Print 148 comment(s) - last by pvandyke.. on Jun 16 at 5:52 PM

Past studies have shown that sunspot numbers correspond to warming or cooling trends. The twentieth century has featured heightened activity, indicating a warming trend.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Solar activity has shown a major spike in the twentieth century, corresponding to global warming. This cyclic variation was acknowledged by a recent NASA study, which reviewed a great deal of past climate data.  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Report indicates solar cycle has been impacting Earth since the Industrial Revolution

Some researchers believe that the solar cycle influences global climate changes.  They attribute recent warming trends to cyclic variation.  Skeptics, though, argue that there's little hard evidence of a solar hand in recent climate changes.

Now, a new research report from a surprising source may help to lay this skepticism to rest.  A study from
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland looking at climate data over the past century has concluded that solar variation has made a significant impact on the Earth's climate.  The report concludes that evidence for climate changes based on solar radiation can be traced back as far as the Industrial Revolution.

Past research has shown that the sun goes through eleven year cycles.  At the cycle's peak, solar activity occurring near sunspots is particularly intense, basking the Earth in solar heat.  According to Robert Cahalan, a climatologist at the Goddard Space Flight Center, "Right now, we are in between major ice ages, in a period that has been called the Holocene."

Thomas Woods, solar scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder concludes, "The fluctuations in the solar cycle impacts Earth's global temperature by about 0.1 degree Celsius, slightly hotter during solar maximum and cooler during solar minimum.  The sun is currently at its minimum, and the next solar maximum is expected in 2012."

According to the study, during periods of solar quiet, 1,361 watts per square meter of solar energy reaches Earth's outermost atmosphere.  Periods of more intense activity brought 1.4 watts per square meter (0.1 percent) more energy.

While the NASA study acknowledged the sun's influence on warming and cooling patterns, it then went badly off the tracks.  Ignoring its own evidence, it returned to an argument that man had replaced the sun as the cause current warming patterns.  Like many studies, this conclusion was based less on hard data and more on questionable correlations and inaccurate modeling techniques.

The inconvertible fact, here is that even NASA's own study acknowledges that solar variation has caused climate change in the past.  And even the study's members, mostly ardent supports of AGW theory, acknowledge that the sun may play a significant role in future climate changes.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Math???
By erple2 on 6/4/2009 2:57:21 PM , Rating: 2
To be fair, the lions share of that debt your kids are saddled with started early in the previous administration's tenure.

And the fact is that we would probably arrive at commercially viable alternative energy for vehicles sooner and we WOULD have more, cleaner power if not for government interference

Is that a fact? Please cite credible references. Otherwise, it's just another blowhard opinion piece.

We get worse mileage due to ethanol and safety standards

Ethanol, I agree with. If ever there was a sham market that existed, it's the current method Ethanol is produced in this country. Maybe we could do better with non-food based Ethanol. Well, that and the Hydrogen Fuel Cell nonsense. Safety standards cost weight. If you're then equating heavier vehicles with worse mileage, then why do you complain about

All we can do is build tiny cars

Tiny cars weigh less, and all other things being equal, are more efficient. Therefore, one effective way to reduce gasoline consumption is to all drive smaller cars. It's that simple. Also, technically we can do the same with less if we buy the smallest automobiles that fit our needs (not our wants).

RE: Math???
By callmeroy on 6/4/2009 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 1
To be fair, the lions share of that debt your kids are saddled with started early in the previous administration's tenure.

I'd like to know your explaination for the quote above...

Some figures:

Obama as of 3/30/09 - has so far spent(*) 2.2 Trillion (*) = 1.2 t in bailouts , 800 b in TARP funds, 600 b budget allocations

The main thing people pin on Bush is the cost of the Iraq war --- I've heard people say that trillions been spent on the war....I'm not supporting the war or against it in this post -- that's not the point of this comment....but 860 billion was spent on the Iraq War up to this point in time (as of 4/09). A lot of money indeed but not HALF of what Obama has spent.

Now if you want to go back and show me that bush spent Trillions I'm sure the information is out there --- but remember.....Bush had 8 *YEARS* to be in office and spend.....Obama has passed 2 trillion in under 8 *MONTHS*.

Note: I really don't care who you doesn't change the fact that our kids will be saddled with the debt of today's bailouts.

RE: Math???
By callmeroy on 6/4/2009 4:10:36 PM , Rating: 2
Math error myself....makes it worse ---- Obama spent 2.6 not 2.2 trillion as of March.

RE: Math???
By OrSin on 6/4/2009 8:04:58 PM , Rating: 4
Yes huge math errors. Obama spend 37 billon of the tarp money bush spent 400 billion of it. Obama programs are set to spend .9 trillion but have only spent $110 billion so far. That means bush spend over $400 in his last 6 months and Obama has spend less then $150 in only 6 months. And have not even added in the Iraq war that is project to cost tax payers 3-5 trillion.

Damn people can really pervert numbers.

RE: Math???
By theapparition on 6/4/2009 8:16:51 PM , Rating: 2
If you really want to get technical, the president can't spend a dime.
However, you can point a finger square at Congress. And Congressional Democrats are to blame.

RE: Math???
By jimbojimbo on 6/5/2009 2:20:03 PM , Rating: 2
And all those suckers that voted all of them in.

RE: Math???
By Triple Omega on 6/4/2009 8:12:37 PM , Rating: 3
But your only comparing money spending now and not damages done. That's like complaining Guy A is spending so much on car-repairs while Guy B is the one who made all the dents and scratches. The money wasn't lost when Guy A spent it on repairs, but when Guy B drove into those trees.

Meaning, you can't blame Obama for the damage control he has to do. After all, he got dropped in the middle of it all and wasn't the cause of it. You can however question his optional spending on things like future technologies, but that isn't the bulk of his spending.

RE: Math???
By FITCamaro on 6/5/2009 6:24:02 AM , Rating: 1
I'm guessing you just watch CNN and MSLSD and drink it all in. Obama did not HAVE to support spending trillions. He wanted to. Our country would be far better off if absolutely nothing was done and the markets were just allowed to correct themselves over time naturally. That doesn't excuse Bush's actions either but one mistake does not mean another even larger one has to be made.

RE: Math???
By ironargonaut on 6/8/2009 12:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
Obama was a member of Congress. Obama supported Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac and the lax regulation thereof. If Obama is not the cause then neither is anyone else.

Using your analogy Guy A bought the drinks for Guy B and encouraged him to race but since Guy B was driving, Guy A holds no responsibility according to you.

RE: Math???
By William Gaatjes on 6/6/2009 4:18:49 AM , Rating: 2
Even if the numbers you use are true, do you really think that the aftermath from that war does not cost the US any money ? People always think that events in time have hard stops and new events take place with a fresh new start. Cause and effect, events fade into eachother...

RE: Math???
By theapparition on 6/4/2009 4:48:23 PM , Rating: 4
Also, technically we can do the same with less if we buy the smallest automobiles that fit our needs (not our wants).

And who do you propose regulates our needs?

RE: Math???
By Spuke on 6/4/2009 6:32:15 PM , Rating: 3
And who do you propose regulates our needs?
Why good folks like erple who only have our best interests at heart, or course. Can someone please explain to me what exactly is a need when most of what we own or want to own is a luxury? Which, for all intents and purposes, is a want?

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone
Related Articles

Most Popular Articles5 Cases for iPhone 7 and 7 iPhone Plus
September 18, 2016, 10:08 AM
Laptop or Tablet - Which Do You Prefer?
September 20, 2016, 6:32 AM
Update: Samsung Exchange Program Now in Progress
September 20, 2016, 5:30 AM
Smartphone Screen Protectors – What To Look For
September 21, 2016, 9:33 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki