Solar Cycles Cause Climate Change, Not Humans

Yes, I totally agree - what a crock.
Still, it's obvious this cartoon was meant to appeal to those who have little knowledge of this subject, therefore they will be easily sucked in by the simplistic nature of this cartoon. It's so much easier to explain to people in words of a single syllable the reasons for the perceived climate change, that way they'll believe it. Tell them it's CO2 and they need to do no more thinking, it's settled, no argument, no debate - it's CO2. How easy.
Luckily there are people who have evolved from that play-school mentality. Those not sucked in to the left-wing political agenda are seeing remarkable work being done in this field, work which the extremists spend too much time trying to debunk with disinformation like this cartoon. One has to ask, what are they scared of?

So, who to believe, the highly discredited SkepticalScience disinformation site, or the numerous peer-reviewed papers that show a well known link between solar activity and climate changes. Hint: there's more to our sun than TSI.

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 96, NO. D2, PAGES 2835–2844, 1991
"The record of globally averaged sea surface temperature (SST) over the past 130 years shows a highly significant correlation with the envelope of the 11-year cycle of solar activity over the same period."

Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 25, Issue 7, p. 1035-1038
"During the past ~120 years, Earth's surface temperature is correlated with both decadal averages and solar cycle minimum values of the geomagnetic aa index."

Solar variability and ring widths in fossil trees
S. Cecchini, M. Galli, T. Nanni and L. Ruggiero
"This would support the hypothesis of a quasi-periodic behaviour of the solar dynamical system controlled by an oscillator whose fundamental period is of 22–25y, that can be identified with the Hale cycle; this system would be operational at least since the Miocene era. "

The 60-year solar modulation of global air temperature: the Earth’s rotation and atmospheric circulation connection
A. Mazzarella
"Our results suggest that changes in geomagnetic activity, and in the Earth’s rotation, could be used as long- and short-term indicators, respectively, of future changes in global air temperature. "

The link between the solar dynamo and climate - The evidence from a long mean air temperature series from Northern Ireland
Butler, C. J.; Johnston, D. J.
"In this paper we extend the comparison between sunspot cycle length and temperature back to the late 18th century using data accumulated at Armagh Observatory since 1795. Our data strongly support the contention that solar variability has been the principal cause of temperature changes over the past two centuries. "

And there are so many more. Pseudo-science? They are all peer-reviewed papers showing some of the excellent work being done by real scientists who are interested in real science, science and facts without blame.
Why are SkepticalScience so keen to push the lie that climate is driven by CO2? Why do they censor comments? Why are people, so-called open-minded people so eager to take all they have to say as undisputed truth?
The fact is if people really had an interest in this field they would be taking all the evidence and research on-board. Sadly, some people have already made their minds up and pointed the finger at man.

The data in the graph, which shows that the sun has cooled and the Earth has heated since the 1960s, is from NASA.
Deniers are liars.

Thank you for the long winded lecture Dr. Donothing.

So, what is your conclusion? Throw a bucket of water on the sun to cool it down?

It seems to me that if we keep pouring new CO2 into the atmosphere, and the CO2 traps and retains solar infrared radiation, that it the sun increases its output of radiation, causing the atmosphere to increase in temperature----then the increase in temperature is antropogenic. The increase in solar radiation is magnifying the effect of the anthropogenic atmospheric warming.

Another good reason to end the use of fossil fuels.

Your long winded article does not disprove anything about atmospheric warming---it simply reinforces the need to end the use of fossil fuels because the solar cycle will only accelerate the effect.

It wasn't my long-winded lecture, it is a small selection of the peer-reviewed papers that show there is a significant correlation between solar activity (in its many forms) and our climate.
Not everyone is hooked on the theory that CO2 is the bogeyman.

"Another good reason to end the use of fossil fuels."
Yes, you keep on saying that. When man has found viable, affordable replacements for the fuels we use today, then great, let's dump fossil fuels.

-----" Yes, you keep on saying that. When man has found viable, affordable replacements for the fuels we use today, then great, let's dump fossil fuels."--------

We have viable, affordable replacements for fossil fuels. In fact, we are using them today and we always have been.

Wind, solar, biofuels, geothermal, and other technologies can do anything we need done. And they don't destroy the earth, water and air doing it.

If all those 'renewable' energy sources were as reliable, affordable and viable as you say, then why aren't we all using them? The answer is not because big oil or coal companies are preventing their use, it's because, unfortunately, renewable energy is nowhere near good enough to supply our needs - yet. It might be great on a small, local scale when government grants are available to offset the cost, but as a national solution it has a long way to go.

Methane, natural gas, is clean, causes minimal environmental damage to extract(you can't spill methane, it just bubbles up and blows away----and you can't strip mine a gas).

We can do anything we need done with natural gas, it can power our vehicles, it can power our electrical generation plants, it can even be used in fuel cells. If we replace coal with natural gas, there is no pollution---since it is a gas, it is easy to remove impurities before it used.

Methane is already a mature technology with considerable infrastructure in place.

Methane is both a fossil fuel and a biofuel. It can be made cheaply and easily from any sort of biomass at all----including sewage and landfills, we've been doing it for over 150 years. Not only that, fossil methane and biomethane are exactly the same stuff, CH4---they can be mixed in any proportion with no loss of performance in any application. When they are mixed---a 6% mix of biomethane will create AGW neutral emissions. Any mix greater than 6% will have a negative effect on AGW. If we have vehicles that use methane----there is a way that you could run your vehicle on free solar power, no batteries required.

Methane is the cheapest form of consumer available energy we have. It costs less than 1/2 to drive the same distance in a vehicle using methane than it does to drive the same vehicle using petroleum. And methane produces no pollution.

-------" but as a national solution it has a long way to go."-----

So, why do you say that?

I assume you are already using all this technology and not paying a single penny to energy companies?
Of course all these 'renewable' energy sources work on a small scale, but they are not viable on the scale at which energy is needed today.

All energy is used on a small scale. One person at a time.

---------"...... but they are not viable on the scale at which energy is needed today."------

That is exactly why we need to get rid of coal and petroleum. Just look around at the massive damage they are doing.

There will come a time when we have enough viable and affordable alternative fuels, but that time isn't here yet. To just put an end to fossil fuels at this time would be madness.

------" To just put an end to fossil fuels at this time would be madness."----------

Can you elaborate on that statement? When do you think WOULD be a good time to get rid of fossil fuel use? When we run out entirely? That day is coming soon.

When we all become fossils ourselves from using fossil fuels?

The time to end the use of fossil fuels would be when 'other' energy sources are as available, effective and affordable as fossil fuels currently are.
There is a lot of research and development work ongoing in the field of alternative energy sources, and the time will come when that research comes up with viable alternatives to fossil fuels. As you know, there are alternatives available now, but not in the quantity or quality that is needed at present.
Fossil fuels will still be around and being used long after we (you and I) have departed this earth, but hopefully by then the development of alternative energy sources will look a lot different to how it does today.
It isn't so very long ago that man built the first steam trains. At that time the energy source was coal, there was no alternative. As time went by other sources of energy were developed, but they were only implemented when the time was right, when the energy source (diesel/electric) was viable. The same will happen with the energy we use today.

available? I think natural gas is available. Ethanol is available. Biodiesel is available. Petroleum is the fuel that is getting more and more difficult and expensive to find, extract, transport, and refine. Petroleum is getting more expensive, not only in cost but also in cost of opportunity---what it costs to continue using petroleum instead of investing in better technology. I don't know about there, but around here, the price of petroleum at the pump has gone up 11% in about the last 6 weeks. And overall, the price of petroleum is going to continue to go up, and up and up.

Range Fuels has built an ethanol plant using Fischer-Tropsch process in Soperton GA that when up to full capacity will produce 100 million gallons/yr. of ethanol from wood logging and milling waste. The plant cost $385 million. You could easily build 4-6 plants like that for the cost of one deep water offshore drilling rig. And when the oil is pumped out----that's it, you can't pick up a drilling rig weighing several hundred thousand tons and move it somewhere else. The ethanol plant however, can be disasembeled and moved if need be----however, that would not be necessary, as long as you plant new trees for the ones that are removed, you always have raw material for the plant to work with. Seems like a no brainer to me.

Viable? You mean like able to supply an entire city with all its energy needs? Do you mean like the city of Lunen Germany(pop. 90,000) that gets all of its energy needs from methane produced from biogas----biogas made from sewage from local cattle and swine farms in the surrounding area. They even have methane left over to pump into the national pipeline grid. Many German drivers run their vehicles on either methane or gasoline----manufacturers offer factory installed conversions that allow the use of either fuel at the flip of a switch. Of coarse, most drivers prefer to use methane----they can drive over twice as far for the same cost as they can using petroleum. Not to mention, that methane burns so clean, they only need to change engine oil and filters about 1/10th as often as with petroleum.

Unfortunately---all the poor citizens of Lunen end up with when all is said and done is clean water and fertilizer(compost)---which they have to end up recycling back onto the farms which means they don't get to buy fertilizers produced from petroleum.

Brazil as replaced a little over 50% of their transportation fuel needs with biofuels. Mostly ethanol made from sugar cane, and biodiesel made from coconut fruit seeds left over after the food portion of the fruit is removed. They also use natural gas. They even have a car that can run on gasoline, gasoline and ethanol mixtures, pure hydrous ethanol, and/or natural gas. Brazil still has a lot of petroleum. So, what are the Brazilians doing with the petroleum they have? Getting rich selling petroleum to the dumb schmucks who pay through the nose to use a fuel because they won't even think about using something better.

That is what is being predicted. Satellite temperatures already show a fall in global temperatures towards the end of last year, and sea surface temperatures are displaying an interesting decline also.

It CAN'T be science. It's the Democrats out to spoil our big party!!!

I'm sorry, but how can an article written by an astrologist be taken as a serious source of information? You can reject this source for its lack of scientific value and still reject anthropogenic climate change.

An article written by an astrologist can be taken as seriously as the information which it contains.

Yep, pretty much junk.

While I can admit that C02 has an affect on global warming, I think that it's affect is greatly exaggerated, and that outside influences are totally cast out of hand.

It's only common sense to think that the thing which gives us heat, might be affecting this great change in weather. -To deny it is like say the moon doesn't affect the tides.