Replies

There IS a specific and credible and predictable alternate “view” (That is, the effect of the sun's relative activity controlling BOTH the sun's magnetic fields AND the sun's brilliance. As it gets brighter (which has gone up slightly between 1970 and 1998-2005) there is more energy released and more absorbed on the earth.

More important, the sun's magnetic field increased between those dates, its shielding of cosmic rays increased at the earth's orbit, and fewer cosmic rays interacted in the atmosphere. Thus, there are many fewer cloud nuclei and much less cloud cover -> more radiation received on earth and hotter temperatures. The past two years, there has been almost no sunspots, less magnetic field by many percentage points, and much much less magnetic shielding. More cosmic ray interactions -> more cloud nuclei -> more clouds -> much lower temperatures.

Solar cycle 23 is not yet ended but has been near zero for months. Solar cycle 24 is now 18 months late, and solar cycle 25 is predicted to be very low as well based on low level sun circulation currents.

Notably, we still see NO new cycle 24 sunspots even now = the low temperatures will continue to drop for about another 2-3 years, then we will see a slight increase at the peak of cycle 24 (whenever THAT occurs!) and then a further drop until cycle 25 peaks, then - and only then - will we (possibly!) see a turn warmer.

Then again, we may face a century of very cold temperatures “whether” or not we double, triple, or quadruple the 0.03 percent CO2 from today's levels.

Absolutely! That is a more credible and better researched theory as to what drives changes in climate IMO. But the challenge put forth to provide an alternative theory in order to disprove the greenhouse gas theory is bogus. A scientifically driven theory either stands or falls on it's own merits.

If you were investigating a house fire and wanted to specifically prove that gasoline wasn't used as an accelerant you wouldn't need to prove that something else was. In fact that wouldn't prove that gasoline wasn't present. You don't have to prove the ignition source either. You just have to show that there is no evidence that gasoline was present using a positive method of analysis. It doesn't matter if an accelerant was used or not. It doesn't matter if the fire was set intentionally or not. There is only one thing that needs to be proven and direct evidence is the key.

According to the premises of greenhouse theory itself there is direct evidence that the greenhouse effect is not warming the planet. As long as that evidence remains as it is the seas could be throwing boiled lobsters onto the beaches and the greenhouse effect, as presently theorized and defined, couldn't have anything to do with it.