Solar Radiation minimal to do with Global Warming

[Swamp Gas]

illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/04/its-sun-stupid.html

It's the Sun, Stupid
(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)

Objection:
The sun is the source of all the warmth on earth. Any increase in temperature is most likely due to changes in solar radiation.

Well, it's not an unreasonable first guess, but why leave it there, why not check and see what the sun is doing?

Answer:
It's very true that the earth is warmed, for all practical purposes, entirely by solar radiation. So if the temperature is going up or down a reasonable place to find the reason why would be the sun. It turns out that it is more complicated than one might think to detect and measure changes in the amount or type of sunshine reaching the earth. After all, one good cloud passing overhead can cause an instant shiver on an otherwise beautiful, warm day, but not because the sun itself changed. The best way to detect changes in the actual output of the sun versus changes in the radiation reaching the earth's surface because of clouds, smoke, dust or pollution is by taking readings from space.

According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940. This reconstruction does show an increase in the first part of the 20th century that coincides with the warming from around 1900 til the 1940's. This trend in irradiance is responsible for large portion of that trend, together with around the same portion from CO2 forcing. See this chart of the observed trend, the modeled trend and the variations in the major forcings that contributed to 20th century climate.

Real Climate has also done a couple of more detailed discussions both about what the conclusions about solar forcing are, as well as exactly how they were arrived at. Read them here and here.

[Swamp Gas]

www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant

Solar Constant

Construction of a Composite Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) Time Series from
1978 to present
The description of the procedures used to construct the composite from the original data shown in Figure 1 (upper panel)
can be found in Fröhlich and Lean [1998]; Fröhlich [2000]. Radiometrically it is based on the ACRIM-I and II records; before the
start of the ACRIM-I measurements in 1980, during the spin mode of SMM, and during the gap between ACRIM-I and II,
corrected HF data are inserted by shifting the level to fit the corresponding ACRIM data over an overlapping period of
250 days on each side into the ACRIM sets. In early 1996 the VIRGO data take over, again shifted to agree with ACRIMII.
Finally the composite record is adjusted via ACRIM-II to SARR (Space Absolute Radiometer Reference) which was
introduced by Crommelynck et al. [1995] and allows the comparison of different space experiment (done in spring 1993). The
data fromERBE and ACRIM-III, as well as an empirical model are used for comparisons and for internal consistency checks.
It is important to note that the model is an independent source of information for comparisons and as long as it is
not used over solar cycle time scales it provides a reliable time series for time scales of less than a year. So it will
be used in all comparisons as it is available as a daily record which is important for the interpolation between
ERBE data with their 14-day sampling.

The most important issues for the construction of the composite are:

Correction for the early measurements of HF on NIMBUS 7 to account for its early increase, degradation and
non-exposure dependent increase (as described in Fröhlich and Lean [1998] and updated by Fröhlich [2006]).
Assessment of the early increase and degradation of ACRIM-I also updated by Fröhlich [2006].
Tracking of ACRIM II to ACRIM I by comparison with ERBE, HF and the model (revised from Fröhlich [2000]
and described in Fröhlich [2003]).
Detailed assessment of the influence of the many operational interruptions in the ACRIM-II record (described in
IFröhlich [2004]).
The related problems are discussed in detail in corresponding references (mainly in the recent paper for the ISSI WS2005)
and summarized in the following.



Figure 1. Upper panel: Compared are daily averaged values of the Sun’s total irradiance TSI from radiometers on different space
platforms since November 1978: HF on Nimbus7, ACRIM I onSMM, ERBE on ERBS, ACRIM II on UARS, VIRGO on
SOHO, and ACRIM III on ACRIM-Sat. The data are plotted as published by the corresponding instrument teams. Note
that only the results from the three ACRIMs and VIRGO radiometers have inflight corrections for degradation. Lower Panels:
The PMOD, ACRIM and IRMB composite TSI as daily values plotted in different colors to indicate where the data are comming from. PDF Figure

The analysis of the PMO6V radiometer of the VIRGO experiment on SOHO allowed not only to develop a model for the
changes, but also to differentiate between effects of quite different origin. From our experience with the radiometer
series for SOVIM, an experiment to be flown on the International Space Station, and by re-examination of the retrieved
radiometers from EURECA we learned that the early increase is due to a change in absorption of the primary aperture and
its influence on the sensitivity by extra IR radiation emitted from the aperture into the cavity. So, it became clear,
that this influence may be important for all radiometers used in space missions, which have their primary aperture
directly in front of the cavity. And, indeed it could be detected in ACRIM-I with similar amplitudes as observed for
the PMO6V radiometers of VIRGO. In a next step degradation ACRIM-I has to be modelled again. This is quite straight
forward as the model developed for the PMO6V radiometers taking the dose into account works very well. It is only complicated
by the fact that during the spin-mode operation of SMM (after failure of the pointing system of SMM in late 1980 until repair in
1984) the exposure was drastically reduced, which, however, can be taken into account accordingly.

For the HF radiometer the situation is more complicated as there is no back-up instrument which can be used for
in-flight exposure dependent corrections. So we need a reference for the early observations, which is build from the
proxy model calibrated with ACRIM-I and used to extrapolate ACRIM-I back to November 1978, the start of NIMBUS-7.
Another complication is the fact that the time series has many slips which are mainly due to changes in the orientation
of the spacecraft and due to switch-off, which have not been taken into account in the original evaluation. In contrast to the
earlier analysis we determine the sensitivity changes of HF over its full period and the trend needs no longer to be determined
during the ACRIM gap by comparison with ERBS and the proxy model as in Fröhlich [2000] . The data set used as
reference is a combination of the proxy model, ACRIM-I and ERBS data, and mainly dominated by ACRIM-I. The final
result of the corrected HF data set is not fundamentally different from what was determined earlier with a much simpler and
more dependent method, but the corrections are now internally consistent and done over the full HF measurement period at
once. It is interesting to note that there is also an increase of sensitivity which is not exposure dependent. similar to the effect on
DIARAD/VIRGO. IThe reason for such long-term changes, however, is still unknown. The magnitude of the correction
demonstrates how important they are (up to 1 Wm-2).

With these corrections we are now ready to refer ACRIM-II to ACRIM-I which then will be the radiometric basis for
composite. This is done by a weighted average of the ratios of ACRIM-I to the corrected HF and ERBS data and the
corresponding average ratios of ACRIM-II. With the new treatment of the HF correction, this radiometer is now more or less
independent. of ERBS, a further improvement over the earlier analysis. Having done this scaling the rest is straight-
forward and consists of adjusting the HF and VIRGO measurements to the ACRIMs leaving them at their respective
levels. The result is then scaled to SARR for practical reasons with the results from ACRIM-II during the comparison of . The
comparison to the original data is shown in Figure 2 where the major corrections are obvious: early HF, ACRIM-I during 1980,
HF during the ACRIM gap.

The result is shown in the bottom part of Figure 1together with the ACRIM and IRMB composites. The comparison of the
PMOD composite with the original data is shown in Figure 2 and the result of a more detailed comparison of the three
composites with ERBE is presented in Figure 3. After the detection of the early increase in the ACRIM-I data set and due
to the fact that the ERBS radiometers are copies of ACRIM-II (manufactured by TRW for NASA Langley) and assuming that
both have the same type and geometry of apertures they should behave very similarly . As the total exposure time is less
than 3 days only a correction for the earliest increase has to be applied.



Figure 2. Comparison of the PMOD composite with original data sets. Smooth full lines indicate that the radiometer is the
basis for the composite and if coincident with zero that no corrections other than an overall shift has been applied. If an
instrument is not used the color of the line is dimmed .The HF record needed the most important corrections mainly for the
long-term changes. The ACRIM I record in 1980 is also changed to take the early increase and a revised version of the
degradation algorithms into account. Results from ERBE, DIARAD/VIRGO (evaluated with the IRMB algorithm) and
TIM/SORCE. are plotted as dotted lines.



Figure 3. Comparison of the PMOD, ACRIM and IRMB composites with ERBE. The result illustrates the jump of the ACRIM
composite over the ACRIM gap which corresponds to the corrections to the HF radiometer applied for the construction
of the PMOD composite. The observed upward trend as seen in Figure 2 has been corrected with the early increase coefficients
of ACRIM I and the dose seen by ERBE as descibed in the paper for the ISSI WS2005. This graph illustrates also quite
impressively how different the result of DIARAD/VIRGO is when it is evaluated with the IRMB algorithm. The fit with an
exponential function which takes also a change over the soho-vacation gap into account, confirms independently the non-
exposure dependent changes, the VIRGO team has determined and applied. Fortunately, DIARAD and possibly HF are the only
radiometers for which such an effect has been identified. Without comparison with some other independent instruments there is
no way to assess such changes. This was also the reason for VIRGO to have two different types of radiometer. PDF Figure

An estimate of the uncertainty of the long-term behaviour of the composite TSI can be deduced from the uncertainty of the slope
relative to ERBE. For the PMOD composite the slope over the whole period amount s to 1.1 +/- 2.1 ppm/a. Although this standard
deviation is partly determined by the sampling of ERBE we may estimate the uncertainty of a possible trend to be <3 ppm/a for
periods longer than 10 to 15 years. This implies a possible change of 50 to 80 ppm over the 23 years of the observations. If we
add the uncertainties related to the tracing of ACRIM-II to I and of the HF correction (60 ppm) we get a total uncertainty of 92 ppm.
The observed change of the PMOD composite as difference between two successive minima amounts to -10 ppm which is not
significantly different from zero at the 3-sigma level.

The comparison of the three composites with ERBE shows that the PMOD composite is the most consistent. So, if one
believes the ERBE record, and with the Sperman's rank correlation coefficient s of the PMOD, ACRIM and IRMB composites of 0.751,
0.678 and 0.695, respectively, it becomes clear which one should be chosen as a reliable estimate of the total solar irradiance for the
last three solar cycles. The composite is available as daily values here.



Figure 4. The PMOD composite TSI as daily values plotted in different colors for the different originating experiments. The
difference between the minima values is also indicated, together with amplitudes of the three cycles. PDF Figure

The great success of the proxy model (as e.g. described in Fröhlich and Lean, 2004) in explaining both the short and long-term
behaviour of the Sun during the last three cycles, it is now possible to expand the composite back to the minimum in 1976. The data
are available from here and the extended composite is shown in Fig.5.



Figure 5. The extended PMOD composite TSI as daily values plotted in different colors for the different originating experiments. The
differences between the minima values is also indicated, together with amplitudes of the three cycles. PDF Figure

References

Crommelynck, D., A. Fichot, R. B. Lee III, and J. Romero, First realisation of the space absolute radiometric reference
(SARR) during the ATLAS 2 flight period, Adv. Space Res., 16, 17-23, 1995.

Dewitte, S, D. Crommelynck, S. Mekaoui, A. Joukoff, Merasurement and Uncertainty of the long-term Total Solar Irradiance Trend,
Sol.Phys., 224, pp 209-216, 2004

Fröhlich, C., and J. Lean, The Sun’s total irradiance: Cycles and trends in the past two decades and associated climate
change uncertainties, Geophys. Res. Let., 25, 4377-4380, 1998.

Fröhlich, C., Observations of irradiance variability, Space Science Reviews, 94, 15-24, 2000.

Fröhlich, C., Long-term behaviour of space radiometers, Metrologia, 40, 60-65, 2003.

Fröhlich, C., Solar Irradiance Variability, in Solar Variability and its Effect on climate, Chapter 2: Solar Energy Flux Variations,
American Geophysical Union, Geophysical Monograph Series No. 141, 97-110, 2004.

Fröhlich, C. and J. Lean: 2004, `Solar Radiative Output and its Variability: Evidence and Mechanisms'. Astron. and Astrophys. Rev.,
12, pp. 273--320, 2004, doi: 10.1007/s00159-004-0024-1

Fröhlich, C., Solar Irradiance Variability Since 1978: Revision of the {PMOD} Composite During Solar Cycle 21, Space Science
Rev., in press, preprint

Willson, R. C., Total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21 and 22, Science, 277, 1963-1965, 1997.

Willson, R. C., and A.V. Mordinov, Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21 and 22, Geophys. Res. Let.,
30, 1199-1202, 2003.

Reponsible for this page is Claus Fröhlich ; last update of text: 24 May 2006

[Swamp Gas]

Max Planck Institute says solar radiation is not corresponding to temperature increase

www.mps.mpg.de/en/projekte/sun-climate/#scientific

[Swamp Gas]

illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/theres-global-warming-on-mars-too.html

There's Global Warming on Mars Too
(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)


Objection:
Global warming is happening on Mars and Pluto as well. Since there are no SUV's on Mars, CO2 can't be causing Global Warming.

This is quite rich. One hundred years of weather station temperature data all over the globe and these guys still don't buy it. Three photos of one piece of ice on Mars and they have no doubts! As for Pluto, it hasn't even completed one orbit in the 150 years we've been reading the thermometers here on Earth! Still, avoid the temptation to laugh out loud...

Answer:
Warming on another planet would be an interesting coincidence but it does not necessarily have to have the same cause. The only relevant factor the Earth and Mars share is the sun, so if the warming were real and related it would have to be due to the sun. The sun is being watched and measured very carefully back here on earth and it is not the primary cause of the current climate change.

As for this alledged finding, there is very little evidence to go on when it comes to discerning a global climate change on Mars. The only evidence out there that I am aware of is a series of photographs of a single icey region in the southern hemisphere that shows melting over a two year (~1 martian year) period. Here on earth we have direct measurements from all over the globe, widespread glacial retreat, reduction of sea ice and satellite measurements of the lower troposphere up to the stratosphere. To compare this mountain of data to a few photographs of a single region strains credulity. In fact, scientists studying Mars believe this is a regional change caused by Mars' own orbital cycles.

See Global Warming on Mars? from Real Climate for more details.

As for Pluto, a cursory glance at Pluto's orbit and atmosphere reveals how ridiculous it is to draw any conclusions about climate, much less climate change, from two occultation observations 14 years apart way out there in the ice cold and lonely Kuiper Belt!

Back to Mars, here is a nice and succint way to compare the available evidence:

On Earth, we have poles melting, surface temperature rising, tropospheric temperatures rising, permafrost melting, glaciers world wide melting, CO2 concentrations increasing, borehole analysis showing warming, sea ice receding, proxy reconstructions showing warming, sea level rising, sea surface temperatures rising, energy imbalance, ice sheets melting and stratosphere cooling which leads us to believe we have GHG driven global warming.

One Mars we have one spot melting which leads us to believe...one spot is melting.

[Swamp Gas]

www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192


5 Oct 2005

Global warming on Mars?

Guest contribution by Steinn Sigurdsson.

Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.



A couple of basic issues first : the Martian year is about 2 Earth years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum.

So what is causing Martian climate change now? Mars has a relatively well studied climate, going back to measurements made by Viking, and continued with the current series of orbiters, such as the Mars Global Surveyor. Complementing the measurements, NASA has a Mars General Circulation Model (GCM) based at NASA Ames. (NB. There is a good "general reader" review of modeling the Martian atmosphere by Stephen R Lewis in Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 44 issue 4. pages 6-14.)

Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (see for example here and here). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are.

In 2001, Malin et al published a short article in Science (subscription required) discussing MGS data showing a rapid shrinkage of the South Polar Cap. Recently, the MGS team had a press release discussing more recent data showing the trend had continued. MGS 2001 press release MGS 2005 press release. The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states.

Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth...

[Swamp Gas]

illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/global-warming-is-just-hoax.html


Global Warming is Just a Hoax

(Part of the How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic guide)

Objection:
Global Warming is just a hoax perpetrated by environmental extremists and liberals who want an excuse for more big government.

This is a very common line and is usually couched in more colorful language (enviro-Nazis, liberal wack jobs, that kind of thing). While appeals to authority are not always the most convincing of scientific arguments, this non-scientific attack is best answered with just that, to wit:

Answer:
Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics
www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.

On top of that list, see also this joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, issued by
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

and this one that includes the above signers plus:
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

But perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing than those of the pointy-headed intellectuals? BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world has this opinion:


There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
(The above comes from here)

Shell Oil (yes, oil the fossil fuel) says:


Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
(Read that here)

Here is what 18 CEO's of Canada's largest corporations had to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

That can be read here. www.climateforchange.ca/statement/index_e.asp

Have the EnviroNazis finally seized the industrial reigns of power? Somehow, I doubt it.

[Swamp Gas]

www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html


Put a Tiger In Your Think Tank

ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.

May/June 2005 Issue

Organization

Funding

Hot Air

Fun Fact

Acton Institute for the Study of Religious Liberty

$155,000

Calls CO2 caps "a misguided attempt to solve a problem that may not even exist."

Advised by an AEI fellow.



Advancement of Sound Science Center

$40,000

Run by FoxNews.com's Steve Milloy.



American Council for Capital Formation

$250,000

"Science questions must be addressed before the United States and its allies embark on a path as nonproductive as that of the Kyoto Protocol."

Group netted nearly a million dollars from ExxonMobil from 2000-2003 but the real science bashing was in 2001 when they got a quarter million.



American Council on Science and Health

$90,000

"Policymakers can safely take several decades to plan a response" to global warming.

Michaels and Singer are advisors.



American Enterprise Institute

$960,000

Published 2004 climate article titled "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

Dick Cheney is a former senior fellow.



American Legislative Exchange Council

$712,200

Published Michaels' paper that claims "global warming could actually save lives."

Launched attack on "Sons of Kyoto" state legislation in 2004.



Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy

$427,500

"Answering questions about global warming takes more than a few thermometers, an agenda and a press release."

Baliunas is an adviser; honored Senator Inhofe for "supporting rational, science-based thinking and policy-making."



Arizona State University Office of Climatology

$49,500

They got this amount in 2001 when the office was headed by

Robert C. Balling, a well known climate change "skeptic."



Atlas Economic Research Foundation

$440,000

"As the science behind global warming becomes increasingly sketchy, many environmentalists clutch even harder to their views."

Atlas fellow, Deroy Murdock , "You call this global "warming"?" The Washington Times, May 31, 1996.



Cato Institute

$75,000

One of the modern right's most respected think tanks

Michaels is a senior fellow.



Capital Research Center

$115,000

Right-wing nonprofit watchdog group

"Scientists disagree about climate change, but you wouldn't know that from the [Kyoto] treaty.

It is based on a theory that man-made carbon dioxide, or CO2, gas emissions caused by industrial activities

have created the so-called 'global warming' effect."

CRC President, Terrence Scanlon, "Outside View: Hot air blows away," United Press International, February 8, 2002.



Centre for the New Europe

$40,000

"Not only is the scientific basis of global warming increasingly uncertain, but Kyoto will also ultimately prove to be an economic disaster for Europe--and the developing world,"

CNR President, Tim Evans, "Kyoto will chill the global economy," The Daily Telegraph (letter), October 2, 2004.

Singer offers up his contrarian commentary on their website.



Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise

$40,000

Called the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment "as phony as a three-dollar bill."

Driessen is a senior policy adviser.



Center for the Study of CO2 and Global Change

$55,000

Calls CO2 emissions "a force for good, enhancing the organic matter that sustains all of humanity."



Citizens for a Sound Economy

$305,250

"The science behind global warming is inconclusive, and to teach otherwise is fearmongering."

Peggy Venable, director of Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy in, "Groups criticize proposed texts ;

Conservatives duel liberals over books," San Antonio Express-N ews, September 7, 2001.

In 2001 its Texas branch fought to get rid of global-warming talk in school textbooks



Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow

$252,000

Website features "Some surprisingly clean facts about SUVs."

Driessen is a senior fellow;

Baliunas and Michaels are advisers.



Competitive Enterprise Institute

$1,380,000

Likens the danger of global warming to that of "an alien invasion."

Milloy is a fellow.



Congress of Racial Equality

$40,000

Says there is no "convincing, real evidence that humans are disrupting the earth's climate."

This year's Martin Luther King Day civil rights honoree was Karl Rove.



Consumer Alert

$35,000

Funds the Cooler Heads Coalition's denialist website, globalwarming.org

Michaels is an adviser.



Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies

$30,000

"The mounting evidence over the most recent years demonstrates that the forecasts for global warming were greatly exaggerated. This new evidence suggests that global warming may not even be occurring." (PDF)



Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment

$100,000

Montana-based thinktank

"Given the uncertainty around warming, and the fact that some models predict that temperature increases of up to 4.5 degrees Fahrenheit would have beneficial effects, increasing our adaptability to change may be more important than cutting emissions."

FREE's Research Associate John C. Downen, "Resiliency is the Key to Climate Change," Bozeman Daily Chronicle, November 13, 2002.



Fraser Institute

$60,000

Vancouver-based thinktank questions the "still-speculative risk of global warming."

Chief Scientist Kenneth Green, "Old school environmentalists need to become more business-minded," The Vancouver Province, June 2, 2003.

Soon and Baliunas co-authored Fraser's "Global Warming: A Guide to the Science."



Free Enterprise Action Institute

$50,000

Another of Milloy's projects, registered to his home address



Frontiers of Freedom

$612,000

"To listen to eco-radicals tell the story, it is a proven scientific fact that the climate is warming and that mankind is responsible...Nothing could be farther [sic] from the truth."

Driessen is a senior fellow.



George C. Marshall Institute

$310,000

Challenging global warming (and promoting missile defense) since 1989

Baliunas is a senior scientist; Michaels is a visiting scientist.



Heartland Institute

$312,500

Compares Michael Crichton to Rachel Carson and Upton Sinclair.

Publishes op-eds by Soon and Baliunas.



Heritage Foundation

$340,000

"For the next several decades, fossil fuel use is key to improving the human condition."



Hoover Institution

$140,000

Published "Happiness is a Warm Planet."

Singer is a former fellow.



Hudson Institute

$15,000

Got funding in 2000, the same year they published Singer's article, "Cool Planet, Hot Politics: The next president needs to know that the global warming hypothesis, though politically powerful, is scientifically weak."



Independent Institute

$30,000

Published 2003 report entitled: "New Perspectives in Climate Science: What the EPA Isn't Telling Us."

Singer is a former fellow.



Institute for Energy Research

$67,000

A 2003 "Letter to President George W. Bush" (PDF) advised that "the uncertain link between industrial emissions and global warming after a century of [greenhouse gas] buildup and decades of study points toward lower-range, benign warming scenarios."



International Policy Network

$50,000

"The temperature variations read in the past century could be part of a larger process that is alien to humanity."

IPI author Kendra Okonski ed., Adapt or Die: The science, politics and economics of climate change, London: Profile Books, 2003. p. 205



Mackinac Center for Public Policy

$15,500

Funding amount from 2001when a board of scholars member opined: "The Kyoto Protocol seems to be built on the following two assumptions: First, global warming is a function of human activity (with the biggest villains being automobiles, factories, and power plants), and second, we are currently experiencing unprecedented levels of global warming. However, a review of the earth's most recent 'geological history' brings into question both assumptions and puts the entire subject in a different light."



Media Research Center

$50,000

Blasted the "networks' overwhelmingly one-sided picture of the global warming debate."

Robert Novak dubs MRC an "indispensable counterpunch to liberal reporting." (PDF)



Mercatus Center

$40,000

George Mason University shop that included an eight-page speech by Michael Crichton in its official comments to the White House Office of Management and Budget in 2003.



National Black Chamber of Commerce

$75,000

Kyoto could "reverse the…economic progress that blacks and Hispanics have achieved in recent years." (PDF)



National Center for Policy Analysis

$205,000

"There is still no conclusive evidence that human activity is causing global temperatures to rise."

Singer is an adjunct scholar



National Center for Public Policy Research

$160,000

In their "Questions and Answers on Global Warming." it states, "There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place," and "There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming."

Its Envirotruth.org website debunks "myths" of climate change, including,

"Humanity is the primary cause of global climate change"; and

"The consensus of world scientists, as revealed by the UN's IPCC agree--humanity is causing significant climate change."



Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy

$145,000

"No one seriously claims to know whether the past warming was caused by human activities; whether further warming will occur and, if it does, whether it will result from human activities, and whether such warming in some general sense would be a bad thing."

Senior fellow Benjamin Zycher, "State's Auto Emissions Bill Is Just So Much Gas," Los Angeles Times, May 8, 2002.



Pacific Legal Foundation

$15,000

"Whether global warming is happening is a matter of debate"

PLF attorney, Anne M. Hayes, "Legislature declares war on SUVs," San Diego Union Tribune, July 12, 2002



Property and Environment Research Center

$60,000

Gave Bush a B- on global warming, applauding his acknowledgment of "the importance of scientific uncertainty." (PDF)



Reason Public Policy Institute

$230,000

Their website reads, "The sun, not a gas, is primarily to 'blame' for global warming."



Science and Environmental Policy

$10,000

"We should have more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere"

Singer's pet project



Tech Central Science Foundation

$95,000

A virtual HQ for global warming deniers

Baliunas is a commentator; Soon is the science director; and Milloy is a contributing writer.

Run by former FoxNews.com editor and hosted by an AEI fellow.

Total 2000-2003

$8,678,450

The Cold Earth Society
Some key “skeptics” show up again and again in the echo chamber funded by ExxonMobil.

SALLIE BALIUNAS, a Harvard-Smithsonian Institute astrophysicist, has, along with colleague WILLIE SOON, been giving deniers scientific cover since the mid-1990s. They began by claiming solar effects could account for the rise of the global thermostat. After that theory was debunked, Baliunas and Soon wrote a paper—partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute—for Climate Research that claimed that the 20th century hasn’t been all that warm. Their conclusions have been praised as the epitome of “sound science” by deniers, including Sen. James Inhofe. The journal’s editor, meanwhile, said the paper should never have been published. Baliunas and Soon are each connected to at least four ExxonMobil-funded groups.

PAUL DRIESSEN: See “Black Gold?” page 45. Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five.

PATRICK MICHAELS: University of Virginia climatologist and Cato Institute fellow. One of the most widely cited skeptics, Michaels has received substantial funding from energy companies. Author of The Satanic Gases and Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media. Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven.

STEVEN MILLOY: A columnist for FoxNews.com and publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. Milloy also runs the Advancement of Sound Science Center and the Free Enterprise Action Institute. Those two groups—apparently run out of Milloy’s home—received $90,000 from ExxonMobil. Key quote: The date of Kyoto’s implementation will “live in scientific and economic infamy.” Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least five.

S. FRED SINGER: A godfather of global warming denial, author of The Scientific Case Against the Global Climate Treaty and Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate. Key quote: “There is no convincing evidence that the global climate is actually warming.” Connections to ExxonMobil-funded groups: at least seven.


Go to: As The World Burns: A Mother Jones Special Report on Global Warming

[BigBunny]

Swamp you realise of course that reflecting sunlight is not going to be terribly significant in the light of the aforegoing remarks particularly when India and China are rapidly becoming the leading polluters. However it does give CTs a different complexion, doesn't it?

[Swamp Gas]

bigbunny said:

Swamp you realise of course that reflecting sunlight is not going to be terribly significant in the light of the aforegoing remarks particularly when India and China are rapidly becoming the leading polluters. However it does give CTs a different complexion, doesn't it?

It would lead to a possible conclusion that CTs are mainly to filter UV-B in that case, since the Ozone layer is more permeable now than 50 years ago.

The other possibility, as strange as it may seem, is CTs will also increase cloud cover, which eventually will speed up an Ice Age, by way of accelerating Global Warming

Puts another look on why all the Nazis moved to South America and all of the industrialists who supported them

[Mech]

100% Disagree.

The sun has A LOT to do with it.

anyone who thinks it does not ois just deluding themselves.

It ain't just a light hanging in the sky....much as the "people BAD" crowd and Al Gore worshippers want you to believe.

[Swamp Gas]

Hmmmm...A back-door way of calling people like myself "delusional".

Thanks a lot.....

Everyone of the theories about Other Planets Global Warming, No Global Warming, The Sun, etc have been debunked thoroughly.

All of those organizations that outnumber the Exxon/Mobil funded "skeptics and worshippers" mean nothing?

What they are saying is that the sun's effect is MINIMAL, not has "ZERO" to do with warming.

If you look at the charts from 1940 from now, there is basically no increase in solar radiation, but greenhouse gases have risen exponentially.

I suggest you go back and read all of the data in it's entirety.

If I can read all of your posts on Global Warming deniers, than you can do the same for the opposite.

I will post this again:

Here is a list of "enviro-Nazis" and "left-wing loonies" who believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and well supported by sound science:

NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
books.nap.edu/collections/global_warming/index.html
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
www.socc.ca/permafrost/permafrost_future_e.cfm
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
yosemite.epa.gov/OAR/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
The Royal Society of the UK (RS)
www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=3135
American Geophysical Union (AGU)
www.ametsoc.org/policy/climatechangeresearch_2003.html
American Institute of Physics
www.aip.org/gov/policy12.html
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
eo.ucar.edu/basics/cc_1.html
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
www.ametsoc.org/policy/jointacademies.html
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
www.cmos.ca/climatechangepole.html

Every major scientific institute dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.

On top of that list, see also this joint statement that specifically and unequivocally endorses the work and conclusions of the IPCC Third Assessment report, issued by
- Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Bazil)
- Royal Society of Canada
- Chinese Academy of Sciences
- Academié des Sciences (France)
- Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
- Indian National Science Academy
- Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
- Science Council of Japan
- Russian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Society (United Kingdom)
- National Academy of Sciences (United States of America)
nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

and this one that includes the above signers plus:
- Australian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts
- Caribbean Academy of Sciences
- Indonesian Academy of Sciences
- Royal Irish Academy
- Academy of Sciences Malaysia
- Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
- Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619

But perhaps you would find the opinion of some of the bastions of industry more convincing than those of the pointy-headed intellectuals? BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world has this opinion:


There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
(The above comes from here)

Shell Oil (yes, oil the fossil fuel) says:


Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
(Read that here)

Here is what 18 CEO's of Canada's largest corporations had to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:

Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change.

That can be read here. www.climateforchange.ca/statement/index_e.asp

Have the EnviroNazis finally seized the industrial reigns of power? Somehow, I doubt it.

[altitudelou]

Only four days to Christmas and our pond is still ice free, here is the proof of Global Warming for us who live here in Maine, no one can ever remember a year that the local ponds where not frozen over by the end of November, some years the ice was thin and the department of inland fisheries issued warnings to the public about making sure that the ice was safe enough to walk on, meaning 5 inches or more.

Usually by December 15th people are putting their ice houses out on the ponds so they can ice fish, that isn't happening this year because you can still take your boat or canoe out and fish.

The weather liars are all saying, "Oh no, it's not Global Warming, it's just a mild winter because of the El-Nino", we are all saying that they are full of crap because we can see the climate changing more and more now, no one can ever recall a winter this mild in Maine, New Hampshire or Vermont,.... ever.

No ice on West Pond December 20, 2006. / Unheard of.

i122.photobucket.com/albums/o245/Lou_A/2006_1220WestPond0001.jpg?t=1166668058

[Swamp Gas]

What saddens and cracks me up is people who are more Right-Wing leaning have a deep, innate hatred of hippies and environmentalists. Anybody alive in the 50s and 60s here in New Jersey know what i mean.

Esso (Exxon/Mobil) was dumping poisons into the atmosphere and environment unfettered. So was GE, Monsanto, Royox, and many others. No laws. people getting sick at an incredible pace.

It wasn't until the late 60s and early 70s , that "Environmental Crackpots and Nazis" stopped these corporations cold. We owe them and us a debt of gratitude. Imagine if the "Libertarian" and "Right-Wing" think tanks had gotten their way back then? We would be worse off then we are now, with a crackpot regime that literally is a whore for Exxon/Mobil.

It is propaganda, fueled by the Coal, Nuclear, and oil companies that Global Warming does not exist and/or human activity has nothing to do with it. It all boils down to MONEY.

What is so difficult to understand about that?

[Mech]

THE SUN IS FREAKING OUT

www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html

[Swamp Gas]

This has been debunked already by the majority of climatologists.

Solar Radiation is not corresponding to temperature increase over the past 70 years.

[Mech]

admin said:

Hmmmm...A back-door way of calling people like myself "delusional".

Thanks a lot.....

Sawmp..if you want to read it like that.....you really don't see me as a friend i'm afraid. Why the hell would I be posting here if i wasn't?


I said anyone in general...who doesnt see that the sun DOES cause warming on theplanet...is delusional.

Increased solar activity...increased warming.

As well as others.

A tiny fraction of that is man-made.

[altitudelou]

It's pretty obvious that the general consensus among the worlds leading climate scientist is a resounding "Yes" on the human induced Global Warming that's taking place and becoming more evident with each passing day.

There are the energy companies paid scientoids that are still pu-puing Global Warming but even there numbers are dwindling in the light of the facts coming out on Global Warming, they can no longer deny it.

And of course there are a number of want to be big time climate scientist that are trying to make a name for themselves so they are recognized and accepted by there peers like this 'Dr Sallie Baliunas' in 'Mech's' link, she has been flapping her gums for about five years now trying to run with the big dogs but they keep ignoring her because no real climate scientist thinks that her theories are worth much consideration, she is persistent though, I'll give her that.

I think she is looking for that big seven figure per year job security like she use to get when she was the Deputy Director of the Mount Wilson Institute and harping on how they needed more funds to expand the research facilities to monitor solar activity, her whole career has revolved around making a real good $$$$$$$$ living off of solar research projects, i.e. follow the money, she is just as bad as the energy company paid scientoids, there all selfish, self centered A-Holes little better that the JR's of the world and almost as useless.

[altitudelou]

Here is something you probably won't see on the money grubbing Dr. Sallie Baliunas resume.

www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html

She and her little friends are nothing but Right Wing Neo-Con-Artist Crooks.

[altitudelou]

Mech,

You should be more selective in the information that you post least people associate you with those doing the lying.

[Swamp Gas]

I am still and always your friend, Mech


Since you taking the position of GW Bush, Jay JohnnySpray, Rush Limbaugh, Exxon Mobil, and other Far Right Neo-Cons, you might want to rethink your position. If Johnny Spray or Smell came on this site, and started saying Chemtrails don't exist, you would scoff at them. The evidence is overwhelming for Aerosol Mitigation as well as human accelerated Global Warming. Why do you take the side of the same type of people, that you know damn well are disinfo purveyors?

Also, i think you are mistaking honest environmentalists for the phonies like Hillary and Lieberman. You say "the "Humans Bad" school of thought. No, it is the "Filthy Energy Polluting Energy Companies Bad". If humans were given the choice of Hydrogen Fuel Cell, Electric, and Solar, we would embrace it. Exxon/Mobil, the worst of the lot, is not a futuristic company. They do not want regulations to stop them from polluting. On top of that, there is the innate dislike of government by the Libertarians. Yet, who will pick up the garbage?

Al Gore seems to be the center of all of the "Libertarian" (Right Wingers who smoke pot) and Hard Right Wingers hatred. One person, that admits he made a mistake with NAFTA.

Your belief is 180 degrees opposite to most progressive thinkers, scientists and people like The Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, Jethro Tull, and all of the hippies you say you respect.

Now, Alex Jones for example. I could very easily target him constantly, and I used to, but not anymore. Did you know that he is/was a member of a group that wants to throw out the US Constitution? Probably not. But I like Alex now, and he has changed. People change their ways, and see the light. Maybe Alex hanging out with Hippies, Environmentalists, and Anti-War people has softened him, and opened his mind more. Why can't you do the same for Al Gore?

Alex as Zionist and Constitution underminer

www.rsicc.org/Members/AlexJones/index.html

www.remnantsaints.com/index.html

www.rsicc.org/Form/Constitution/index.html

[lophofo]

Quote from Swamp:

It would lead to a possible conclusion that CTs are mainly to filter UV-B in that case, since the Ozone layer is more permeable now than 50 years ago.

The other possibility, as strange as it may seem, is CTs will also increase cloud cover, which eventually will speed up an Ice Age, by way of accelerating Global Warming

________________________________________________________________________

So, today the sky is blue and it seems to be a nice day, right? Well, they couldn't resist could they. There was one CT laid down. It appeared as though this one went right in front of the sun. Then, the haze started drifting in from places that it was probably laid elsewhere.

I have a feeling that the CTs are contributing to global warming. I believe scientists are trying to figure out ways to combat global warming. I believe the military is using CTs for their own purpose and that politicians are working with the media to promote "pollution from CTs" as being normal, or when people start to discover them, as a necessary way to combat global warming.

There are so many mind games going on. And all of it seems to get mixed up with one another. I believe there are more than one reason for CTs. And, it is tough at times to keep those topics separated without giving in to the debunkers.

[socrates]

It's all about managing the atmospheric chemistry, playing Dr. frankenstein, in able to fudge numbers and keep the environmentalists away from their precious status-quo.

The ozone holes are the immediate threat. This is why I am leaning towards the uv-b shield explanation. Since the program is covert, I can only assume that this is very wrong. It's been close to ten years of this. If it was so good to play Dr. Frankenstein, if it was so necessary, if it was what we the people needed, this all would be legal and in the open by now. Since it is not, I say with 100% confidence that this chemtrail program is evil.

I think they might be trying to accelerate the global warming to try to legalise their array of Dr. Frankenstein sciences. They sure are persistent with what they are doing.

But again, it's all about them tinkering with the atmosphere, that we know for sure.

Debunkers are useless too whenever spraying is going on. When someone witnesses them, really witnesses them, there is no going back on that kind of awareness. This is a grassroots awareness movement which I sense is multiplying by the day in the number of aware.

[altitudelou]

How about one of the reasons being that they want to bring on a "Natural looking" worldwide catastrophe that will reduce the world’s population by as many as four billion people?

I never use to give much thought to the "population reduction" theories because they all sounded like "Tin Foil" rant but I am becoming more receptive to it now that I see what is going on with the spraying worldwide, I'm far from convinced but I am thinking about it more.

Socrates is correct when he says that this spraying is "evil", no good is going to come to "we" the people from it's purpose and that's a fact, if it was some Omni benevolent plan to save humanity from the Global Warming bogeyman then we would have heard the politicians doing their best song and dance self promotional flim flam act in tell us how much they are doing for us, protecting us, saving us with this great plan while reminding us who to vote for, well, I don't see any of our great public servants out in front of this operation, matter of fact, isn't it the other way around, aren't they hiding from any questions about it, hmmmm, there is something very wrong with this picture.

I'm thinking that it's the rich MF's that think they are going to inherit the earth and not the meek, that is, if they have their way.
_________________________________________________________

Resource warfare intensifies across "Grand Chessboard" and Horn of Africa


www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHI20061223&articleId=4252

[et in Arcadia ego]

mech said:

THE SUN IS FREAKING OUT

www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html

I'd prefer my Solar data from places like this:

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

Good thread, swamp.

edit: by the way, the pretty scary picture that guy is haarping about is a image capture of a prominance, an extremely pedestrian occurance on the Sun's surface. The picture also is taken from the SOHO website without credit..If the dude REALLY wanted to make someone shit in their pants, he should have gone for the jegular with a good CME..

[socrates]

posted by Lou:

"I never used to give much thought to the "population reduction" theories because they all sounded like "Tin Foil" rant but I am becoming more receptive to it now that I see what is going on with the spraying worldwide, I'm far from convinced but I am thinking about it more."

Please don't go there Lou. If that was at all true, they wouldn't be spraying out the sun. It's all about covert atmospheric chemistry dealing with uv-b ray protection/radiative forcing/ the possible off-setting of co2 and their inability to come to terms with social and legal implications. They are in limbo. Now is the time for everyone to keep spreading the word and demand accountability and full disclosure.

[altitudelou]

You did note the disclaimer I put in that post didn't you?

LOL.

[socrates]

There's nothing like a good disclaimer.

(off-topic) Keep an eye out for a planters peanut subliminal chemtrail ad.
It'll be the one where he's standing by the door, this Mr. Peanut dude.
It's the one where it is 1900, then 1920, etc., the subliminal is that
it's all just nice, natural water vapour, and it's always been there!!!

you can see the skies, it's blatant, but you got to look close
to see the chemtrails, this one is very subliminal.

[Swamp Gas]

sickle666 said:

mech said:

THE SUN IS FREAKING OUT

www.handpen.com/Bio/sun_freaks.html

I'd prefer my Solar data from places like this:

sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

Good thread, swamp.

edit: by the way, the pretty scary picture that guy is haarping about is a image capture of a prominance, an extremely pedestrian occurance on the Sun's surface. The picture also is taken from the SOHO website without credit..If the dude REALLY wanted to make someone shit in their pants, he should have gone for the jegular with a good CME..

Thanks Arcadia

The data over the last 70 years shows that these occurrences that you and Mech were showing happen occasionally, but overall, there is a minimal amount of new solar radiation occurring, and the most prominent increase is from Greenhouse gases and Hydrocarbons. throw in deforestation, and that does not allow as much oxygen to be produced as well as less of a CO2 sink, thus more in the atmosphere, and in turn more cloud cover and increased temperatures. Add to that Aerosols, and I'm not sure what their end game is. Could it be an accelerated Ice Age, and then people would be clamoring to burn fossil fuels at a greater rate to stay warm?