<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: GlobalWarming is due to Sun Activity and not CO2</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html</link>
	<description>The more we learn about global warming, the better solutions for the future</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 04 Jul 2009 07:58:54 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: El Mijo pregunta &#171; PlazaMoyua.org</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html/comment-page-1#comment-71647</link>
		<dc:creator>El Mijo pregunta &#171; PlazaMoyua.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html#comment-71647</guid>
		<description>[...] GlobalWarming is due to Sun Activity and not CO2 [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] GlobalWarming is due to Sun Activity and not CO2 [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: orangutan</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html/comment-page-1#comment-68235</link>
		<dc:creator>orangutan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 03:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html#comment-68235</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: G.Brown</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html/comment-page-1#comment-62689</link>
		<dc:creator>G.Brown</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:26:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html#comment-62689</guid>
		<description>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.
Gordon</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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&#8217;s.<br />
I&#8217;m very sorry.<br />
Gordon</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Soap</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html/comment-page-1#comment-61222</link>
		<dc:creator>Soap</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:45:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html#comment-61222</guid>
		<description>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.

http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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?</p>
<p>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&#8217;re drawing from his work and that he would like you to stop.</p>
<p><a href="http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html" rel="nofollow">http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: weathergurl2008</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html/comment-page-1#comment-59564</link>
		<dc:creator>weathergurl2008</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 07 Oct 2008 14:33:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html#comment-59564</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;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&#8217;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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Calentamiento global - enfriamiento global, causas &#171; PlazaMoyua.org</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html/comment-page-1#comment-53929</link>
		<dc:creator>Calentamiento global - enfriamiento global, causas &#171; PlazaMoyua.org</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Aug 2008 08:29:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html#comment-53929</guid>
		<description>[...] Magnetismo - rayos cósmicos, muy resumido -ingl [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Magnetismo - rayos cósmicos, muy resumido -ingl [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Beuch</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html/comment-page-1#comment-43678</link>
		<dc:creator>Beuch</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:38:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html#comment-43678</guid>
		<description>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: http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate/ . 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!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have a couple questions. This article states &#8220;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.&#8221; </p>
<p>So, assuming the water vapor is created because the cosmic rays hit the ocean and heat the water causing it to evaporate, wouldn&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;s article here: <a href="http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate/" rel="nofollow">http://www.sciencebits.com/ClimateDebate/</a> . 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.</p>
<p>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&#8217;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?</p>
<p>I&#8217;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. </p>
<p>Thanks for an interesting read!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mother Earth</title>
		<link>http://www.globalwarmingawarenessblog.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html/comment-page-1#comment-28587</link>
		<dc:creator>Mother Earth</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Mar 2008 21:50:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.goglobalwarmingawareness2007.com/globalwarming-is-due-to-sun-activity-and-not-co2.html#comment-28587</guid>
		<description>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.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>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.</p>
<p>Depending on wavelengths, some waves reach longer distances than others.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
