I don't think so. The scientific proof of solar-forced climate change is overwhelming... there is not a "conspiracy" just a lot of people blaming things on humanity that is not the fault of humanity ~ certainly global warming, and planetary climate change is not the fault of human activity.

Did you just ignore the part he bolded? How do you explain that?

Don't even bother, he has been avoiding that question for weeks. He just goes on a rant and repeats the same two lines and underlined words. After repeatedly asking him to provide an answer on how our temperatures are continuing to rise without the help of solar forces in different thread, the best answer he could give was that it was all false information so scientists don't lose funding. He avoids facts that contradict his opinion.

I don't think so. If you read my article on how the Sun forces Earth's climate ~ it is quite clear enough. The only "rants" are your own. There is no rising or falling of global temperatures without the Sun since the Sun always forces Earth's climate.

That means ALWAYS.

Just how do you consider the Earth existing, as you say, "without the help of solar forces?"

When does that happen?

Fact: The Earth would not exist without the Sun.

So, just how can you state that there are times when there is no "help" of solar forces? If what you say were true (and it isn't) then the Earth would not exist. That means the Earth would not be here.

Last time I checked, the Sun is still here, and so is the Earth.

Again, when does that happen? When is there no help from solar forces? The Sun's energy is always feeding the Earth. So, how are there times when this is not so? Just how is that possible? The Sun is always there. It constantly influences the Earth. You don't turn the Sun "off" and "on" Reincarnated, as if the Sun has no major and direct influence on this planet.

The Sun is always forcing the Earth's climate.

That means always.

That is something you just don't seem to get since your comments treat the Sun as a "sometimes" influence that is merely a "factor" when you've been informed that the Sun is always influencing the Earth's climate and is much, much more than a mere factor in forcing the Earth's climate. The only one "avoiding" the facts of this is you with your uninformed opinions, and lack of knowledge and acceptance of the Sun forcing the Earth's climate ~ which, by the way, is a astrophysical and geophysical law.

I never said the Suns solar forces "turn off". The numerous graphs and scientific reports I have posted prove our temperatures are rising without an increase in cosmic rays from the Sun. It doesn't matter if you think this is due to human activity or not, the fact remains the same. The Sun is a main factor in climate change, but not the only one.

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1648919
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1647531
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...amp;pid=1646233

^For everyone to see.

The point is that the SUN is the main cause of climate change and global warming. That is the point. That means the PRIMARY cause ~ not human activity. That is the whole point of this thread.

Do you think humans have contributed to the warming?

Not quite. In the post title you state that: man-made global warming is a myth. You cannot prove that for sure. Nor can you prove which percentage in the overall global temperature rise stems from solar radiation & which from man-made factors. I addition, our climate systems are hugely complex and don't behave in a linear fashion. Negative/positive feedback spirals & loops are well known in biological systems. So, who's to say that the addition, or combination of man-made factors are not the ones "pushing climate over the edge" ? In other words, you cannot prove that global warming, to the extent we experience it today, is NOT caused by anthropogenic factors.

All of Earth's climate and weather begins in space. This is a astrophysical fact. The complexities of astronomical weather forecasting clearly shows that forecasting weather from astronomical motions, and most inportantly, from the conditions of the Sun is the only way to forecast advance climate on the Earth. All nature is affected by astronomical motions, and those of the Earth included.

Human activities on this planet, such as pollution, are a serious problem, but human activities are not responsible for climate change on a planetary level, such as global cooling, or global warming. Global warming has already been proven to be caused by the activities of the Sun. All climate on Earth is solar-forced.

What does that matter? Anything "contributed" would not have any bearing on global warming as as forced by the Sun. As I've said before ~ the oceans of the Earth produce more carbon than humanity as a whole, and carbon released into the atmosphere is natural to the Earth. So, the point of human-released Co2 into the atmosphere is not making a dent into what the natural forces on Earth produce in the amount of Co2 released into the atmosphere. What is more harmful is human pollution on the surface of the planet, this pollution is not connected to global warming whatsoever. That is forced ~ by the SUN.

I wonder if Theodore gets checks from ExxonMobil.

No, I don't. Do you?

No, I'm not a scumbag.

Honestly i dont think we as a people have to do anything really, even if we did remove 90% of the pollution this climate change will still happen, if its us or the sun it still will continue because the earth is not a light switch it would take years if at all to take the climate back to pre 1800's

also the earth would go into an Ice age sun or pollution we are still heading into an ice age and yes i know this sounds like that movie but his is what th eplanet does, when it gets knocked off its axes it corrects it self so i think we should just slow pollution down because get real we will never be pollution free never,never, never,never and if we ever do it will be the dark ages all over again, so sit back relaxe recycle and lets just ride this out because if the earth ever gets "too" hot it will correct it self

actualy thats a myth the Earth Comes Closer to the sun in WInter Months , its our atmosphere that allows us to breath oxygen and obtain life

alot of people think the Earth stays at the same length from the Sun at all times but that is not true at all

Hmmmm, overwhelming maybe to you, but not to everybody:



Changes in Solar Brightness Too Weak to Explain Global Warming, September 13, 2006

Changes in the Sun's brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth's climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany.
The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR’s primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.

“Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun's brightness,” says Wigley. Source





From the original paper:

Variations in solar luminosity and their effect on the Earth’s climate (P. Foukal, C. Frohlich, H. Spruit & T. M. L. Wigley, Nature, Vol 443|14 September 2006)

Variations in the Sun’s total energy output (luminosity) are caused by changing dark (sunspot) and bright structures on the solar disk during the 11-year sunspot cycle. The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years. In this Review, we show that detailed analysis of these small output variations has greatly advanced our understanding of solar luminosity change, and this new understanding indicates that brightening of the Sun is unlikely to have had a significant influence on global warming since the seventeenth century. Additional climate forcing by changes in the Sun’s output of ultraviolet light, and of magnetized plasmas, cannot be ruled out. The suggested mechanisms are, however, too complex to evaluate meaningfully at present. Source



From:
Studies at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research reveal: solar activity affects the climate but plays only a minor role in the current global warming (2004)

Since the middle of the last century, the Sun is in a phase of unusually high activity, as indicated by frequent occurrences of sunspots, gas eruptions, and radiation storms. Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research (MPS) in Katlenburg-Lindau (Germany) and at the University of Oulu (Finland) have come to this conclusion after they have succeeded in reconstructing the solar activity based on the sunspot frequency since 850 AD. To this end, they have combined historical sunspot records with measurements of the frequency of radioactive isotopes in ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic. As the scientists have reported in the renowned scientific journal, Physical Review Letters, since 1940 the mean sunspot number is higher than it has ever been in the last thousand years and two and a half times higher than the long term average. The temporal variation in the solar activity displays a similarity to that of the mean temperature of the Earth. These scientific results therefore bring the influence of the Sun on the terrestrial climate, and in particular its contribution to the global warming of the 20th century, into the forefront of current interest. However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years. They took the measured and calculated variations in the solar brightness over the last 150 years and compared them to the temperature of the Earth. Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time. Source



From:
Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change?
PETER A. STOTT, GARETH S. JONES, AND JOHN F. B. MITCHELL, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research, Met Office, Bracknell, Berkshire, United Kingdom
(Manuscript received 2 September 2002, in final form 10 June 2003)

Current attribution analyses that seek to determine the relative contributions of different forcing agents to observed near-surface temperature changes underestimate the importance of weak signals, such as that due to changes in solar irradiance. Here a new attribution method is applied that does not have a systematic bias against weak signals. It is found that current climate models underestimate the observed climate response to solar forcing over the twentieth century as a whole, indicating that the climate system has a greater sensitivity to solar forcing than do models. The results from this research show that increases in solar irradiance are likely to have had a greater influence on global-mean temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century than the combined effects of changes in anthropogenic forcings. Nevertheless the results confirm previous analyses showing that greenhouse gas increases explain most of the global warming observed in the second half of the twentieth century. Source



From:
The effect of increasing solar activity on the Sun's total and open magnetic flux during multiple cycles: Implications for solar forcing of climate
( J. L. Lean, E. OY.-M. Wang. E. O. N. R. Sheeley Jr.,E. O., Hulburt Center for Space Research, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington DC, USA, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 29, NO. 24, 2224, 2002 , )

We investigate the relationship between solar irradiance and cosmogenic isotope variations by simulating with a flux transport model the effect of solar activity on the Sun's total and open magnetic flux. As the total amount of magnetic flux deposited in successive cycles increases, the polar fields build up, producing a secular increase in the open flux that controls the interplanetary magnetic field which modulates the cosmic ray flux that produces cosmogenic isotopes. Non-axisymmetric fields at lower latitudes decay on time scales of less than a year; as a result the total magnetic flux at the solar surface, which controls the Sun's irradiance, lacks an upward trend during cycle minima. This suggests that secular increases in cosmogenic and geomagnetic proxies of solar activity may not necessarily imply equivalent secular trends in solar irradiance. Questions therefore arise about the interpretation of Sun-climate relationships, which typically assume that the proxies imply radiative forcing. Source



From NASA Earth observatory website: Is the Sun Brighter or Not? (2003)

Unfortunately, total solar irradiance measurements made by different instruments don’t agree with one another. The magnitude of change from one moment to the next is nearly equal, but the absolute measurement of solar irradiance differs by up to 0.7 percent. This doesn’t sound like much, but the change in solar irradiance from solar maximum to solar minimum is only about 0.2 percent. The situation is even more complicated because the datasets from different instruments don’t always overlap, making comparisons difficult. (Graph courtesy Richard Willson, Columbia University) Integrating the conflicting satellite measurements into one consistent data set is as much art as it is science—the data sets of two research groups disagree. The data compiled by Richard Willson and Alexander Mordvinov (blue line) show an increase in solar irradiance between the past two solar minima (in 1986 and 1996), while Claus Frölich and Judith Lean’s data (red line) show no difference in solar irradiance over the same time period. Source

Theo theo theo theo theo theo theo youre wrong your wrong youre wrong youre wrong u r wrong! Did I say youre wrong youre wrong youre wrong? Well, I meant was youre wrong youre wrong youre wrong youre wrong! Do you understand what wrong means? You are is easy to understand, but do you understand the meaning of wrong? Well, you are wrong!

There is no weather in space. The earth's climate and weather is the result, the result, the result of the interaction of the center temperature on the activities of the enclosed atmosphere. The climate and weather begins below your feet. Did you forget that the center of this earth is the same as the sun or do you not believe that?

Forget about pollution, that's not the problem. The problem is global warming. The globe is warming! Is the sun causing it? Not the solar disk! Wars cause global warming. Is the sun melting the polar ice caps? No. The globe is warming. Why, then is the globe warming? You can answer that question by studying heart attacks.

Unfortunately, your theoretical analysis seems to have come from a sci-fi movie.

It is well known that the Sun is the energy source that propels all life on this planet, and indeed is the energy behind the mechanations of the atmosphere, including our weather and temperature. The Sun is at the root of all climate and climate change on this planet. It drives the motion of the the atmosphere, creates evaporation and condensation...precipitation is solar powered ultimately, and the ocean currents, which one of the leading climatologists in this country say are at the root of the global temperature flux, are also solar powered.

But your correct in that polution is not the problem.
Additionally, it is not clear that this present period of global warming (one of many cyclical periods of like nature which have occurred)is a problem at all...save to Al Gore, who is neither too smart, nor a scientist of any kind.

The globe is warming, very likely for the same reasons that it warmed in past recorded periods...like the 1920-1940 period, when it did virtually the same thing it's been observed doing recently. Of course, it then cooled for some years following that, to the point where yahoos similar to Gore were proclaiming that we were entering a global ice age in the mid 1970s. Woops.

All of that was solar powered....

I do, however, think your angle of studying heart attacks in order to derive an answer to some very likely natural cycle of temperature is unique, and likely worth some study....

Thank the stars ~ another person who actually knows something about space weather and the Sun being the primary source of all energy on this planet.

You've got not a clue as to what you are saying Greggk. You should check the meaning of the word "wrong" and look into a mirror on this because you obviously do not know a thing about space weather.

If you actually think that "the climate and weather begins below your feet," as you stated above, then you are in need of serious mental help. Last time I checked, when it rains, or snows, that weather comes from above, not below your feet. Jeez.

What grade are you in school? Have you ever heard of the hydrologic cycle? Allllllllll of the water in the atmosphere comes from the oceans of the earth. The last time I checked on the position of my feet, I think I found I was above sea level. The creation of the water probably was the fusion of deuterium, which is heavy hydrogen, with oxygen (O3 - ozone) in our atmosphere.

It (our atmosphere) is made up of mostly nitrogen (78%), but also contains oxygen (21%) and many other gases in small quantities: carbon dioxide, helium, hydrogen and ozone. There are generally considered to be about 5 layers making up the atmosphere from the troposphere at ground level to the thermosphere about 60 miles straight up. These layers of gases are held in place by gravity. One of the most important components is water vapor. This forms our clouds and gives us much needed precipitation. This water vapor also helps to absorb the ultraviolet radiation of the sun. If all of the water in the atmosphere were to be released as rain, it would cause a layer of water that would cover the earth to only 2 inches thick. When precipitation does fall from the atmosphere, it certainly must be replaced, and God has designed the hydrologic or water cycle to take care of this. http://www.gospelgazette.com/gazette/2000/nov/page5.htm

Going further with this: Every rock in space that does not have a central core is Heavy Hydrogen, deuterium. When a comet passes through our atmosphere, it first encounters the ozone that may cause some vapor, but the major reaction is with nitrogen making nitric acid which causes the hardening of the skin and breathing problems and the various health problems. I will say the problems we are having as far as the wars and crime and murders and sickness are caused by nitric acid. Clouds are above your head and they are made of something like dust. The water that comes from these clouds comes from below. There is no oxygen in space; if so, it would be totally water because the content of space is about 85% hydrogen and the rest helium. I was thinking about what you said last night and I again thought about the planet Mars; Mars is getting hotter. Is the sun doing that? I don't think so, too far away from the sun. Sunspots do change our weather, but they do not control it. The temperature does cause a change in the fusion of atoms, such as the fusion of H3 with N3 in excessive heat will produce Nitric Acid but the cold fusion will cause Nitrous Oxide, laughing gas. That is why there is less crime in wintertime. We are constantly being bombarded from space with heavy hydrogen from the fusion of the ions of hydrogen and helium from the sun. The gaseous planets are just globes of elements gathered around fragments of the big bang; and those fragments are balls of hydrogen ions and helium ions blown out from the sun. You can look at the galaxy of Saggitarius A and see that stars are being born from there. It would be the same with our sun if it were not so old. We are going into another phase of existence where the sun is reaching a peak of about 4 billion years. We will go through another axis shift and another ice age.

Theo, sorry about my last blog; got a little carried away. It must have been the heat from the computer screen.

Well, Theodore, when you're right, you're right!
I am in complete agreement with your position here...

I've been out of grade school for many decades young man. As for your last "blog." well, ok, but this thread is about solar-forced climate change, or global warming.

Thanks MID, at least you know that space weather exists, and that the Sun is the source of all energy we receive on Earth With some of the posts here, you'd think that the Sun was nothing but a simple cardboard cutout or something the way people write about it.

This too, appears to have gotten carried away.
I think the argument here had to do with your contention that the Sun has nothing to do with global temperature rise. You go off on an analysis of water formation, atmopspheric composition, and nitrous oxide being the reason for less crime in the winter...(?).

You also seem to be citing the hydrologic cycle herein...perhaps as part of your argument?

The hydrologic cycle of course is the mechanism of conservation of the Earth's water supply.


Perhaps you hadn't realized that the primary power source for this hydrologic cycle is the SUN!?!?

You're welcome!

And indeed space weather does exist (there's a whole NASA branch which studies space weather).
Space weather, Earth weather...it's all weather, whether-or-not some people can fathom it ( ), and it's all Solar Powered.

I was thinking along the same lines...the way the Cosmic Furnace, which is the source of all life and mechanisms on this planet is spoken of, you'd think it was just a 40 watt light bulb or something hanging up there doing nothing...

It's doing everything!

Like you haven't said that one before. Since we (and NASA and many other astrophysicists) proved the Sun is not the only factor in climate change, we just think it's a cardboard cutout? Sorry to disrespect your holier-than-thou Sun but it can't get all of the credit for climate change as you would want it to. You even said Stephen Hawking is wrong about climate change! I really would like to know what kind of degrees you have(if any) or if you really even have a job related to astronomy. You act so immature, very unprofessional, and refuse to accept basic facts! I just don't know how anyone would want to hire you, besides oil companies.

The Sun very well influences climate change, however it is not the only factor. When we compare temps vs cosmic rays, we see that in the past 30 years our temps are constantly rising without an increase in solar variablity. Can you explain that besides calling it a conspiracy like theo?

Who is "we?" Hey man, you don't know me at all to make any kind of comment on how "immature" I am. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean that I am "immature." I know more about space weather and astrometeorology than you obviously do. So, quit with the "oil company" snicks, and all the "holier-than-thou" statements, ok? The only one sounding immature here is you. Jeez.

Obviously not considering you refuse to accept basic facts and call anything that doesn't cater your opinion a conspiracy.

Yes, it is, but try explaining that to some of these people blaming humanity for something they haven't done, like force climate change.

Yeah, right. Just when did I call anything a "conspiracy?" Listen bud, you've got your own issues. They've got nothing to do with me. If you can't stick to the topic of the thread without throwing around insults like you do, then obviously, your arguments were weak to begin with, and they've been very weak Reincarnated. Learn more about real climate change ~ that is forced, by the SUN.

So, how is that a conspiracy? Where did I ever use the word? Greed is greed, plain and simple Reincarnated. You've got to stop putting words into the mouths of others, and get off the silly train pal.

Yeah, I'm alway getting carried away. All of the atmospheric conditions, especially the hydrologic cycle cools the earth along with the waters of the ocean which cover 2/3 of the surface and the oceans may have been our atmosphere once. If we did not have the oceans, we would probably be another Venus or Mercury. The sun has everything to do with the temperature of the surface of the earth. In our atmosphere, if we did not have the ozone, the sun's rays would not be reflected in order to stop the intensity of the heat and that would dry up the water.

But, I really think that the Sun is not causing the temperature rise of the surface; it is the amount of heat storing material that is on the surface along with the drawing out of the oil which is one protection from the heat from the center of the earth. That and the trees which are the oxygen producers of the atmosphere are being taken up. When the balance of the oxygen-carbon dioxide level is disrupted, that relieves some of the gravity holding down the methane in the swamps causing more displacement of the oxygen. The atmosphere is rolling up at the poles; the ozone is disappearing. The sun is not the cause of that. But, that will cause the heating of the surface. See, in a roundabout way, Theo is right, but not now at this time.

HEY ! I don't wanna crash your private party, guys, but why has nobody bothered to comment on my lovely post a bit further up? I collated it with such enthusiasm....Theo, you could at least show me the courtesy to say it's utter crap! I FEEL IGNORED !

If it doesn't pamper his opinion then he doesn't need to read it because he already knows it is falsified information made up by greedy conspiring scientists.

This post is actually a perfect example of your immaturity. Have you ever heard someone in a debate say "I know more about this than you"? No. Because it doesn't say anything. It's like saying "I am faster than you" because you are losing a race. You also have bad grammar, something Reincarnated forgot to point out. You use too many commas. You also abuse the tilde and quotation marks for no apparent reason.

If you told me you were 12 years old I would believe you without even a second thought. Pretty much every post you have made contained a personal attack of some form, and when you think something is wrong you just call it silly or say "I know more about it than you." Sometimes you don't even respond to what people say and you post some huge thing about how the sun creates climate, as if no one knows. WE KNOW that the sun is the main factor in global climate. WE KNOW THIS, and say it all the time, but you just seem to ignore it. It is the main FACTOR, do you know what a FACTOR is? There are OTHER FACTORS, such as CO2 levels which ARE rising, you can't deny that. You can't deny that all the CO2 humans create has at least some effect on our climate. You also can't deny that the thousands and millions of acres of forests that are being destroyed don't have an effect either. Saying that the "SUN is the MAIN factor" over and over and over again is not going to prove anything.

Your argument sucks, "ok? Jeez."

Despite the fact that you call yourself an astrologer which, as anyone who is even slightly interested in science knows, is very different from an astronomer and as Phil Plait says, astrology has no basis in reality whatsoever. (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/astrology.html)



(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrology)

...and as for "astrometeorology", a quick peek at the internet quickly establishes its likewise a pretty nebulous, out-moded pseudo-science.



(http://www.geocities.com/astro_weather/astro.htm)

Hmm.... sorry Theodore, I'm simply not convinced.



What. Are. You. Jibbering. About.

Hmmm... sorry. Emma. I. don't. jibber. And. you. don't. know. what. you. are. talking. about. either.

Well, that's the main problem those of you who don't know anything about climate science have ~ that is, most of you resort to name-calling when you cannot make your argument. I am far older than 12 years old, and even at that age, I knew that the Sun was the cause of climate change. What is your excuse? You resort to these moralistic comments on people whom you do not know, etc., etc., but your argument remains what is always has been ~ and that is weak and unconvincing.

Rather than learn about how the climate of your own planet actually works, you resort to the blame game ~ which is the piss poor model many of you out there apply to cover over the gaps in your own knowledge base.

Blame everything, and everyone for global warming, and planetary climate change ~ rather than to learn and see what the astrophysical and geophysical truths are.

And no, you did not even mention the SUN in many of your own posts before I brought it up, so don't even go there. Then, when you finally do mention the Sun, then, it is a mere "factor" when even that is not true.

Get this ~ the SUN is the PRIMARY cause of climate change ~ global cooling, global warming and everything else in-between that takes place all throughout Earth's climate. This includes all the other planets in our solar system as well of which the Earth is a member. Learn about space weather. Learn about the Sun and leave the name-calling, the silly blame games in the peanut gallery, ok? And yes ~ jeez.

Then I suggest you check the real data out there on the differences of view why the Sun is the cause of global warming, in fact, the cause of all climate change on the planet.

According to Dr. Th. Landscheidt, these are many of the same people who falsely made predictions of climate disasters back in the 1980s, "Those scientists who spread anxiety in the eighties by predicting climate catastrophes cannot plead that at this time there were not any publications pointing to a relation between solar activity and climate that had to be taken seriously. The relationship in Figure 4 was presented at the international climate symposium “Weather and Climate Responses to Solar Variationsâ€� in Boulder, Colorado, as early as 1982 [55]. The plot shows a temperature time series after H. H. Lamb and C. D. Schönwiese at the bottom, radiocarbon data after J. E. Eddy [16] â€â€� proxy data reflecting solar activity â€â€� covering the interval 1000 to 1950 at the top, and in the middle data I had derived from a semiquantitative model of cyclic solar activity. S and M mark the Spoerer minimum and the Maunder minimum of sunspot activity, while O points to the medieval climate optimum which coincided with very strong solar activity. The synchronism of these three time series, covering 950 years, extends the connection elaborated by Friis-Christensen and Lassen 550 years farther back into the past and opens a possibility of long-range forecasts, as the data in the second curve are based on calculations that can be extended far into the future. On this basis, I forecasted, in 1982, that we should expect declining temperatures after 1990 and probably a new Little Ice Age around 2030. In further papers I specified this prediction [58, 59, 63]. I also expected considerably weaker sunspot activity after 1990. The slowly ascending new sunspot cycle, which started in May 1996, seems to follow the predicted trend.

He also noted that, "As to climate, seven years is a rather short interval. A climatic effect caused by total irradiance variations becomes more effective when its impact lasts longer. The Milankovitch theory in its modern form shows that a change of 0.1% effective during a very long interval can release a real ice-age [49]. So it may be expected that the 90-year Gleissberg cycle of sunspot activity, which modulates the intensity of the 11-year cycle, possesses a considerable potential to accumulate an effective surplus of irradiance, or to induce a steadily decreasing level of radiant flux density, particularly since the Gleissberg cycle can reach a length of 120 years [58]. Figure 2 after J. A. Eddy [17] shows the strong intensity variations in the 11-year sunspot cycle. When we connect the peaks by an enveloping curve, minima in the Gleissberg cycle emerge around the years 1670 (Maunder minimum), 1810, and 1895. They are marked by black arrows. Each of these secular sunspot minima coincided with cool climate in the Northern Hemisphere. The deeper the level of solar activity fell, the deeper sank the temperatures."

Global warming has nothing to do with humanity's influence whatsoever, since all climate and weather begins in space ~

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos...0climsolar.html

http://www.john-daly.com/index.htm

http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm

Thanks Theo, I feel much better now.

Re your post- well, if John L. Daly & Theodor Landscheidt say so, it must be true then.! Totally unbiased source, I'm sure. Theodor Landscheidt was a judge, astrologist & amateur climatologist. So he tried to find the weather in the chart. Bless him for his efforts, but many have been trying & haven't succeeded. It's a tall order. Did I mention that of the 120 reference sources listed in his article, none is more recent than 1998. 'Nuff said. The reason why I can't take you seriously, is that you claim to KNOW, that WE KNOW, that it is proven scientifically beyond doubt. And that's just not true.

And Theo claims to be a professional, yeah right! Like I have been saying all along, he is way too immature and ignorant to be the climate expert he claims to be.

What's not true is what you've just said, that's the "tall order." You can also "feel" anyway that you want, but you need to learn more about the Sun. Morever, all of his references during the 1990s, go well into the 2000s. Here is one such reference on his paper on Variations in CO2 Growth Rate Associated with Solar Activity from the year 2003 (not 1998) ~ http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/co2new.htm

Moreover, where is it a rule that just because a reference is several years old that all of a sudden that makes it a non-entity? Please. Take me seriously? Take whatever you want seriously or not. That is your choice. I am a very serious person. I don't have to convince you, or anyone else of how serious I am. Perhaps you ought to learn more about what you are commenting before being such a cynic, I'm sure.

As for "finding the weather in a chart" ~ what does that mean? Many have been trying, but haven't succeeded? A tall order? According to whom? You? Do you even know what it is that you are talking about in the first place? 'Nuff said to you.

Another of your ignorant comments that have no basis in fact whatsoever Reincarnated. I've got more expertise in the climate sciences than you do. I know that much.

You didn't say anything I haven't already seen you say before. You yourself even use the words PRIMARY CAUSE, meaning it's not the only cause. And just because I do not share your opinion does not mean I am wrong and need to learn more. You are so predictable, your response only verified the claims I made about you in my post.

I've said more than enough Toxic Flood. And, you've verified nothing. What claims about me? You don't know me buddy. Not at all. Also, I don't exactly see you making any case whatsover on global warming except with mere opinions. And yes, you do need to learn more, since everytime you comment it is the same predictable opinions of yours that are uninformed. The only thing you're doing here is picking gnat s_ out of pepper with your comments, etc., etc. Do you even have a case to make on global warming in the first place? Then make it. So far, with all your posts. You haven't. All you've done is introduce more opinion on top of more opinion. Nothing more.

I don't claim to know you, but I know how you have presented yourself on this board. What claims? Read my post maybe?

NASA agrees with me, as well as the majority of climatologists (yes, actual science, not "classical astrology").



Wow, and all of these scientific organizations (except one) are in agreement as well. I'm pretty sure they've done more research than you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_op..._climate_change

If you want actual data as proof, you should probably read this thread. Whenever someone posts it all you say is "THE SUN IS THE MAIN FACTOR", you never actually refute the EVIDENCE.

Oh, and links to sites explaining how the sun effects climate are irrelevant, we all know it does, and we all know to what extent, and we ALL KNOW IT'S THE MAIN CAUSE, MAIN FACTOR, WHATEVER YOU ARE GOING TO CALL IT THIS TIME. QUIT REPEATING THAT.