[msnimje]

Maybe we could get these "researchers" to go the sun to take samples.

[Gordongekko909]

The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible

Ha ha, so is the warming itself. Noob.

[The Blitherer]

Well, I guess all of Fitzgerald's plans to indict the sun have been ruined.

[Incorrigible]

And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.

OK. So if not the sun's luminosity, then what about the orbit in the past 100 years?

[Buck W.]

Sun hires Gloria Allred and sues for defamation.

[Red Badger]

..global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.

But not Global Warming Ages? Hypocrisy and illogical hypocrisy at that!...........

[ClearCase_guy]

Why are the polar ice caps on Mars shrinking? Is that our fault too?

[wolfcreek]

This has to be some of the 'worst' rebuttal I've ever heard. I quit reading after they said the sun's intensity hadn't varied much over the last 1000 yrs.

[tx_eggman]

raising chances
Our results imply
Most experts say
This basically rules out the sun
Many scientists say greenhouse gases might
seem linked to cyclical shifts
there could be other, more subtle solar effects ... they would be hard to detect.

Good, hard, repeatble science all around, I'd say ...

[Sir Gawain]

A dwindling group of scientists says that the dominant cause of warming is a natural variation in the climate system, or a gradual rise in the sun's energy output.

No bias here! FOAD FOAD FOAD on the surface of the sun, idiots.

[Shermy]

I suppose the Medieval Warming Period was caused by Vikings, Huns and Mongols burning village?

Junk science.

[Wonder Warthog]

""This basically rules out the sun as the cause of global warming," Henk Spruit, a co-author of the report from the Max Planck Institute in Germany, told Reuters."

NOT QUITE. All it says is that the warming can't be from photons emitted by the sun. Thus far, global warming "theory" has completely ignored the possibility of OTHER solar-induced mechanisms. The suns magnetic field has doubled in strength over its measurement history. This unquestionably affects the energy "coupled" between the sun and the earth. It could also affect the amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth--which is also proven to affect cloud formation (and thus global temperatures).

[coconutt2000]

"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible," the researchers wrote in the journal Nature of evidence about the sun from satellite observations since 1978.

In the past 30 years, temperature increases have been neglible. In the past 30 years, solar output variance has been negligible. But, based on 30 years of data, mankind must be responsible for the past 100 years of global temperature increases.

How these guys get from A to C without going through B is ridiculous.

And any nitwit who says that 0.07% variance in solar output is negligible deserves to be drowned in 0.07% of the world's oceans. We'll see what he thinks of 0.07% of a heck of a lot of anything is like after that.

[Cacique]

btt

[SamuraiScot]

"The solar contribution to warming over the past 30 years is negligible,"

Gosh, really? I kinda thought we got all of our warming from the sun. (Can you imagine how many SUVs it would take to heat the earth?) Seems to me that without the sun, well, we'd be rather cold.

Which is to suggest that any line of inquiry that doesn't look at the sun's energy first, especially sunspots—which are known to increase the solar energy reaching the earth—is silly.

[Maelstrom]

http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/temp_vs_spot_irradiance.gif

[moonman]

"They then checked more ancient evidence ...and also found no dramatic shifts in solar energy output for at least the past millennium"

A 1 degree shift in temperature over last century proves the other scientists theories that the sun itself may be the cause for solar energy output. Surely, 1 degree temperature change can't be considered 'dramatic', especially when measured against unreliable devices used back during the 17th through 19th centuries. We are talking back to Martin Luther time period here.

[headsonpikes]

And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output.

I remain convinced that we are near the end of an Interglacial Period, in which case these enviro fart-chasers will be irrelevant, and cold.

[El Gato]

And global Ice Ages, like the last one which ended about 10,000 years ago, seem linked to cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit around the sun rather than to changes in solar output

Just so. The current warming trend fits right in with the historical pattern, so it seems likely that it too is caused by "cyclical shifts in the earth's orbit". (Which is a poor description of the actual phenomena, but it'll do)

[financeprof]

The study underlying this article was given a serious beat-down on an extended FR thread yesterday. Even those who believe that there are extraterrestrial climate forcings do not believe that variations in the sun's energy output is important. Instead, solar cycles affect cloud formation through their effect on the amount of ionizing radiation coming from space.