Are you interested in reading about an alternative theory about global warming?

Sure, I would be, but this isn't one. This is just rehashing the same old data. It doesn't explain why global warming has accelerated over the past 30 years as solar output has decreased, and it doesn't explain the many flaws in the GCR theory, such as no long-term trend in GCR flux. If you can find a way to explain these critical issues, then maybe you can form a theory relating the Sun to the recent warming. Until then, you're just ignoring the data.

Good point ,most people seem to function on statistical input only...If one could only comprehend that without the sun we would have a dead planet.That is they consider the earth a secondary source that contains more abundant mathematical values then the primary source.....They have it back assward.

The Dalton minimum and other solar variability cycles are all possible contributors to global warming. But I think this, I think we DO NOT have a good feeling for the total climate picture, but that of what we do know, is that man made inputs to the atmosphere definitely can have impacts, as we saw from the CFC / Ozone Hole situation. My concern is that the last refuge for the oil companies etc, as the same this time as last time (with Ozone/CFC), Dr's. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Soong. Dr. Baliunas involved in the recently actions with Exxon when they admitted that they were "sort of" funding the "Competitive Enterprise Institute" who spend it's time and money promoting the idea of natural variability. To this end, overwhelming scientific evidence from ice-cores supports that not only isn't it "supposed" to be warming, but that we "should" be heading for another ice-age / cooling period - based on projecting the long pre-human climate cycle forward into the future. That's not what's happening. So while it's possible that the sun is increasing its outputs, that's NOT really the problem. the PROBLEM, is that there are too many people using too many resources. If there were just a few hundred million people, we could all move or alter our farming areas or colonize different areas of the planet for agriculture or living space. It's an argument which really helps those whom would be most affected by regulation of CO2, since if it's natural or sun-caused - there's no need to tax or regulate CO2 now is there. That's a nice discussion but really misses the point rather completely at this point. Regarding the specifics of the Dalton Minimum, however, I found the following PDF most enlightening on the matter, if anything we appear to be heading - broadly out of a "recent" Dalton minimum in in about 1600. Unfortunately, with as many people as we have, and our geo-economic situation as it is, we are "locked in" politically economically and environmentally, to the premise and in the hope that things stay EXACTLY as they are with NO change - ever. We don't have any "swing" in our food production capacity - it's declining since the mid 1990's. (See http://www.energybulletin.net/5045.html) We don't have "swing" in our oil production capacity - it's peaking (now through about 2015-2020) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil It's a grim bag of issues the next few generations have been handed by the stewards of the 20th century, and while the academic debate about global warming will hopefully continue for decades or centuries to come, the time to act is upon us and we must do so in the presence of partial information. So while I'm quite sure that Exxon or their progenitors would be delighted to host the Winter 2320 debates at the University of Colorado solar global warming conference at the scenic Denver Beach Hilton, unfortunately circumstances have moved well and past them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sallie_Baliunas http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FIAU%2FIAU2004_IAUS223%2FS1743921304005307a.pdf&code=6c2202a44dd2896715bc15f69c7fae16

Thank you Dana, joniam and especially Mark for a most cogent answer. I have nothing to add except to say - who are you and why do you keep posting the same debunked pseudoscientific gobbledygook? Are you really just some earnest but uninformed average guy? Hmmm.

Totally agree. I've always thought that too! And maybe it's just because it's earth's natural warming and cooling. About 30 years ago, they thought there would be another ice age.

Are you interested in reading about an alternative theory about global warming? The "greenhouse effect" refers to the natural phenomenon that keeps the Earth in a temperature range that allows life to flourish. The sun's enormous energy warms the Earth's surface and its atmosphere. As this energy radiates back toward space as heat, a portion is absorbed by a delicate balance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—among them carbon dioxide and methane—which creates an insulating layer. With the temperature control of the greenhouse effect, the Earth has an average surface temperature of 59°F (15°C). Without it, the average surface temperature would be 0°F (-18°C), a temperature so low that the Earth would be frozen and could not sustain life. "Global warming" refers to the rise in the Earth's temperature resulting from an increase in heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. I think that you have confused your terminology because one phrase, such as global warming, can not be used to describe two different sets of events. So the answer to the question you asked is Yes but you have not posted one.

Since the vast majority of the world's scientists agree that the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the theory that human activity is causing global warming/climate change, can you save us a lot of trouble and briefly tell us; what kind of evidence, observation, corroboration and predictive power this theory has? Also tell us the origins, supporters and financial backers of the research behind this theory. Is this just something that people on the payroll of energy and oil companies support?

Good one Larry! This is definitely a major piece of the puzzle. Also look at the other 'Minimums' - Wolfe, Sporer, Maunder and Kristen - along with some history related to minimums. http://home.earthlink.net/~ponderthemaunderd/ What people can't seem to fathom - our earth has a virtually paper thin lithosphere floating on magma in the mantel. http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/vwlessons/lessons/Earths_layers/Earths_layers4.html Your web page points out the magnetic influences of the Sun - which effects magma flows for months at a time. That is why earthquakes & volcanoes will remain active for months after the Sun goes blank = without sunspots. See the 'Blank Sun' Here: http://www.spaceweather.com/ Another web page about heat from under the ocean: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1199514313113650.xml&coll=7&thispage=1 http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1199514313113650.xml&coll=7&thispage=2 http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/news/1199514313113650.xml&coll=7&thispage=3 A four degree increase in ocean temperature is FAR FAR more important than ANY increase in Air Temperature!!!

I've read it. It's been shown to be wrong by the actual solar data. "Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature", Lockwood and Frolich (2007), Proc. R. Soc. A doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880 http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf News article at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6290228.stm PAPPY - The Sun warms the Earth. But it's not responsible for the recent INCREASE in temperatures. That's mostly due to CO2.