There is evidence from tree rings, ice cores, isotopes and many others ALL OVER THE WORLD, which hilights a 1470 year +/- 500 years cycle, including the unnamed cold period before the Roman Warming, the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages cooling, The Medieval Warming, The Little Ice Age and The Modern Warming (which started in 1850, BEFORE ANY DOCUMENTED CO2 INCREASES.) Warming causes the release of carbon dioxide, as carbon is held in the sea, which is the reason for the lag between CO2 and temperature increases.

However, you might say there is no solar cycle of 1470 years. True, but there is a cycle of 87 and 210 years, which are factors of 1470. Human global warming activists with beards say that water vapour is the major greenhouse gas. Climate models can not yet model clouds. See the fatal flaw? The water vapour in the climate models can not turn into clouds, and so it just lingers in the atmosphere. Each extra increment of CO2 has less effect.

I ask this. The Kyoto Protocol is dead and was never going to work, because all that is happening is that countries above their limits are buying off however much countries below their limits are below it. Whether or not "greenhouse gases" are responsible for global warming, surely, instead of trying to reduce CO2, we should be using the technology we already have to prevent or lessen the "disastrous" side-effects of global warming.

To try and reduce CO2 emissions, crops are going organic. Organic crops have half the yield per acre than nitrogen fertilised crops. To convert all our fossil fuels to wind power would take up one quarter of our landspace. Can you see? The loss of life from trying to prevent global warming will be far, far greater than the (supposed) loss of life from global warming.

So, in a nutshell, I have presented evidence which disproves the greenhouse theory, and then, assuming that the greenhouse theory is correct, says why reducing CO2 emmisions is not the correct plan of action. So mr gullible scientist who wrote the above article, shave off your beard and get real. Global warming is moderate, most probably beneficial, and, most importantly, unstoppable.

...for citing your references!!

"human global warming activists with beards say..."

"What if this weren't a hypothetical question?" -- unknown

GreyFlcn: i wonder if this theory has been proven to be wrong several times, why the Cern is doing this experiment?
They don't know how to waste their time? Or they are working for Exxon? ;-)

Likely they are doing it to prove the theory wrong.

DURHAM, N.C. - At least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output rather than factors such as increased heat-absorbing carbon dioxide gas released by various human activities, two Duke University physicists report.

The physicists said that their findings indicate that climate models of global warming need to be corrected for the effects of changes in solar activity. However, they emphasized that their findings do not argue against the basic theory that significant global warming is occurring because of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases.

Nicola Scafetta, an associate research scientist working at Duke's physics department, and Bruce West, a Duke adjunct physics professor, published their findings online Sept. 28, 2005, in the research journal Geophysical Research Letters.

West is also chief scientist in the mathematical and information sciences directorate of the Army Research Office in Research Triangle Park.

Scafetta's and West's study follows a Columbia University researcher's report of previous errors in the interpretation of data on solar brightness collected by sun-observing satellites.

The Duke physicists also introduce new statistical methods that they assert more accurately describe the atmosphere's delayed response to solar heating. In addition, these new methods filter out temperature-changing effects not tied to global warming, they write in their paper.

According to Scafetta, records of sunspot activity suggest that solar output has been rising slightly for about 100 years. However, only measurements of what is known as total solar irradiance gathered by satellites orbiting since 1978 are considered scientifically reliable, he said.

But observations over those years were flawed by the space shuttle Challenger disaster, which prevented the launching of a new solar output detecting satellite called ACRIM 2 to replace a previous one called ACRIM 1.

That resulted in a two-year data gap that scientists had to rely on other satellites to try to bridge. "But those data were not as precise as those from ACRIM 1 and ACRIM 2," Scafetta said in an interview.

Nevertheless, several research groups used the combined satellite data to conclude that that there was no increased heating from the Sun to contribute to the global surface warming observed between 1980 and 2002, the authors wrote in their paper.

Lacking a standardized, uninterrupted data stream measuring any rising solar influence, those groups thus surmised that all global temperature increases measured during those years had to be caused by solar heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases such as carbon dioxide, introduced into Earth's atmosphere by human activities, their paper added.

But a 2003 study by a group headed by Columbia's Richard Willson, principal investigator of the ACRIM experiments, challenged the previous satellite interpretations of solar output. Willson and his colleagues concluded, rather that their analysis revealed a significant upward trend in average solar luminosity during the period.

Using the Columbia findings as the starting point for their study, Scafetta and West then statistically analyzed how Earth's atmosphere would respond to slightly stronger solar heating. Importantly, they used an analytical method that could detect the subtle, complex relationships between solar output and terrestrial temperature patterns.

The Duke analyses examined solar changes over a period twice as long - 22 versus 11 years - as was previously covered by another group employing a different statistical approach.

"The problem is that Earth's atmosphere is not in thermodynamic equilibrium with the sun," Scafetta said. "The longer the time period the stronger the effect will be on the atmosphere, because it takes time to adapt."

Using a longer 22 year interval also allowed the Duke physicists to filter out shorter range effects that can influence surface temperatures but are not related to global warming, their paper said. Examples include volcanic eruptions, which can temporarily cool the climate, and ocean current changes such as el Nino that affect global weather patterns.

Applying their analytical method to the solar output estimates by the Columbia group, Scafetta's and West's paper concludes that "the sun may have minimally contributed about 10 to 30 percent of the 1980-2002 global surface warming."

This study does not discount that human-linked greenhouse gases contribute to global warming, they stressed. "Those gases would still give a contribution, but not so strong as was thought," Scafetta said.

"We don't know what the Sun will do in the future," Scafetta added. "For now, if our analysis is correct, I think it is important to correct the climate models so that they include reliable sensitivity to solar activity.

"Once that is done, then it will be possible to better understand what has happened during the past hundred years.\

Duke University

----------------------
The Duke actually said a MINIMUM of 10-30% was caused directly by the sun and they leaned towards the upward limit of the range.

~Taz~