GlobalWarming is due to Sun Activity and not CO2

As mentioned in my previous post that GlobalWarming is not caused by manmade CO2, then what causes it? Based on the documentary movie The Global Warming Swindle, the main cause of global warming is really the sun and the natural cycles of activity it goes through.

Sun activity observation was first experimented on for weather forecasting in the late 80’s by Dr. Piers Corbyn and was once called the super weatherman as he was talked about in media for having more accurate results in weather forecasting.

Dr. Piers Corbyn - Climate Forecaster, Weather Action - GlobalWarming Awareness2007None of the major climate changes in the last 1,000 years can’t be explained by CO2.

Dr. Peirs Corbyn
Climate Forecaster
Weather Action

Using the sun as a tool for weather forecasting started when people started observing sunspots. Sunspots are intense magnetic fields that appear on the sun that have higher solar activity. Ancient astronomers used to count the spots and relate them to events happening.

In 1893, Edward Walter Maunder has noticed that the amount of sunspots were at it’s minimum during the Little Ice Age and in dedication to his discovery, this period was called the Maunder Minimum.

Global Temperature versus Solar Activity (Amount of Sunspots) - last 100 Years

During the last 100 years, temperature and amount of solar activity has shown a strong correlation. Solar activity could be measured in the amount of sunspots.

Professor Eigil Friis-Christensen - Director of Danish National Space CenterIn 1991, a senior scientist of the Danish Meteorological Institute has traced back records and graphed temperature and solar activity through the measure of amount of sunspots. And the solar activity showed a strong correlation with temperature where solar activity dropped in 1940 and started rising again in 1970.

Although in this study, they have thought this may be a coincidence, thus further study was done looking back 400 years and the same results have appeared.

Global Temperature versus Solar Activity (Amount of Sunspots) - last 400 Years

the previous 400 years, presented the same relationship of temperature and amount of solar activity showing the strong correlation of globalwarming and amout of sunspots.

The theory of cloud formation due to cosmic rays where cosmic rays hit the ocean surface causing much water vapor in the air contributing to the amount of clouds. This brought about another theory where when there were more sunspots, there were less cosmic rays. And with more cosmic rays, there were less sunspots.

Since sunspots give rise to strong burst of electromagnetic waves and solar wind, it is perceived that these solar winds are able to divert cosmic rays which usually come from exploded super nova.

Cosmic Rays Hitting the Earth Causing Cloud Formations

Simple illustration of cosmic rays hitting Earth that increases cloud formation.

Diverted Cosmic Rays due to Solar Winds

Simple illustration of higher solar activity causing solar winds to divert cosmic rays. This higher solar activity will also give rise to higher temperatures.

Professor Nir Shaviv, an astrophysicist has studied cloud forming cosmic rays and has compared this with the 600 year temperature record research done by geologist Jan Veizer and their research has shown a good correlation of cosmic rays and global temperature.

Global Temperature versus Cosmic Rays over 500 Million Years

Correlation of global temperature over time plotted against amount of cosmic rays over the past 500 years.

There is a inversely proportional relationship between the amount of cosmic rays versus the degree of temperature. As cosmic rays increased, temperature decreased. And as temperature decreased, cosmic rays increased. Flipping the temperature graph of the cosmic ray graph, you will see a strong correlation between the two.

Flipped Global Temperature versus Cosmic Rays over 500 Million Years

Inverted global temperature graph over time with amount of cosmic rays.

Professor Nir Shaviv - Institute of Physics - University of Jerusalem on GlobalWarming Awareness2007We just compared the graphs, we just flip them one upon the other, and it was just amazing and Jan Veizer looked at me and [said] you know, we have very explosive data here.

Professor Nir Shaviv
Institute of Physics
University of Jerusalem

Professor Ian Clark - Department of Earth Science - University of OttawaI have never seen such vastly different records coming together so beautifully to show really what was happening over that long period of time.

Professor Ian Clark
Department of Earth Science
University of Ottawa

Since climate change is controlled by clouds, and amount of clouds were determined by the amount of cosmic rays. And cosmic rays were affect by solar winds, which are more potent with more solar activity and has been measure through the amount of sunspots. So to sum it up, what these scientist are trying to say is that climate change, globalwarming is really brought about by sun activity. And is not due to anthropogenic CO2.

As I end this post on my website… let me state that the issues mentioned above are not necessarily my thoughts and is basically what has been mentioned in the documentary movie The Global Warming Swindle, it is your role as the reader to believe or not believe this post. There has been people that support this video like the other video documentary GlobalWarming Doomsday Called Off. Although there are people whose belief are contrary to these people. Like in the documentary, the GlobalWarming Denial Machine. I have also several comments left here by Simmons and has read Bill Butler post on his take on The Great Global Warming Swindle that have very valid points to consider, and I give it to the reader to decide. Don’t stop and just believe right away. Read more and decide for yourself.

Update: An interesting comment left on Digg by ssam, about this post points to: Climate Change Myths, made by the Met Office Hadley Center which was opened in the early 1990s and is a world-leading climate center. It has over 150 world-renowned climate experts who draw from the expertise of the supercomputer modelers at the Met Office. Something you might also want to check out.

28 thoughts on “GlobalWarming is due to Sun Activity and not CO2”

  1. Oh! I absolutly agree! I do not think that CO2 has no cause what so ever I just believe that the CO2 contribution is relativly minor compaired to other much more likly factors i.e. the sun.

  2. I couldn’t agree with you more. Global Warming has become the new religion of the godless Stalinist Left. They are trying to quash any dissent at all. Professors are fired for speaking the truth and schools are forcing “An Inconvenient Truth” (Ha) on school children. Isn’t the left the ones that claim to have the open mind. I really believe that the primary thrust on this issue is coming from the anti-capitalist, anti-western and anti-american quarters.

  3. It is dangerous to think that ONLY anthropogenic CO2 is the reason for any climate change in that this creates an unecessary and unfounded sense of self importance and egotism; to think that only WE are responsible for changes on our earth and in the universe.

    Taxation and discrimination (against poor unindustrialized nations) are then allowable actions all in the name of “stopping global warming”. Instead of understanding all the contributing factors and acting accordingly.

    I am a nontheist humanist and I want nothing to do with the anti-human stance which is Al Gore and his minions; marching with zombie like direction whils muttering propaganda.

    Nothing NOTHING in life is ever so simple and black/white.



  4. We have a carbon tax starting in Quebec this fall. Gee. Man, this sucks. We gotta stop this crap before it gets outta control.

  5. Woudn’t you agree that there is (at least) a slight chance that man IS affecting global warming? Shouldn’t we put more money into research, so we can figure out how significant our contribution is, and how or if we can reverse it?

    Most of things that are being pushed to slow warming are related to conservation. Is conservation – making our (limited) resources last longer – bad?!

    I do NOT understand the people who think we shouldn’t worry. It’s like playing Russian Roulette: not something a sane person does. If you want to drag God into the picture, saying that he will save believers, my response is this – Ever heard the phrase “God helps those who help themselves”? Even if you are a true believer, what harm can come of trying to help yourself out of this predicament? Maybe God would be happy and/or proud that you were strong.

    Personally, I think it should be called “Dangerous Global Climate Change”, rather than “Global Warming”. Why? Because there are too many idiots who have one wet summer, or one extra-chilly winter, and start proclaiming loudly that they knew all along that global warming was wrong. “Dangerous” reinforces the fact that it will be no picnic. “Change” will silence the idiots who don’t realize that weather pattern changes will cause local changes that don’t necessarily match the global average.

  6. The “vast majority of scientists” was always wrong. Current situation with eco-hysteria is no exception.

    In any controversy, it is easy to spot the losing side: it is a side that uses the word “idiots” to describe their opponents. Winners don’t need to insult their opponents.

    No, we cannot do anything with the climate change forced by cosmic events like Solar activity. It would be a disastrous waste of money — the same money that individuals could save to better prepare their homes for coming record cold years (sunspots are precious few lately).

  7. Why does the sunspot record stop in the 1980’s. Isn’t that when the sunspots decrease when the global temperature actually increases??

  8. Does the sun send out any cosmic rays? Or does these cosmic rays have much higher energy than the rays of the sun?

  9. Cosmic Rays is nothing but an electromagnetic waves. And electromagnetic waves are everything from radio waves, microwaves, infrared (IR), ultraviolet (UV), visible light, gamma rays, x-rays, cosmic rays etc. Depending on the source of light/wave/sound, it gives of the waves at a certain wavelenght. Your flashlight will give you visible light, you cellphone uses microwaves and so does your microwave oven.

    Depending on wavelengths, some waves reach longer distances than others.

    So again cosmic rays or cosmic waves is nothing but a wave just like any other wave as long as it is in within the wavelength range.

    Now the sun, which is the constant atomic reaction of converting Hydrogen to Helium to Hydrogen is so powerful that this energy lights up many planets and releases almost every wave conceivable. So yes, the answer is the cosmic rays are coming from the sun. Although there are also some faint amount form very distant stars, which is what the sun really is. Just one of the stars.

  10. I have a couple questions. This article states “The theory of cloud formation due to cosmic rays where cosmic rays hit the ocean surface causing much water vapor in the air contributing to the amount of clouds.”

    So, assuming the water vapor is created because the cosmic rays hit the ocean and heat the water causing it to evaporate, wouldn’t the electromagnetic rays generated by the sunspots have a similar effect? It seems to me the two phenomena are fairly similar, both sunspots and supernovae generate very wide electromagnetic spectra ranging from infrared to ultraviolet. I suppose this is the same question Vermillion was asking, but the response from Mother Earth really didn’t address the issue in question, namely: Do solar winds have a role in cloud formation? Is there any data to prove the difference in effects between cosmic rays and solar winds? I found Professor Shaviv’s article here: . It is quite informative and convincingly makes the argument that cosmic rays are involved in cloud formation. But I am curious if there is there any research which can disprove a correlation between solar winds and cloud formation.

    Also, in the diagram provided it shows the cosmic rays coming from an angel which is able to be diverted by the solar winds, but if the rays are generated from supernovae shouldn’t they come from a number of directions? Certainly there have been many supernovae in the history of the universe and, given their enormous variety of distance from the Earth, we are probably being bombarded by cosmic rays from supernovae which occurred hundreds, thousands or even millions of years ago. Is the frequency and geometry of the sunspots able account for redirecting a significant amount of cosmic rays which would account the dramatic rise in global temperature over the past century?

    I’d also like to say that aside from its supposed role in climate change, concentrated CO2 causes pulmonary and respiratory problems in human beings. Thus, even if CO2 has a nonexistent or minimal role in global warming, it still would behoove humanity to reduce enormous carbon emission we put into the atmosphere (CO2 in the atmosphere has increased %35 since the beginning of the 18th century). I am all for being skeptical about what were told and entertaining different points of view, but I do think it is quite dangerous to minimize the role of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere, especially considering there are many power, auto and oil industry tycoons out there who will say anything to keep selling their products regardless of its effects on the environment.

    Thanks for an interesting read!

  11. I’m glad someone has the same views I do, and as a response to a previous comment, even if global warming IS caused by CO2, there is no way to reverse it. You could stop every factory in the world and it wouldn’t matter AT ALL. And even if it did, once the earth warms the oceans to a certain extent, which causes water vapor, enough clouds will form to cool the earth. Then, instead of freaking out over global warming, people will freak out about an ice age. A never-ending pattern: the earth warms a little, people freak out; the earth cools a little, people still freak out.

  12. How come all the people that say sunspots cause global warming cut off their data at 1980 or so? Could it be because since 1980, the temperature has risen dramatically, but sunspot cycle amplitudes have not?

    Incidentally, the scientist whose work the graphs up above are based on has put up a website which explains that he does not agree with the conclusions you’re drawing from his work and that he would like you to stop.

  13. Absolutely brilliant. Well done lad. I completely agree with all of this information. About the comment on quashing scientists I cannot do anything about as I have been overruled by the other M.P’s.
    I’m very sorry.

  14. Two MAJOR problems with this analysis: (1) The graphs make it appear as if the very best correlation between solar activity and temperature was in the 1600s, but solar activity cannot be recorded for this period because there were no sunspots. Did you just make up the line for the 1600s to fit your theory? (2) The most recent data, since 1980, is not included. Is this because during this period solar activity declined while warming accelerated more than ever, thus proving that modern global warming is not driven by solar activity? Just asking.

  15. That Temp and Cosmic Activity over 500 million years is absolute complete and utter crap. I have not seen any scientist who begins to think they can estimate on a graph something that far back.

    Problem with that first graph: the scale for two completely different data sets is arbitrary. Temperature record stretches back hundreds of thousands of years from ice core records…..can they show cosmic activity for that period of time? The first graph is useless unless you can keep stretching back in time and they make sense.

  16. Weathergurl’s incomplete understanding of the greenhouse effect is DANGEROUS.

    Water vapor has as huge net positive effect on global temperature. Not all water vapor forms clouds…yes, clouds do reflect part of the VISIBLE EM radiation from the Sun….but ALL water vapor (visible or not) absorbs heat from portions of the EM radiation that hits the earth.

    Weathergurl is VERY incorrect, and the fact that the other commentors have not corrected her shows how little they know and that they should not be trusted to voice any opinion on the subject.

  17. They don’t allow the citizenry to engage in rational discourse. We are not permitted to engage our rulers in conversation.

    They have left us very little in the way of alternatives.

  18. These long-term data suggest a strong correlation between solar radiation and long-term changes in global temperatures. However, they neither prove nor disprove the connection between global warming and CO2. The fact is, there are many influences upon climate, some being very long term, some being short term, and many falling somewhere in between. The author’s titular statement that global warming is not due to CO2 changes is wholly unscientific and unsupported. This is not real science.

  19. Watch out how the next “green” tax is coming upon us… buying selling CO, why not… everything that helps keep Wallstreet going as stupid as it may sounds, but you can sell whatever you want to starbucks blonds… oh yes, please do protect the moon landing site, it is a big relief… The question is what the rest of us should do who didn’t get their education from the Simpsons?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *