Talk:Sami Solanki

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.


[edit] Great start

Kim, great start on this article. I think you have handled the controversy issue fairly. The only suggestion I have at the moment regards the quote you selected to clarify Solanki's position. I prefer this one: "We have shown that even in the extreme case that solar variability caused all the global climate change prior to 1970, it cannot have been responsible for more than 50% of the strong global temperature rise since 1970 through any of the channels considered here. We believe that even this fraction is too high." [1] But perhaps you have a reason for the one you selected that I do not know.RonCram 02:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Kim, there is one other quote I think is instructive from his 2004 paper: "The current level of high solar activity has now already lasted close to 65 years and is marked by the arrow on the figure. This implies that not only is the current state of solar activity unusually high, but also this high level of activity has lasted unusually long… the probability that it will continue until the end of the twenty-first century is below 1%."[2] RonCram 03:02, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
RonCram, the reason that i chose that particular quote, was because its the quote that most people have seen by Solanki. The Telegraph.co.uk article is present on quite alot of sites (and pages here on Wikipedia). Primarily because of the title of the article! --Kim D. Petersen 19:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe the Controversy issue is up to date. Several articles refer to Svensmark's recent results from experiments, giving greater proof to his claims that the effect of cosmic rays on sunlight greatly effect global warming. The following Feb 2007 link link refers to a book he and his team from the Danish National Space Centre (DNSC) were about to release around that date. And here is a 2006 paper published by Svensmark through the DNSC showing experimental evidence which counters critics of his 2004 publishing. link It can be found at the DNSC. As I said, there is much to be found that suggests the Controversy section is out of date. --Aspong 16:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Aspong - Svensmarks research in cloud chambers is not contradictory to Solanki's statements. In the paper referenced Solanki was assuming that Svensmarks cosmic ray/cloud connection was correct - and despite this he has found that solar influences at the max can have a contribution of around 30% of the warming since 1970.
The second thing that is wrong with this is that you are conducting WP:OR by introducing a synthesis by yourself. --Kim D. Petersen 17:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Note also that while Svensmark showed in a cloudchamber that cosmic rays potentially can influence clouds. It doesn't meant that cosmic rays do influence clouds in a significant way. NB: forgot to say that the above paper referenced is Solanki&Krivova (you can find it in the publications section). --Kim D. Petersen 18:03, 17 May 2007 (UTC)