during the populous, biodiverse holocene. Apparently there's already more than enough CO2 for today's plants to work with, considering how much is accumulating in the atmosphere and oceans. And net uptake seems subject to reduction with strong, protracted warming.
"Much of recent global warming actually caused by Sun"
"We cannot jump to any conclusions based on what we have found during this comparatively short period and we need to carry out further studies to explore the Sun's activity," says Haigh.
Do you read what you actually type?
The research is based on 2004-7, so if that's recent the headline is correct. "Further study is needed" = "please renew our grant for next year", I bet Newton's papers to the Royal Society ended with the same phrase.
Interestingly the Beeb's report begins: "The Sun's influence on modern-day global warming may have been overestimated, a study suggests." How to resolve this dispute - may I suggest a bare-knuckle fight between the Beeb's Richard Black and our own Lewis Page?
The same could equally be said about man's influence (or not) on climate change.
All this reveals is that we know far less about the complexity of the earth's climate than is assumed. More research is needed before stating unequivocally that man is (or indeed is not) causing climate change.
Yet, the more research that is carried, the more we find that we know very little about it. Still, when has a lack of proof ever stopped "believers"?
.. I find this disturbing. Why have these so called 'scientists' not accepted the undeniable truth that CAGW is real.
Such research throws doubt upon on our tax revenue, i mean environmental goals. This is likely to lead to a reduction in my income. This cannot go unpunished.
I shall contact Richard Curtis immediately, for he knows how to deal with traitors.
> sunlight readings taken from 2004 to 2007 ... emitted more in the key visible-light
Just pop over to your local Andalucian weather station, where they record the amound of daily incident sunlight in and you'll see that early in the decade (there's data from 2001/2) the numbers were about 30MJ/m²/day. Ver the same datos for 2009 and you'll see numbers up around 32MJ/m²
I'm more concerned about overfishing, general destruction of the rainforests/seas and mankind's environmental behaviour in general. It's all very well patting yourselves on the back after achieving your 75% recycled target but when all you're doing is shipping your recyclables off to a 3rd world country where they sit in landfill I don't think that constitutes environmental sustainability.
...who cares if the room is unlocked if space continues to host a riot between you and all exists.
And if I may, I'd like to add a further worry to Lloyd's pile; unless these findings of atypical solar emissions lead to Solar power being feasible for large parts of the world I'll still be wanting answers as to how much oil is there? 20 years? 50 years? I don't like taking long journeys with no petrol indicator.
Agreed there is a need to address oil oil dependency for the long term, but using a CO2 boogey-man to frighten people into doing things is not helpful.
Engineering is challenging. Every time you add a constraint you cut down on viable solutions. Adding fake constraints, such as reducing/eliminating CO2, eliminates some solutions that are otherwise viable.
The Big CO2 Worry, has completely taken over Green thinking. While people get silly about CO2, real environmental problems are getting ignored and are getting worse. Until 5 years ago or so, there way a lot of concern about river quality, over fishing and other causes. Now these causes don't get any airtime unless they can be linked to AGW. THis really distorts the "science" and public awareness.
For example, here in NZ there has been warning that the tuatara (lizards from the dinosaur era) will breed less effectively if AGW warms things. Of course that is dubious logic: If the tuatara have survived tens of millions of years (and thus many extreme temp cycles), the AGW temperatures should be nothing to them. Joe Stupid lacks critical thinking so thinks that fixing AGW is needed to save the tuatara. In reality there are far more serious threats to tuatara such as predation by rats etc and loss of habitat. These far more serious issues get lost in the overwhelming barage of AGW messages.
Quote: Haigh said the discovery could have far-reaching consequences. "If further studies find the same pattern over a longer period of time, [then] we may have overestimated the sun's role in warming the planet," she said.
You better read "Sun's role in warming the planet may be overestimated, study finds"
If climate issues are being trumped as it is shown, what can we expect with IT issues from TheRegister?
This is nearly as good as using both imperial and metric measurements in the same sentence.
One's a city, one's a state. I wonder how it would go over if, e.g. you'd written 'boffins in London and Wales...' Would your Welsh brethren have taken offense?
In case anyone was wondering, it's Boulder, Colorado; and London, England, lest anyone confuse it with London, Ontario.
I know several Americans who say things like that. Maybe it is how they are taught it in geography and they think that these places are actually called that?
Icon? Obvious. Paris, France... Paris, Texas... Paris, Hilton... Duh!
Bootnote: Ever tried "paris hilton" in maps.google.com? Just above the first link (David Letterman!?) is a space where you can enter a check-in date and choose how many nights you would like with her. Apparently she can be yours for a whole week.....
"Haigh thinks, however, that while recent temperature rises may well have been down to the Sun as much as anything humanity has done, over long periods of time solar warming probably has little effect on the Earth's temperature one way or the other, as solar activity cycles up and down regularly."
I'm afraid "Haigh thinks" just doesn't cut it; data from many sources shows that the Sun doesn't just 'cycle up and down regularly', but that in addition to a fairly regular cycle it can and does swing to great extremes, causing for example the 'mini ice age' of the middle ages and equaly extreme hot periods.
Furthermore, it has also been shown that the suns heating effect on the oceans and resulting changes in oceanic CO2 is displaced by several hundred years as such a vast heat sink takes so long to heat and cool, so the increase in oceanic CO2 today is the result of a heating period 300-400 years ago.
The problem with all of these climate studies is that everyone thinks they have the golden goose and anyone reading the rresults with an agenda just picks the bits from here and there which tend to agree with their oparticular bias.
It's about time ALL of the studies and ALL areas were brought together and the results STRICTLY interpreted within a full and complete context, something which sadly, (even in the dear old Reg), has yet to happen.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019