Global Warming: Why The Sun Is The Cause, Not People
By Theodore White, Astrometeorologist

As the worldwide hype over man-made climate change peaks with the advent of Al Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth and the 2007 climate change report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) there continues to be little evidence that humans are the cause of worldwide climate change, or, what is called ~ global warming.

The stated claims of the IPCC, which was created by the United Nations in 1988 was to assess what was called scientific information relevant to "human-induced climate change" and the "impacts of human-induced climate change" to develop "options for adaptation and mitigation."

What is often missed is that all the scientific data does not support man-made climate change, but rather ~ the opposite ~ solar forced climate change.

Meaning that the Sun is the cause of what is known as "global warming."

See Top Climate Events ~ http://www.john-daly.com/topevnts.htm

Back in the 1980s, when climate scientists began to notice that sea-surface temperatures were rising, speculation developed that suggested that perhaps the release of carbon into the atmosphere was the cause.

This came about in part because of climate research that showed that the Earth's ozone layers at the poles were showing signs of stress. We now know that the reasons for this was due to the increased magnetic activity of the Sun, which caused intense radiation storms just above the Earth's atmosphere ~ resulting in gaps observed in the Earth's ozone layers.

Several years ago over 17,000 scientists signed a petition about the Kyoto Protocol that stated that "there is no credible evidence that harmful man induced climate change (global warming) is occurring."

They also maintained this about the Earth's ozone layer ~

"The ozone holes in the atmosphere in the Arctic and Antarctic regions are naturally occurring due to meteorological effects, expanding and contracting with the change of season. The meteorological effects consist of high velocity stratospheric level winds that peak during local winter and act to destroy ozone. Also there is less ultraviolet (UV) radiation from the Sun due to the inclination of Earth's axis during hemispheric Winter.

Another variability impacting ozone layer density is the +/- 11 year sunspot cycle. When solar activity is intense at a peak of a solar cycle the ozone layer density increases due to increased UV radiation, just the opposite occurs at the bottom of solar cycle when the Sun is relatively quiet. Changes in ozone layer density is a normal occurrence."

The Sun is that powerful. Just one hour of sunshine has enough energy to fuel Earth's power requirements for an entire year, see ~ http://news.yahoo.com/s/usatoday/20070425/...lyCGsylZd_MWM0F

Back in the late 1980s, the majority of mainstream climate scientists didn't even acknowledge global warming, much less man-made climate change, and laughed at the mention of "global warming" ~ that is ~ until multi-millions of federal and international dollars to study climate change started filling coffers.

The myth of man-made global warming took off in the early 1990s, and continued throughout the decade as sea-surface temperatures and world temperatures continued to rise to record levels. Clearly, the Earth was warming, but the question remained: what was causing it?

One can match the increase in climate science funding to the increasingly shrill voices blaming global warming on man-made emissions. The more money devoted to global warming ~ the more mainstream scientists and the media began pushing this myth onto the worldwide public stage.

Even in the conventional scientific world ~ the dollar is king.

When the tens of multi-millions (almost billion) in federal and international dollars start to dry up on man-made climate change, just watch how many scientists drop the premise of man-made climate change like a bad habit.

They will go back to doing what they were doing before ~ laughing at the premise of man-made global climate change, and they were laughing before the money shut them up and the myth took on a life of its own.

Why?

Because man-made global warming does not exist.

It never did.

In classical scientific astrology, there are known celestial cycles ranging from months, to years, and over many decades that repeat themselves and correlate to events, including climate and weather. Astrometeorology is one of the oldest branches of classical scientific astrology, as Kim Farnell notes ~

"The forecasting of weather was considered to be part of natural astrology, which encompassed a geocosmic relationships between celestial phenomena and the natural environment of the Earth. It was considered a unified, reputable body of knowledge and formed an important part of natural philosophy. The study of natural astrology reflected the view of the universe that everything is connected. All earthly forms were seen as bound to the power of the Sun, Moon, stars, planets, and other phenomena of celestial or atmospheric origin, such as meteor showers, comets, aurora borealis, lightning, and precipitation."

The classical astrologer, "Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) noted that certain magnetic angles among the planets had a major bearing upon weather patterns. He discovered further harmonic or magnetic angles of planetary configurations and also observed that certain types of terrestrial weather patterns coincided with certain magnetic angles forming among the planets. Before he conceived his laws of planetary motion, Kepler's initial recognition came through his accurate long-range weather forecasting in predicting the bitterly cold winter in Austria in 1593. Kepler published his observations from June 28 1618 to August 9 1629."

One such astrological cycle is one that lasts 36 years. We are currently in what is called the Cycle of the Sun (1980-2016) ~ and during the first 26 years of this cycle, the Sun more than doubled its magnetic field activity, causing intense radiation storms over the Earth's atmosphere which opened gaps in the Earth's ozone layers during the late 1980s and into the 1990s.

We are currently in the 27th year of solar forcing of the Earth's climate. The Sun has just recently reached its minimum phase and is expected to peak once again at maximum sometime in the years 2010-2012 ~

Some of the hottest years on record of the 20th century have taken place between 1980 to 2005 ~ among the hottest years being 1988, 1991, 1995, 1998 & 2005, when the Sun was recorded having some of its most powerful sunspot and magnetic field activity.

Those years witnessed record high temperatures, powerful storms and hurricanes during the El Nino years of 1997/1998 when record heavy rains drenched the west coast of the U.S. and Canada, while heavy floods from hurricanes ravaged regions in Central America, where devastating storms resulted in the loss of thousands of lives.

Back in the year 1995, hundreds of people in the Midwest of the United States died because of oppressive summer heat. Global warming was highlighted again in Europe in 2003, when over 35,000 Europeans died because of the stifling summer heat.

Since the hottest years of the last century have taken place in the last 15 years, the calls blaming global warming on human Co2 emissions have risen as fast as the media and political pressures to "reverse" it.

But how can anyone reverse climate change on Earth that is caused directly by that star in the skies we call the Sun?

Temperature records over the last 27 years can be matched exactly to solar forcing of the Earth's climate. My argument for Solar Forcing is backed up by scientific evidence. Paleo-climatologists, climate scientists, astrophysicists and geophysicists have continue to maintain that the Sun is the cause of climate change ~ both global warming and global cooling.

The scientific evidence clearly shows that what is called "man-made global warming" is indeed what it has always been ~ a myth.

Moreover, many people who support the man-made global warming seem to ignore that some of the coldest winters in recorded history have also taken place during this time of global warming.

Climate scientists have noted that ~

"The record cold of the decades of the 1890's, 1940's, 1970's, 1980's and most recently the bitter northern hemisphere winters of 2000-2001, 2001-2002, 2002-2003 argue against the occurrence of harmful man induced climate change (global warming).

Also the Winters of 2000/2001 and 2004/2005 in Siberian Russia, as well as Winter 2005/2006 in Antarctica were among some of the coldest in recorded history.

In January 2004, Boston, MA recorded one of the coldest month of January in 111 years. Grand Forks, ND set an all time record low of -44 degrees below zero and Fosston, MN saw also temperatures at -50 deg. below zero F and in Saskatchewan, Canada, saw record low temperatures fell to -62 deg. below zero F ~ all happening in the Winter of 2003/2004."

Below are more anomalous cold weather events that took place during the winters of 2004, 2005, 2006, and this past winter of 2007, that clearly depict that the Earth's climate is not only warming worldwide, but becoming increasingly colder as well.

In fact, astrological long-range climate forecasts continue to indicate that the Earth is transitioning from global warming to global cooling.

These anomalous colder events to come have already been taking place as a retired paleoclimatologist living in Florida has noted from news reports around the world during the years 2004 to 2007~

.....March 12, 2007 a North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was cancelled after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite on three of her toes. The extremely cold temperatures drained the batteries in their electronic equipment. Then there was the cold, quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they recorded the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero. Outside temperatures were exceeded 100 below zero at times, Atwood said. They were experienced temperatures that were not expected with global warming.....

.....The minimum temperature on Mt. Mansfield, VT on March 6, 2007 was -28 deg. F, breaking the old record of -25 deg. F set in 1955. On March 7, 2007 numerous minimum temperature records fell across Vermont at lower elevations. Missisquoi River at an elevation of 410 feet saw a minimum temperature of -37 deg. F. Island Pond at an elevation of 1201 feet saw a minimum temperature of -35 deg. F.....

.....The minimum temperature on Mt. Washington, NH on March 7, 2007 was -30 deg. F, breaking the old record of -21 deg. F set in 1937.....

.....The minimum temperature on Mt. Washington, NH on March 6, 2007 was -37 deg. F, breaking the old record of -23 deg. F set in 1950. The -37 deg. F reading fell short by one degree of the all time coldest March temperature of -38 deg. F set in 1950.....

.....In Toronto, Ontario, Canada, February 2007 was the coldest since February 1912.....

....On January 15, 2007 Lancaster, CA broke their monthly record, coming within one degree of their all-time record low temperature. LANCASTER TEMPERATURE OF 03 DEGREES TODAY SET A NEW MONTHLY RECORD FOR JANUARY. THE COLDEST ALL TIME RECORD FOR LANCASTER WAS 02 DEGREES SET DECEMBER 24 1984.....

.....In Boston, MA, USA, the minimum temperature dropped to 6 degrees on March 6, 2007, the coldest March minimum temperature since March 10, 1984.....

.....March 2006, New England, USA suffered through an unusually cold late season Arctic airmass. The Northeast on March 6, 2007 was the coldest March 6th since 1950.....

.....On June 1, 2005 measurable snow fell for the first time in recorded history in tropical Somalia. Falling at an elevation of 1000 feet at Puntland in the NE part of the country. Ironically, the freak snowstorm was blamed on man induced global warming....

.....The BBC reported that during the week of February 12, 2007 snow fell in Nepal's capital, Katmandu for the first time since 1944.

.....During the week of February 19, 2007 snow fell in portions of Argentina that have never seen snow so early in the season (late summer). A comparison would be snow in Philadelphia, PA on August 19th.....

.....On February 17, 2007 a minimum temperature of 18.6 deg. F was observed at Holder in Citrus County (the west central peninsula) of Florida. This temperature was the coldest ever observed so late in the winter season.....

.....On February 15, 2007 snow fell in Pensacola, Florida for the 4th time this winter season in this southern state.....

.....Snow showers fell across portions of the central peninsula of Florida on November 21-22, 2006, including the Orlando metro area. The snow showers were the earliest ever observed on the central peninsula and state and reported since European settlers arrived. On the morning of November 22, 2006 Archbold which is located on the south central peninsula region observed a minimum temperature of 28 deg.....

.....It snowed in downtown Los Angeles for the first time in modern times on Saturday February 18, 2006.....

.....During the first two weeks of February 2006 all of Alaska with the exception of the panhandle region was in the grip of extreme below zero temperature. Inland area temperatures repeatedly dropped into the -50 to -65 deg. F below zero range.....

.....During the first week of December 2005 the coldest minimum temperatures ever observed so early in the season chilled the lower 48 states, with the exception of the Florida Peninsula. Below zero daytime readings dipped deep into Colorado and Kansas, with night time sub zero readings into west Texas. Frozen precipitation fell at Corpus Christi and Brownsville, TX and into northern Mexico S-SW of Brownsville and Del Rio. Some north and central Plains region areas saw minimum temperatures in the -20 to -30 deg. below zero range.....

.....November 2005 was the coldest in the last 30 years in the northern Great Plains, Mid West and Great Lakes regions.....

....During the Southern Hemisphere Winter of 2005 Russia's Vostok base on the ice cap of East Antarctica set the new all time coldest minimum temperature on Earth of -132 deg. below zero. The previous record was -129 deg below zero......The high of -101 degrees was fully 25 degrees below average for early May. The low was -104 degrees, or about 15 degrees below average.....

.....April 25, 2005 a 31.9 deg. minimum temperature observed in central Florida. Two other locations observed 32 deg.

.....Sunday-Monday April 24-25, 2005. A record breaking late season snowfall has occurred in parts of Indiana, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Snowfall totals of up to 12-24" have been measured.

.....Sunday April 17, 2005 a 31.8 deg. minimum temperature is observed in central Florida.....

.....Greater Havana, Cuba, dawned rather chilly Monday morning April 4, 2005. At the Jose Marti international airport south of the city's center, the temperature dipped to 50 degrees whereas the average daily low during April is 70. A minimum temperature of 31.6 deg. was also observed in central Florida.....

.....Late season chill has descended on southeast Europe. At the same time, moisture streaming in from the Mediterranean has produced snow over parts of Turkey. The mountainous terrain over central Turkey has had a few inches of snow. Even in the capital city, Ankara, the snow managed to accumulate as temperatures were just below freezing and the snow was briefly heavy.....

.....The snowfall at Cleveland Hopkins airport for the day is 6.4 inches. This brings the snowfall total for the 2004-2005 season to 105.3 inches, which breaks the all time record for the snowiest season at Cleveland Hopkins airport, which was 101.1 inches in 1995-1996.....

.....The coldest night on record occurred across the Netherlands in March 2005. Sub-zero readings were recorded across the country. Marknesse fell to an overnight low of -5F. Such cold weather capped a week of heavy snows which buried some parts of the country under 20 inches. This winter has been the snowiest in the past 50 years for the Netherlands. In some parts of Holland snowfall was up to 20 inches, the highest levels recorded for March in the past 20 to 25 years, the Dutch meteorological institute said.....

.....Snow-covered palm trees in the Mediterranean, travel chaos on the continent and a rise in heating costs are the results of an unusual European cold snap.....

.....In Winter 2005/2006 Italy's port city of Genoa was paralyzed by a blanket of rare late winter white stuff that caused traffic chaos as far away as Milan, in one of the coldest starts to March on record, meteorologists said. Authorities closed Genoa airport, shut city schools and ordered buses off the roads as a blizzard blanketed the Liguria coastline. Milan also got a rare covering of snow during the morning, as did the nearby cities of Turin and Parma. In Turin, the thermometer fell to a record 17 Fahrenheit overnight, while Rome suffered its coldest March for 18 years.....

.....Heavy snowfall and below-freezing temperatures across most of northern and central Greece in winter 2005/2006 cut off dozens of mountain villages, blocked roads and led authorities to close some schools. In Spain, renowned for its warm winter sunshine in parts, palm trees in the Mediterranean city of Barcelona have been topped with snow and Madrid has seen its heaviest snowfall for about 15 years.....

One of the worst winters in decades in 2005/2006 brought heavy snows and cold air to Afghanistan and Pakistan. In Pakistan, over 300 people have died from the series of heavy snowfalls in the past few weeks. The heavy snows have stranded over hundreds of thousands of people in Kashmir.....

That same winter of 2005/2006 brought bitter cold in much of central Quebec, Canada. At Lac Benoit, for example, the early morning low was -48 degrees. Near Manouane, -46 degrees was registered early Monday, and the -43 degrees registered at Bonnard was a full 30 degrees below average.....

.....Heavy snowfall in Indian-controlled Kashmir has claimed more than 100 lives, and dozens were still missing Monday, the BBC reported. The snow created avalanches over villages south of Srinagar, destroying homes and killing about 70 people. Indian soldiers and medical personnel were searching for survivors Monday in the region, where 15 feet of snow has fallen since Friday.....

.....Snow even fell in northernmost Africa. In Algeria, the city of Constantine laid under seven inches of snow. A few weeks prior the same region was hit with 24-26" of the white stuff.....

.....In northern Norway, the town of Kautokeino set consecutive lows of -27 and -26 degrees Monday and Tuesday. These were followed by afternoon highs of -12 and -10 degrees. In February, an average day here would have a low of 0 and a high of 13 degrees, so the weather has been considerably colder than usual.....

.....An impressive cold wave persisted over much of the Balkan Peninsula that same winter. In Serbia, Sjenica registered consecutive lows of -17, -21, -21, -19 and -20 degrees F, whereas February's mean daily low is 23. Bitola, Macedonia, dipped 11 to 14 degrees below zero each of these five mornings.....

.....Cold rains and mountain snows fell along the eastern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. The latest bout of wet weather boosted rainfall at Beirut, Lebanon, to about six inches since the start of the month. Snow fell low enough to blanket ground down to at least 1000 feet, thereby whitening the hills from Lebanon south into Israel and the West Bank, and also to Amman, Jordan.....

Those newsworthy and numerous anomalous weather events taken from around the world is proof that the Earth's climate is indeed in transition from global warming towards global cooling, that is solar-forced. All climate and weather starts in space, and end up as weather on Earth.

This global cooling is expected to pick up pace in the 2010s, and 2020s, and will peak around the year 2034/2035. This will mean less El Ninos and increasing La Nina climate conditions, along with much colder storms of the future. All this is forced by the Sun's activity. See ~

http://www.nexialinstitute.com/climate_el_nino.htm

According to my estimation, we are in the 27th year of Solar Forcing of the Earth's Climate. This global warming began in earnest in the year 1980, and according to my calculations, will come to an end in the year 2016.

Before 2016, the Sun is expected to reach a historic maxima during Sunspot Cycle #24, in about 3-4 years, see ~
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/21dec_cycle24.htm

Here is an animation of monthly-averaged sea surface temperature fields since the 1980s when solar-forced global warming picked up speed due to the Sun's doubling of its magnetic field activity ~
~ http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/sst_ani.htm

While the world will continue to witness and experience the results of solar-forced global warming in rising sea-levels, excessive precipitation and powerful storms into the 2010s and 2020s, my astrological calculations shows that the Earth is headed for a colder cycle that will peak in the mid-2030s.

Until that time, we all will be living with what I call "extremes of weather" ~ in the form of increasingly anomalous climate conditions and weather events such as floods, strong tropical storms, hurricanes and cyclones, droughts, windstorms, heavy precipitation of continuing rains and significant snows, while the Earth transitions between warmer than average and colder than average temperatures.

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

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

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

Although I am sure Al Gore and those who believe in man-made climate change mean well, but the evidence they present is just not proof of man-made global warming. However, it is proof of just plain GLOBAL WARMING ~ which has been ongoing since 1980 and continues today.

Remember the facts ~ that during the height of human industrial production worldwide, the Earth's climate actually COOLED. This was also due to the Sun.

Most people who push the myth of man-made climate change do not seem to fully appreciate just how powerful the Sun truly is, and how the Sun forces all climate change, not just on Earth, but on other planets as well, where there is no human Co2 production and emissions.

Those who want to force everyone else to accept climate change as "man-made" mindlessly are only fooling themselves, and in denial about astrophysical and geophysical laws of the cosmos and of nature on Earth.

No amount of negative environmentalistic mantras like "only corporations and man is the cause of global warming" ~ is going to change the fact that the Sun forces the Earth's climate.

Those who fail to see that the Sun is the direct cause of global warming should have a reality check and cease blaming humans for what they are not doing, and never did, and that is cause global climate change through Co2 production.

Carbon is natural to the Earth, we are also made of it, and the oceans and mountains emit much more carbon into the Earth's atmosphere than we humans ever could.

There is no reason to deny less developed countries, like those in Africa, the means to have electricity, or to demand that they use solar energy when developed countries do not widely use solar-energy.

Using the resources of the Earth cleanly is good for business, and good for the world. To deny less developed nations the means to develop and grow by using the falsity of "man-made global warming" is a crime because it is not true. It never was and never will be.

It is the Sun that is the cause of all climate changes on the Earth ~ both global cooling AND global warming. Humans are not able to either cool and warm the earth, and there is NOTHING we can do to stop the activity of the Sun. All we can do is adapt to climate changes, while learning how to not pollute our air, and sea water.

As for global warming and climate change ~ only the SUN can accomplish this ~ http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

~ and that is exactly what that star in the skies has been doing since the Earth was created ~ forcing climate change ~ worldwide.

References & Links ~

http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/solarnao.htm

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos...22climatmo.html

http://www.geo.arizona.edu/palynology/geos...1climastro.html

http://www.solarstorms.org/Sradiation.html

Arnolâd, V. I. (1963): Small denominators and problems of stability of motion in classical and celestial mechanics. Russ. Math. Surv. 18, 85.

Balachandran, N. K., Rind, D., and Shindell, D. T. (1999): Effects of solar cycle variability on the lower stratosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 27321-27339.

Beer, J. and Joos, C. F. (1994): 10Be as an indicator of solar variability and climate. In: E. Nesme-Ribes, ed.: The solar engine and its influence on terrestrial atmosphere and climate. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 221-233.

Bossolasco, M., Dagnino, I., Elena, A. und Flocchini, G. (1973): Thunderstorm activity and interplanetary magnetic field. Riv. Italiana Geofis. 22, 293.

Bucha, V. (1983): Direct relations between solar activity and atmospheric circulation. Studia geophysica et geodaetica 27, 19-45.

Butler, C. J. (1996): A two-century comparison of sunspot cycle length and temperature change and evidence from Northern Ireland. In: ESEF The Global Warming Debate. Cambridge, European Sciencce and Environment Forum, 215-223.

Child, M. S. (1993): Nonlinearity and chaos in atoms and molecules. In: Mullin, T., ed.: The Nature of Chaos. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 272

Cliver, E. W., Boriakoff, V., Feynman, J. (1998): Solar variability and climate change: Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 1035-1038.

Egorova, L. Y., Vovk, V. Ya., and Troshichev, O. A. (2000): Influence of variations of cosmic rays on atmospheric pressure and temperature in the Southern pole region. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 62, 955-966.

Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991): Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science 254, 698-700.

Haigh, J. D.(1996): On the impact of solar variability on climate. Nature 272, 981-984.

Herman, J. R. and Goldberg (1978): Sun, weather, and climate. New York, Dover Publications.

Hodell, D. A., Brenner, M., Curtis, J. H., and Guilderson, T. (2001): Solar forcing of drought frequency in the Maya lowlands. Science 292, 1367-1370.

Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1997): The role of the sun in climate change. New York-Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997.

Kolmogorov, A. N. (1979): Preservation of conditionally periodic movements with small change in the Hamiltonian function. Lecture Notes in Physics 93, 51.

Landscheidt, T. (1983): Solar oscillations, sunspot cycles, and climatic change. In: McCormac, B. M., ed.: Weather and climate responses to solar variations. Boulder, Associated University Press, 293-308.

Landscheidt, T. (1984): Cycles of solar flares and weather. In: Moerner, N.A. und Karlén, W., eds..: Climatic changes on a yearly to millenial basis. Dordrecht, D. Reidel, 475, 476.

Landscheidt, T. (1986 a): Long-range forecast of energetic x-ray bursts based on cycles of flares. In: Simon, P. A., Heckman, G., and Shea, M. A., eds.: Solar-terrestrial predictions. Proceedings of a workshop at Meudon, 18.-22. Juni 1984. Boulder, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 81-89.

Landscheidt, T. (1987): Long-range forecasts of solar cycles and climate change. In: Rampino, M. R., Sanders, J. E., Newman, W. S. and Königsson, L. K., eds.: Climate. History, Periodicity, and predictability. New York, van Nostrand Reinhold, 421-445.

Landscheidt, T. (1988): Solar rotation, impulses of the torque in the Sun’s motion, and climatic variation. Clim. Change 12, 265-295.

Landscheidt, T.(1990): Relationship between rainfall in the northern hemisphere and impulses of the torque in the Sun’s motion. In: K. H. Schatten and A. Arking, eds.: Climate impact of solar variability. Greenbelt, NASA, 259-266.

Landscheidt, T. (1995b): Die kosmische Funktion des Goldenen Schnitts. In: Richter, P. H., ed.: Sterne, Mond und Kometen. Bremen, Hauschild, 240-276.

Landscheidt, T. (1998 a): Forecast of global temperature, El Niño, and cloud coverage by astronomical means. In: Bate, R., ed.: Global Warming. The continuing debate. Cambridge, The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), 172-183.

Landscheidt, T. (1998): Solar activity - A dominant factor in climate dynamics.
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm.

Landscheidt, T. (2000): Solar forcing of El Niño and La Niña. In: Vázquez , M. and Schmieder, B, ed.: The solar cycle and terrestrial climate. European Space Agency, Special Publication 463, 135-140.

Landscheidt, T. (2000): Solar wind near Earth: Indicator of variations in global temperature. In: Vázquez, M. and Schmieder, B, ed.: The solar cycle and terrestrial climate. European Space Agency, Special Publication 463, 497-500.

Landscheidt, T. (2000): River Po discharges and cycles of solar activity. Hydrol. Sci. J. 45, 491-493.

Landscheidt, T. (2003): New Little Ice Age instead of global warming. Energy and Environment. In print.

Lassen, K. and Friis-Christensen, E. (1995): Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 835.

Lockwood, R., Stamper, R., and Wild, M. N. (1999): A doubling of the Sun’s coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years. Nature 399, 437-439.

MacKay, R. S., Meiss, J. D. and Percival, I. C. (1987): Resonances in Hamiltonian maps. Physica D 27, 1.

Markson, R. und Muir, M. (1980): Solar wind control of the earth’s electric field. Science 208, 979.

Moser, J. (1973): Stable and Random Motions in Dynamical Systems. Princeton University Press.

National Drought Mitigation Center (2003): Predicting drought.
http://www.drought.unl.edu/whatis/predict.htm.

Neubauer, L. (1983): Sudden stratospheric warmings correlated with sudden commencements and solar proton events. In: McCormac, B. M. (ed.), Weather and Climate Responses to Solar Variations. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, 395-397.

Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001): Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago. Nature 411, 290-293.

Pallé Bagó, E. and Butler, C. J. (2000): The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming. Astron. Geophys. 41, 4.18-4.22.

Palmer, W. C. (1965): Meteorological drought. Res. Paper No. 45. Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C.

Peixoto, J. P. and Oort, A. H. (1992): Physics of climate. New York, American Institute of Physics.

Prohaska, J. T., Willett, H. C. (1983): Dominant modes of relationships between temperature and geomagnetic activity. In: McCormac, B. M. (ed.), Weather and Climate Responses to Solar Variations. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, 489-494.

Reiter, R. (1983): Modification of the stratospheric ozone profile after acute solar events. In: McCormac, B. M., ed.: Weather and climate responses to solar variations. Boulder, Associated University Press, 95-116.

Scherhag, R., 1952: Die explosionsartigen Stratosphärenerwärmungen des Spätwinters 1951/52. Berichte des Deutschen Wetterdienstes der US-Zone Nr. 38,51.

Schuurmans, C. J. E (1979).: Effects of solar flares on the atmospheric circulation. In: B. M. McCormac und T. A. Seliga, ed.: Solar-terrestrial influences on weather and climate. Dordrecht, Reidel, 105.

Shindell, D., Rind, D., Balachandran, N., Lean, J., and Lonergan, P. (1999). Solar cycle variability, ozone, and climate. Science 284, 305-309.

Siegel, C. L. (1942): Iteration of analytical functions. Ann. Math. 43, 607-612.

Siscoe, G. L. (1978): Solar-terrestrial influences on weather and climate. Nature 276, 348-351.

Sýkora, J., Badalyan, O. G., and Obridko, V. N. (2000): Coronal holes, recorded from 1943. A source of solar-induced terrestrial responses? In: Vázquez, M. and Schmieder, B, ed.: The solar cycle and terrestrial climate. European Space Agency, Special Publication 463, 95-100.

Tinsley, B. A. (2000): Influence of the solar wind on the global electric circuit, and inferred effects on cloud microphysics, temperature, and the dynamics of the troposphere. Space Sci. Rev. 94, 231-258.

Tinsley, B. A. and Yu, F. (2002):Atmospheric ionisation and clouds as links between solar activity and climate. In: AGU-monograph: Solar variability and its effects on the earth's atmosphere and climate system. In press.

Udelhofen, P. M. and Cess, R. (2001): Cloud cover variations over the United States: An influence of cosmic rays, or solar variability? Geophys. Res. Lett. 28, 2617-2620.

Van Geel, B., Raspopov, O. M., Rennsen, H., van der Pflicht, J., Dergachev, V. A., and Meijer, H. A. J. (1999): The role of solar forcing upon climate change. Quaternary Science Rev. 18, 331-338.

Wigley, T. M. L. (1988): The climate of the past 10,000 years and the role of the sun. In:Stephenson, F. R., Wolfendale, A. W. (eds.), Secular Solar and Geomagnetic Variations in the Last 10,000 Years. Kluwer, Dordrecht.

Yu, F. (2002): Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate. Geophys. Res. Lett. 107, in press.

Nice article.

I really don't know what to think of the theory of global warming. Proponents can show the concentrations of green house gases in the atmosphere have gone way up. I don't know how climatologists concluded that the temperature data they have shows a real increase in temperature and isn't the result of error. So I don't know if the earth is actually getting warmer. Skeptics and Proponents both seem to agree the earth is getting warmer. Skeptics of the theory of global warming claim the sun is causing the earth to get warmer. Proponents of the theory don't accept that. I don't know who is right. We may have to wait and see if the earth starts to get cooler to find out.

Standing Ovation!

Congrats.. you proved nothing really. While the sun may be the cause, and the earth goes through these cycles... there is unsermountible evidence that human pollution and all that lovely jazz that we do has been helping to make the climate changes worse.


And even if we did reel back half of the pollution that we do, we'll *STILL* have to learn how to adapt to the changes that are occuring. Why this is so hard for people to grasp, I don't know.

But hey, whatever, right? Easier to live in a comfortable "nothing can happen to us" bubble. We all remember what happens everytime that's popped... right? *snorts*

I agree with SilverCougar. It may be a part, but human interference is the biggest cause.

I'm in the process of responding to this post. I need some time though because this thread contains a lot of twisted facts and misinformation. Be patient

I wouldn't say we're the *biggest* cause. Just one of the many factors of what's going on. Sun, normal climate changes, maybe some star somewhere nearby exploded... Volcanoes also add to the warming.. however, because of all the junk we beltch into our eccosystem, the normal cycle is getting more extream.. more dangerous. However, while we can dial back what we do... it may or may not have an effect. Though, that's no excuse not to dial back our pollution. There's plenty of reasons to "go green" as it were. All part of the need to adapt. Humans are *supposed* to be the most adaptive animals on the planet, correct? Honestly, I think we've let our technology (*hugs her computer*) take away this adaptiveness. Well.. most of us. There's people like Wolfie who could survive sans the technology *grins*

It's interesting that this analysis fits in with what Adrian Gilbert and Maurice Cotterell talk about in their book..'Mayan Prophecies'....that 2012 is the end of a great cycle (not necessarily the end of the world).....and is connected with the sun and sun spots.



Interesting point.


I think people like to think that there is something they can do to stop what might be on the way...and this is one of the reasons that they hold onto the 'man-made' global warming theory.

Ahh, but people who want to tote the "Cold winters!!" card against global warming seem to either not understand, or just simply ignore that part of this "global warming" climate change is the extreams. Which means.. insanely hot summers... and winters that are highly chaotic. Though the reason why the North East, and the Mid West was hit so hard by snowfall was because it was (strangly sounding) warm enough for that to happen.

Snow only falls in a short window of tempurature. Something around 34ish to 28..27ish. And if the temps stay in that window for as long as they have... instent blizzards and noreasters, and just a ton of snow being dumped in on the area. And because the oceans are getting warmer, it's allowing the jetstream and whatnot keep the temps at that "sweet spot" in winter. Thus chaotic snowfilled months.

Cougar, its not the snowfall... its the bitter bone chilling COLD! Coldest winter in Toronto since the early 20th century..... record low temps in the praries.... Antarctic getting demonstrably colder. As te sea warms it will give up some of its dissolved CO2 and the more it warms the more CO2 will be expelled into the atmosphere. Does incerasing CO2 in the atmosphere directly cause a feedback reaction guaranteeing a greenhouse planet? Definitely not as the historical record attests. Earth undergoes periodic heating and cooling cycles all of which can be related (or at least correleted) to solar activity and pertubations in the earths orbit.
That said there is absolutely no reason why humanity should not reduce the pollution, overpopulation and deforestation we are inflicting on the planet and I am fully in support of reducing all three of these

That's still part of the chaotic winters. THat's part of the extreams. Yeah, I sited the snow because most of the complaints against the global warming had been the obsene amounts of snowfall this year.

However, the farther north you get... the bitter and colder the winter will get. *shrugs* That's what happens. It'll keep getting worse untill we reach that platue again.

Who is responsible for global warming on Mars and Venus?
Are the populations on these planets causing global warming there?
I don't doubt the Earth is warming, as far as man being the cause I will reserve judgement on that information, but it does seem rather strange that the people who are screaming the loudest about global warming are the ones who are unwilling to make any sacrifices themselves.
The truth is we have no control over the planets temperatures and that fact is scaring the hell out of a lot of people. The best we, as inhabitants of this planet, can do is to prepare for the warmer temperatures and be willing to take responsibility for ourselves and not wait on some ficitous organization to save us. That will never happen!

Sir.. please.. feel free to read my first post.

Until then, your post is .. pointless.

According to one of the other threads the warming on Mars isn't caused by the sun. Scientists found another cause. If I remember correctly there were fewer dust storms. I haven't heard anything about Venus warming so I can't tell you anything about that.

OK, I lied. I was going to respond to the entire post bit by bit, but I will just tackle the main points. While Theodore is correct about solar irradiance influencing climate change on Earth he is wrong where he thinks humans have no part of it. These graphs comparing solar variability vs temperature will show you that the Sun is not the only factor in Earths climate change as Theodore constantly repeats like a broken record.

Surface temperatures compared with sunspot numbers since 1858

Surface temperatures compared with solar irradiance since 1858

Surface temperatures compared with solar cycle length since 1858

Surface temperatures compared with geomagnetic activity (AA index) since 1858
As you can easily see, the Sun is not the only influence on our climate because it can't explain the current rise in temperature at the end of the graphs.The dust storms Mars is famous are blowing around sand and exposing more of the darker rock underneath.

Ok, since you know so much about global warming. Can you tell me how scientists came to the conclusion that their temperature data is accurate? I believe the burning of fossil fuels could be altering the climate. I just don't know how scientists could accurately measure a one degree rise in temperature over a one hundred year period. All I have found is the graph that shows the one degree rise in temperature over a one hundred year period. I can't find the rest of their report anywhere. I have no idea what sources of error they took into account. I have no idea how they were able to conclude the temperature increases they found are real warming and not the result of error.

You are quite right, My Apology Sir.

Exactly right Goblin-5. One of the problems of those touting the myth of man-made global warming is that they confuse this myth with the real problems of human pollution, which must be tackled. But then they take this effort to reduce pollution and have turned that into humans causing climate change ~ global warming caused by humans which never has happened, and never will happen because all global climate change is caused by the Sun.

No theo.. Sir is not completely right.

And Sir... X) *points to self* female.

*snickers*

The Sun is the cause ~ there's no doubt. There are centuries of solar records that correlate to climate events like global warming which has happened before on the planet before human production of Co2 released into the atmosphere. As for the Earth going through "these cycles" ~ well, you make that sound as if it is something that merely just happens. Cycles are the key and if you look at the cycles of the Sun's activity, you will see that they correlate exactly to events of climate change on this planet ~ global cooling and global warming.

Again.. please reread what I wrote.

There is no proof that the sun is the deffinate cause... or not. But what we do know that what we do, the pollution we create is making it worse. I'm not saying *WE'RE* the cause.. Just that we're making it worse. The sun, normal cycle, normal geological events.. yeah, they happen. However, now there's human induced CO2 and other pollutents in the mix. Not a good addition.

I posted this in another post about global warming and unfortunately I got a one sentence response from you which seems to be your only response to any dissedent opinions: that I am ridiculous and of course the sun is the ONLY cause of global warming.

Naturally without the sun there would be no global warming, no warmth at all, no life on this planet. However, your claim that its merely the sun's activities that are changing our atmosphere is dubious at best. This planet has a long and volatile past. It was at one time an un-inhabitable hunk of smoking rock and deadly gasses, and this was not due to the sun's activities alone. Yes, the sun is what helped create the planet's, and of course, it is what helped make the Earth an inhospitable place, but long after the sun's heat was diffused, this planet was very hot and deadly, and this was due to the composition of gasses in the air. The primary reason for the planet's atmospheric changes over time, and why life was able to form, has a lot to do with the way this composition of gasses changed, trapping some heat and allowing much to escape.

This cycle took a long, long time by our standards, and much of the toxic gasses that made this planet so inhospitable are now being re-released thanks to aggressive industrialization, driven primarily by human greed, and carelessness. If you have the education you claim to, then doubtless you will realize that much that has occured is intimately linked to how the sun's rays interacted with the earths atmosphere. That is, it is an interaction a relationship between our planet's various gasses and the sun, not simply the sun "acting up." Indeed the sun is the 'prime mover' in our solar system, and if this planet survives human stupidity, then it will be the sun that kills it ultimately. Doubtless it is a great power. But what makes the situation worse is the fact that the sun's rays are trapped in our atmosphere by various gasses, and one of the culprits is carbon gasses, which, from the best scientifc analysis out there, has risen to the highest levels known since life formed on this planet. If it is all the sun, and our atmosphere has nothing to do with trapping heat, then why do planets with no atmosphere, or very different ones, have drastically different temperatures between the sunny side and the shaded side? The dangerous rays are neither filtered nor trapped in the air on these planet's. By greatly increasing green house gasses, that is, releasing those that are locked into the earth in a solid form, we are changing the way the sun's rays interact with the planet.

And, for your information, we were not at our industrial peek 50 years ago. The amount of carbon released into our atmosphere every year is growing. It has increased by many times since WWII, and will continue to increase by all, including the most conservative, estimates. I don't know where you got those facts concerning the peak of industrialization. The primary source of energy for the US today, right now, is coal burning power plants, old technology known to be among the most polluting ways to extract energy.

The US is currently, and disproportionately, the biggest polluter in the world, with China, while growing, still far behind us. We consume 25% of the world's resources. Corporations around the world, with vested interest in competing in the market, have spent billions to date on PR and lobbying to fight restrictions on pollution levels. It is the elite and wealthy, the owners of industry, unfortunately intimately tied to the governments they financially support and whose ranks they are among in disproportionate numbers, who drive the hardest against regulations on carbon emissions. The average person has little to gain from buying this PR, but they are slick, and they have managed to confuse and confound the public by spending huge sums on PR that looks like news. Some news organizations will even show these pieces as real news, not telling the viewer that this was sent to them as canned, fake news by a PR giant working for various large corporations. They too, after all, are a business, and canned news is cheap and easy.

There is a great deal of variety in our intellectual communities on various issues, and that is healthy and normal. It is unheard of that new, or relatively new ideas will be accepted by all of the individuals within the intellectual and scientific communities, especially those which threaten the interests of such powerful people. However, given this knowledge, the agreement on the effects of carbon emmissions on global warming is rather powerful. Certainly there is debate, but for the specialists that study these phenomenon, the level of dissent is lower than on almost any other "non-canonical" idea. Now, what profit is there for the most of the industry in cleaning up their mess? Very, very litte. This is a classic taste of what, even the great pioneer of the market, Adam Smith, called 'externalizing costs' that is, not including part of the cost in the product, thus artificially lowering the price to beat your competitors. This feature of the market if unchecked, warned Adam Smith, will destroy the natural price, and harm society. Unfortunately, corporate power has thrived on finding ways to cut, or externalize costs. Conservatives and neo-liberals love to quote Adam Smith, jut not the parts that contradict their practices. We are far, far from the model he introduced.

Big companies will often move their messiest operations to poor, underdeveloped countries, where they can get away with poisoning the environment without any worry that someone will fight back, (though many do attempt to fight back, but thanks to hardy funding, often from large powerful nations who know the value of cheap raw materials, labor, and lose environmental laws, on their economy, these dissenters are often "disapeared" a nice CIA term for destroyed. It is not in our interest, even if the science is not perfect (there is no such thing anyway, only more or less probable models for prediction and explanation), to ignore the possibility of great catastrophy. The average person will not profit from this wreckless destruction. Even if global warming is doubtful (while I think everything is 'doubtable' ) the destruction we are reaping on the environment is real. Our water, our air, the soil, the animals that depend on habitats quickly disapearing, these are not reasonably doubtable, they are very real. We should not gamble on our planet, the only one we have for the forseable future, so we can eat fast food and drive SUV's. The selfish people that credulously insist that they have a right to their lifestyle, even if it could ultimately mean the destruction of life on this planet, are the product of a disgusting laise fair myth.

While many of your premises are reasonable, your conclusion does not follow. The best you can claim is that the sun has a great deal to do with our atmosphere, but even i know that there are other important factors that determine how the rays from the sun behave once they enter our atmosphere, and I am a philosophy major. I do have many books on environmental science, I am an avid reader, and have yet to read anyone make the claim that the sun is soley responsible for the heating and cooling of our planet. It is simply ridiculous.

You really do not contribute all of the man-made pollution which is being trapped in our atmosphere has no effect on global warming? The massive deforestation, the countless acres of land that is destroyed by the presence of factories, toxic waste dumps, the countless acres of land that are pillaged while putting in oil pipelines are not the direct causes of global warming but end up contributing to the massive pollution going into the atmosphere and the continued rape of this planet resulting in the deaths and displacement of tens of thousands of people and animals.

Also, I really enjoy the links you post to support your hypothesis and how most of them don't make a case for sun being the sole cause of global warming. They may talk about the sun cycles and the effect this has on the climate(which is not being disputed. Of course the sun cycles have an effect on our climate). You have one link that takes you to the OPINION section of the USA today written by Evan Schwartz - who is Evan Schawarz I don't think I saw his credentials anywhere in the article. It is an OPINION piece. Another one of your links takes you to JohnDaly.com and it is an article written by YOU! I thought the point of putting up links is to direct the reader to outside sources supporting your theory and overwhelmingly this is not what your post accomplishes. They take the reader to sites talking about the links between sun cycles and El Nino, sun cycles and Geomagnetic activity and this isn't even the issue. I think most people can agree that the sun definetly has an effect on these things but it doesn't make a case for the sun being solely responsible for global warming. I think your post just lends itself to the idea that humans as a while are too selfish to accept humanities effect on our environment. If we accept this then we will be forced to change things about our lifestyle, give up some luxuries, give more energy to making environmentally beneficial decisions. WE will have to make sacrifices instead of expecting nature to make all of them.

A final thought: To detract from what human beings are doing to our environment and the planet is morally reprehensible. To relegate all environmental destruction to forces outside of our control only accomplishes what other anti-progressive forces have perpetuated for centuries which is essentially the message that human beings are not capable of radically changing their environment or consciously manipulating their destinies on this planet. Certainly it is hubris to believe that we have complete control. Indeed, much of the forces that shape our natural world are out of our control, but the myth of human helplessness has been used all too often to inspire apathy and complacency, a powerful tool for the ruling elite who do not have our best interests in mind. The actions which lead to maximizing profit are not congruent with the actions which lead to healthy and responsible development. By aiding the myth of human helplessness in the face of major forces that shape our world you are simply serving the forces of greed and power, whether you mean to or not. While you may be able to claim that 'global warming' as a human caused phenomenon is not proven, you cannot deny that we have reaped great harm on this planet, and consequently many of the people living on it. Unfortunately, many people will not seperate these issues and will draw the conclusion that human caused environmental catastrophy is a myth (because we all know how much money there is in promoting healthy environmental practices). Perhaps you should consider qualifying your statement, expressing your scepticism while allowing for the impact that humans do have. Just a thought.

*snip*

Hi Gaia227, while I do agree with you on human pollution, I do not detract from this at all. What I do not do is take the human pollution problem and then connect that to global warming ~ this is planetary climate change ~ to humans.

That belongs to the Sun, and to the Sun alone.

Human pollution is one thing, and yes, we humans have, and continue to, pollute our environments, and I am all for stopping this pollution, and cleaning the pollution that has already taken place. There is not an argument there with me.

However, people MUST seperate what they call global warming from human pollution. It is not connected, and never was. This is the problem with many people, they make these connections when these connections do not exist.

Pollution is one thing, but GLOBAL WARMING is quite another.

I don't have to "qualify" my statement whatsoever. What purpose does that serve except to give those who cannot make the connection of global warming to the Sun even more reason to scream blindly that mankind is the reason for global warming?

If anyone needs to qualify anything, it is those who don't know that the Sun is the primary reason for planetary climate change ~ not human beings. Rather than just skimming the edges of my case for solar-forced climate change ~ look at the facts ~ since I find your comments dancing around the edges rather than looking at the pure facts of the matter that the Sun is indeed the cause of global warming on Earth.

Humans have no control over the planet's weather. The forces that shape our climate and weather, are, as you said, out of our control. However, this does not mean that climate change is the responsibility of humans. It just isn't. It never was. We just do not have the capacity to force global warming on a planetary level ~ even with human Co2 release into the atmosphere. The Sun forces all global warming, all climate changes on Earth ~ and does it very, very well.

You also state, "I do have many books on environmental science, I am an avid reader, and have yet to read anyone make the claim that the sun is soley responsible for the heating and cooling of our planet. It is simply ridiculous." ~ I suggest then that those people who are saying that the Sun is not responsible for the heating and cooling of our planet are plain out of their minds. That is nuts and it goes to show just how ignorant many are about how their own planet's climate works, and even more ignorant on just how critical the SUN is to all life on this planet we call home.

Of course the SUN is responsible for the heating and cooling of Earth. The Sun is the primary reason for all energy on Earth and without the Sun there would be no life, much less any heat or cooling whatsoever. Please get real. You make a lot of asusmptions that are just not true.

One more point ~ you say you went to a link I posted in my thread and you said that it was on "JohnDaly.com and it is an article written by YOU!" ~ I never wrote an article for john daly. I think you are confusing Dr. Theodor Landschiet's name with my name. I am not that Theodor, he passed away less than a year ago. My name is Theodore White. I am a classical scientific astrologer, a writer, and a astrometeorologist, and I am still alive.

I've removed the last six posts as they contain little more than childish bickering, lets keep this discussion civil.

Also Reincarnated, please don't intentionally make duplicate posts - posting something once is enough.

Thankyou.

It proves he is wrong about the Sun being the only factor driving climate change but he disregards it and continues to spout twisted facts as the truth. You have no problem with this?

Where are my facts "twisted?" The Sun is more than just a mere "factor" ~ it is the primary factor driving all climate change on this planet, and the other planets in our solar system. What I have a problem with are those who blame humanity for climate change. That is plain not true. It never was. That's a problem because there are no facts that say that human beings are the cause behind global warming. It is all bunk. Not a speck of truth in it whatsoever. What will you say when the Earth begins global cooling? And this will happen in the 2020s, and peak in the 2030s. Will you then say that humans are the cause of that too?

You keep repeating that human influenced climate change is a myth. You also keep repeating that the Sun is the one and only factor in climate change. It's not and I proved your wrong many times but you continue to ignore my proof and spewing your mis-information as facts.
Here are the those graphs that you keep avoiding showing our temperatures rising without the help of any solar influence.Care to explain?

The sun is the primary factor,but there are other contributing factors as well...including what mankind has done over the centuries.It all adds up...and can create conditions that are far worse than past events.

Which is something along the lines that I've been saying. Yet for somereason people keep thinking I'm blaming humans solely.


LOL

WATCH DUBAI! If you want to see what is causing global warming besides the cycle of the sun, WATCH DUBAI! Right now, it is calm, peaceful, and the temperature is perfect. But the oil is still underneath the land. In 10 years, they will probably use up the oil and they will find themselves getting just a tad bit hotter than they can stand.

My apologies, Theodore for mistankenly thinking you had written the article on Daly's website - Theodore and Theodor. I am glad to hear you are still alive -it would be pretty creepy if you weren't.
You completely dis-credit the effects of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect? The big ol' hole in the ozone layer that we so graciously created by way of massive POLLUTION.
I think you will find that most scientists would totally disagree with you. Reincarnated is right - you are spewing mis-information and that is unfortunate because if we are going to try to reverse some of the damage we have reaped then we really need to know the facts so we can start to make changes. And the fact is humanity is responisible for the massive disruptions of the climate and temperature. The sun surely plays a part, thank god for the sun, but there is no way the sun is the one and only reason for global warming. The fact you present yourself as an educated person and still believes something that is completely non-sensical and dis-regard the studies and findings of the majority of the scientific community is a little frightening. They are all wrong and you are right? I am afaid and sorry to say that I think even possibly you and I, but for sure my children will unfortunately learn first-hand the full scale of what our carelessness and complete lack of regard has wrought for future generations of humans and animals.

Listen, quit with the "I proved you wrong many times..." quips, ok? You've done nothing of the sort, and you know it. All you've done is push the same man-made climate change mantra over and over again with nothing but faulty models produced by money-grubbing climate scientists whose pay-checks depend on tens of millions of dollars of funding to continue the myth of man-made global warming. So give that a break. Stop feeding the cheeky money-grubbers and they'll find another topic to haunt us with their "oh my god we've got to reverse climate change."

Just how are they going to reverse the activities of the Sun? Huh? Answer that.

They will not reverse anything, and they know it too. Right now, they've got a good game going... but not for long... so they are pushing hard. If they could produce models showing that cute little Teddy Bears were the reasons for climate change, believe me, they would try it, and blame it on that too. Anything, as long as the money keeps flowing into their coffers to study the so-called "man-made" climate change. Wait until the funds start drying up... Wait until people wake up, and see just how angry people will get for having the wool pulled over their eyes on this myth of man-made global warming.

As for these "models" of yours ~ which are produced from those pushing this myth of man-made global warming on all of us (including you): not only are they biased, but faulty. You can model nearly anything to show that man-made greenhouse gases are the reason for global warming, but these models only show human releases in Co2 ~ but these releases are not the reason for holes in the ozone layer, nor, global warming.

For instance, some climate scientists continue to use their models for forecasting weather, yet they cannot forecast weather beyond two weeks, much less a month, and these models contain biases based on faulty equations that do not factor in astronomical causes. All weather on Earth begins in space. They do not account for this, and it is why conventional scientists ~ the ones selling the myth of man-made global warming ~ surely cannot forecast future climate conditions. If they can't do it in advance of two weeks, how in the Dickens are they able to forecast a month, two months, or a year in advance, huh?

Heck, even the co-founder of Greenpeace has acknowledged the craziness of this man-made global warming myth forced on the world. You've got people out there, who consider themselves to be intelligent, blaming it all on humans. Don't they look up? Don't you see that star in the skies called the Sun? You want to call the Sun merely "a factor?" You can put 6 billion more people on top on the 6+billion here already and it still will not make a dent on what the SUN does to the Earth's climate. Add another 12+ billion if you want. The SUN forces all global climate changes on Earth.

I tell you ~ the SUN is more than just a mere "factor" ~ it is the reason for climate change. Its begins the story, and ends the story. Hands down. The SUN is chief here. Not man. And you'd better make sure you keep observing the Sun daily too, because if anything goes wrong with that star ~ it's the end of the story for the Earth, and the other planets in the solar system too.

The Sun is the reason for global cooling and global warming. It is a no-brainer. It is clear that the Sun forces all climate change on Earth. Period. Just deal with it.

You cannot change astrophysical and geophysical laws. We all have to live under the cosmic facts of our solar system and some mere models made up telling us that man is the reason for global warming doesn't change these astrophysical and geophysical facts. Sorry Reincarnated, but that dog just does not hunt. It never did, and it never will either.

Apologies accepted.

As for your other comments Gaia, I just disagree. I think you ought to take the Sun much more seriously than you do. There is nothing "non-sensical" about my contentions here, and I am not the only climate expert to state this either. You seem to think that the entire scientific community is in total agreement on global warming. They surely are not. The ones pushing this myth are the greedy ones who are insulting your intelligence. Not me. And you know what? The one pushing this myth of man-made global warming don't give a hoot about your children either.

All they care about is keeping the millions and millions of dollars flowing into their coffers pushing the lies of man-made global warming. These are many of the same people who laughed at global warming at all less than 18 years ago, when there was little funding for climate science and research.

When those millions started flowing ~ they all changed their tune 180-degrees and jumped like crickets in heat onto the bandwagon. I know, I was writing about climate back then, and knew the Earth was warming, but also knew it was the Sun's activity that was doing it. Not man. But, I am not a greedy person, and I don't sell my mind and my soul for money. Why? Because if the Sun ever triples its magnetic and sunspot activity ~ money will not matter. Only prayers to God will.

Nearly all of these so-called climate scientists pushing this myth of global warming cannot even forecast the weather in advance of two weeks, some, less. Just how are you going to believe people like that who tell you that the Sun is merely a "factor" in climate change? They use the word "factor" to mean nearly "barely."

Yeah right, and pink elephants can fly like birds. I don't buy it. Never did. Never will.

Anyone that discounts the Sun is fooling themselves. And I am not one of those fools. I take the Sun very, very seriously, and don't take it for granted either. All the money in the world won't save you if the Sun goes on a real rage ~ and even from 93 million miles away, remember, the Sun can do very serious damage if you stay out in it too long, or even stare at it at length. Contemplate that ~ very seriously.

All of us on Earth are at the mercy of the Sun, and that is why some of us scientists monitor it daily ~ and for very good reasons ~

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060807.html

Theodore, like you I am of the belief that the IPCC set out to prove that CO2 is the sole driving force behind the global temperature increase and they deliberately ignored or downplayed anything that would contraindicate that. Their whole mandate was to look only at human driven forces and ways to minimise the effects of these forces.. in other words they were like doctors treating a smallpox blister and completely ignoring the smallpox virus which gave rise to the blister in the first place. However, the fact is that we are destroyoing the planet by overpopulation, destruction of natural flora and fauna, massive industrial pollution and severe resource depletion. Anything we can promote to reduce or halt this destruction is a good thing. Kyoto though is so flawed as to be laughable by any rational person. As a general statement of principal it is acceptable, but as a binding treaty it is ludicrous and it is indeed simply a way to transfer money to the developing second/third/fourth world nations at the expense of the nations that drive the global economy.
(Just my thoughts)

I was expecting an educated answer from the self-proclaimed expert but I guess you took the easy way out by calling it all a conspiracy.

Thanks for proving you didn't even take the time to look at my posts because none of the graphs I posted talk about greenhouse gases. They are comparing temperature and solar activity and they show other forces are driving our climate other than cosmic rays from the Sun. Are you afraid to read my real evidence because it contradicts your opinion? I took the time to read your posts and the information you posted, atleast do the same for me!

Here is the information again! Please read it this time!

It's funny how you posted a NASA link but when I posted a NASA link that agree's with me about humans being a factor in climate change, you call it a conspiracy by money-hungry scientists.

Even this graph was made by NASA:But I guess since it doesn't support your opinion, it's just another conspiracy, right?

First Reincarnated, you've shown no evidence at all that proves humanity is the cause for global warming. And, I've read all your posts, so there is no need for you to constantly repost the same thing repeatedly.

Second, the 80-90 year cycle of long-term variations of solar activity is called the Gleisberg cycle ~ NOT the Gleisman cycle, as you stated. Get educated? Perhaps you ought to take some of your own advice.

Third, I am a climate expert, and know quite well how the Sun forces Earth's climate. Anyone that seriously studies and monitors space weather, as I do, knows that the Sun is the reason for global warming and all climate change on the Earth. We all know that so-called man-made global warming is a lie. See ~ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../ixnewstop.html

Here is a Reference on Solar Forcing ~
Versteegh, G.J.M. 2005. Solar forcing of climate. 2: Evidence from the past. Space Science Reviews 120: 243-286.

The author reviews what we know about past climatic responses to solar forcing and their geographical coherence based upon proxy records of temperature and the cosmogenic radionuclides 10Be and 14C, which provide a measure of magnetized plasma emissions from the sun that impact earth's exposure to galactic cosmic rays, thereby altering cloud formation and climate, as described in the companion review of de Jager (2005) and in many of the other items we have archived in the Cosmic Rays section of our Subject Index.

What was learned
Versteegh finds that "proxy records provide ample evidence for climate change during the relatively stable and warm Holocene," and that "all frequency components attributed to solar variability re-occur in proxy records of environmental change," notably mentioning, in this regard, the ~90 years Gleisberg and ~200 years Suess cycles in the 10Be and 14C records," as well as "the ~1500 years Bond cycle which occurs in several proxy records [and] could originate from the interference between centennial-band solar cycles."

What it means
Versteegh reports that "the contribution of solar forcing to these changes is highly debated and reinforced by the present-day combination of global warming and an exceptionally active sun." Nevertheless, he concludes from his review of the pertinent scientific literature that "long-term climate change during the preindustrial seems to have been dominated [our italics] by solar forcing," and that the long-term response to solar forcing "greatly exceeds [our italics] unforced variability." Hence, there is ample reason to question both the open-mindedness and the sincerity of people who adamantly declare, without equivocation, that anthropogenic-induced increases in atmospheric greenhouse-gas concentrations - and especially that of carbon dioxide - are the primary cause of 20th-century global warming.

Here is another Reference ~

De Jager, C. 2005. Solar forcing of climate. 1: Solar variability. Space Science Reviews 120: 197-241.

What was done
The author reviews what we know about the role of the sun in orchestrating climate change over the course of the Holocene or current interglacial period, including changes that occurred during the 20th century, focusing on (1) the direct effects of solar irradiance variations and (2) the indirect effects of magnetized plasma emissions.

What was learned
With respect to the first phenomenon, i.e., solar irradiance variations, de Jager writes that "the fraction of the solar irradiance that directly reaches the earth's troposphere is emitted by the solar photosphere [and] does not significantly vary." The variable part of this energy flux, as he continues, is emitted by chromospheric parts of centers of solar activity, and "it only directly influences the higher, stratospheric terrestrial layers," which "can only influence the troposphere by some form of stratosphere-troposphere coupling."

With respect to the second phenomenon, de Jager concludes that (1) "the outflow of magnetized plasma from the sun and its confinement in the heliosphere influences the earth's environment by modulating the flux of galactic cosmic radiation observed on earth," (2) "cosmogenic radionuclides are proxies for this influence," and (3) "the variable cosmic ray flux may influence climate via variable cloudiness," as described by the many items archived in the Cosmic Rays section of our Subject Index.

Of these two phenomena, the author seems to lean toward the latter as being the more significant, noting that the Northern Hemispheric temperature history developed by Moberg et al. (2005) "runs reasonably well parallel to" reconstructions of past solar variability derived from cosmogenic radionuclide concentrations, which are proxies for the outflow of magnetized plasma from the sun.

"Perhaps most interesting of all, in this regard, is de Jager's observation that "never [our italics] during the past ten or eleven millennia has the sun been as active in ejecting magnetized plasma as during the second half of the twentieth century."

What it means
De Jager notes that "a topical and much debated question is that of the cause of the strong terrestrial heating in the last few decades of the twentieth century," and that "it is usually ascribed to greenhouse warming." The weight of his review, however, gives credence to the view that solar activity, especially that associated with the effects of ejected magnetized plasma on the galactic cosmic ray flux incident on the earth's atmosphere, could well be responsible for the bulk of 20th-century global warming, as well as most of the major temperature swings (both up and down) of the entire Holocene.

More Evidence of Solar Forcing of Climate Change

Reference
Van Geel, B., Raspopov, O.M., Renssen, H., van der Plicht, J., Dergachev, V.A. and Meijer, H.A.J. 1999. The role of solar forcing upon climate change. Quaternary Science Reviews 18: 331-338.

What was done
"The authors review what is known about the relationship between variations in the abundances of the cosmogenic isotopes 14C and 10Be and millennial-scale climate oscillations during the Holocene and portions of the last great ice age.

What was learned
The authors show that "there is mounting evidence suggesting that the variation in solar activity is a cause for millennial scale climate change," which is known to operate independently of the glacial-interglacial cycles that are forced by variations in the Earth's orbit about the Sun. They also review the evidence for two potential mechanisms by which the postulated solar-climate connection may be implemented, making a strong case for the validity of one or both of them.

What it means
In the words of the authors, "accepting the idea of solar forcing of Holocene and Glacial climatic shifts has major implications for our view of present and future climate." It implies, as they note, that "the climate system is far more sensitive to small variations in solar activity than generally believed" and that "it could mean that the global temperature fluctuations during the last decades are partly, or completely explained by small changes in solar radiation." These observations, of course, call into question the conventional wisdom of attributing the global warming of the past century or so to the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content. It could well be that we have the sun to thank for rescuing us from the cold and unfriendly grip of the recently-departed Little Ice Age."

There's plenty more to prove that the Sun is the cause of climate change on Earth. Just deal with it, and learn more about the Sun, because if you want to blame someone for global warming, then leave us humans out of it, and look up in the skies during the daytime because that is what you should blame ~ again, and again ~ it is called THE SUN.

I love this.

Theo: Humans didn't cause global warming, the sun did.

Us: We know. But humans have a hand in it's severity.

Theo: But.. humans didn't cause global warming! It's the sun!

Us: Yes... we know. It's also worse because of human pollution.

Theo: Humans didn't cause it though!!

Us: ...


THEO!

WE KNOW! HUMANS DIDN'T CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING! THE SUN CYCLE IS PART, THE EARTH'S NATURAL CYCLE IS PART, AND IT'S WORSE NOW THEN PRIOR TIMES BECAUSE OF HUMAN POLLUTION!

Can I make this any more clear?

humans affect certain kinds of pollution and local climates/weather, not global climate. I don't think China causing snow to fall will affect the global climate even though that's a fairly major form of weather modification (at least compared to other forms)

this data showing man's effect on Global Climate is akin to taking a short film of two men walking down the street at the same rate in the same direction and assuming they are friends who have the same origin and destination.

That actually isn't true. Especialy when it comes to air pollution and it's effects with the ocean currents and the jetstream. It was happening to my area. Pollution from the midwest factories causes acid rain that had desimated ponds achers of the forest. Killed off trees, plants, wildlife. Ponds became so acrid that no life could survive in them.

While you might say that's a "localized" event... that acrid rain from the midwest spread not just to the Adirondacks, but hit all the way to Maine, and out to the ocean.

Pollution that we dump into the eccosystem is effecting the climet. It always had. But no.. it's not the cause of global warming. It's just making it more chaotic and worse.

You say that the air pollution that China beltches out has no effect anywhere else.. well it does. Once that crap gets up into the jetstream, or out into the ocean currents.. that's like something getting into our bloodstream. It will get pushed all over.

I'm done trying to get through to him. I made a fool out of myself for trying.

Clear? Yes. True. No. And who is "us?" You talk as if everyone is on the same hype of man-made global warming. They are not, and you don't speak for "us." Just for yourself. It isn't "Theo" against whoever is "us." I live on this planet too, but unlike you, I know more about the Sun than you obviously have shown you do. I suggest you learn more about climate science before stepping into the arena, and please, get off using all the caps ~ I can read just fine without you shouting.

The climate of the Earth is no worse off now, then in prior centuries, not when it comes to global warming. Pollution and global warming ~ that is planetary climate change ~ is not the same thing. Human pollution is one thing, but global warming is another. They are not connected. They are not the same.

And no... the people out there now starting to back off from their man-made global warming hype still don't get that there is not a connection between human pollution and global warming, that is planetary climate change. Only the SUN can accomplish this, and does so very well.

And... you fail to grasp it again.

Not surprising. Ah well. tootles.

You offered nothing to grasp to begin with Silvercougar. Don't be silly.

I never said that, so, please, don't put words into my mouth. Stick to global warming. That is what this thread is about. And please, do try to spell correctly - climate is spelled "climate" ~ not "climet" as you've spelled it, and the word "especially" is spelled "especially" ~ not "especialy." I could go on about the other words you've mis-spelled, but you get the point. I hope...

There's not a reason for you to "get through" to me. I've known that the Sun has been the reason for driving Earth's climate long before you ever heard of the term "global warming." This isn't new. It is just new to you.