Don Easterbrook. The article is written
by the same scientist that predicted global cooling back in 1998.
This is what the agw modelers should be doing, making predictions
that are then confirmed by data. If a prediction based on a theory is confirmed by data
that might mean the theory is true. Currently, global warming
is changing to 'global climate change because the data doesn't fit
If another theory is proven by data; such as climate runs in cycles
that are mostly driven by the earth's orbit and the sun's varying output
that can be most easily measured by the number of sunspots over time,
then AGW is pretty much disproven.
It might be true that adding carbon dioxide in the atmosphere can warm
things up slightly, maybe 1 degree over 100 years, but that is just noise
compared to the signal that is imposed by the sun.
Here's a current picture of the sun from spaceweather.com
Here's another chart from wikipedia with an explanation
that seems to knock the idea of the sun having no influence
on global warming on the head:
On longer time scales, the sun has shown considerable variability, including the long Maunder Minimum when almost no sunspots were observed, the less severe Dalton Minimum, and increased sunspot activity during the last fifty years, known as the Modern Maximum. The causes for these variations are not well understood, but because sunspots and associated faculae affect the brightness of the sun, solar luminosity is lower during periods of low sunspot activity. It is widely believed that the low solar activity during the Maunder Minimum and earlier periods may be among the principal causes of the Little Ice Age. Similarly, the Modern Maximum is partly responsible for global warming, especially the temperature increases between 1900 and 1950. One study (Stott et al. 2003), argues that residual warming due to the sustained high level of activity since 1950 is responsible for 16 to 36% of recent warming.
I can't say for sure what is going to happen with the climate, it might
be warmer or colder, but the AGW crowd seems to say that earth's climate
will change and that will confirm their theory so we need to put a large dent
in productivity and especially in the United States we should all move into large
apartment blocks and sweat in the heat. On the other hand, Don Easterbrook is
making a prediction that the sun will have fewer spots and it is going to be colder
over the next thirty years then the previous thirty years.
If I were designing two experiments and presenting them in an undergraduate
engineering lab, I'd get laughed off of the podium if I presented AGW. It's not
testable, the only way to see results is wait 100 years or make models that don't
match any data. The global cooling theory is a great experiment, you can do it
with cheap equipment, just a telescope, a thermometer and a notebook and it will give
a yes or no answer within3 years. Are we back on the normal sunspot cycle yes
or no? If no, then put a stop to trading carbon credits and other nonsense and focus
on what is important, energy security for the USA and for the people of the world.
On Don Easterbrook's website he has a great presentation that explains why co2
didn't cause temperature changes up to 1945, so it's unlikely that it is changing the