Global Warming is over. (Really, it is. No joke.)

[Joel W.]

well on the flip side, just to toss in more ideas for thought...

due to the universe expanding, we (the earth) is moving away from the sun at a faster and faster rate, in 5 billion yrs we should be as cold as mars is today once were out of the "sweetspot" where its not too hot and not too cold that made this all possable...

so in the long run i will loose this debate..

 

[Adjuster]

Charlie has a good point, and that interview snippet is what he says in the book. It is getting slightly warmer. About .04 of one degree C. Four tenths of a degree in 50 years.

Ohhh, let's declare the sky is falling. (And he admits that with the urban heat factored out of the values, we have actually seen a net cooling effect of the atmosphere in the book.)

Right now we have the best climate data ever based on satilites, not somebody going out and reading a thermometer and noting the peak and low temps each day. Most of the older data is simply that, and there is a good chance it has some errors built in. (Faulty equipment, or they forgot to reset it, things like that.) The data from satilites is accurate to the extreme, and does not suffer from group think. (Discussed later.) This hyper accurate data shows the upper atmosphere to be slightly cooling if anything. Of course the change is so small it's almost not worth mentioning. A few hundredths of a degree cooler, C.

Dark Wood, Hard Green and Deep Hot Earth are not fiction books anymore than your "envrionmentalist" sources are fiction.

You do realize that many studies have proven "group think" is real, and it affects data right? This last election was a good case in point. John Kerry thought he had won. The flawed data provided to him told him he'd won, the media in general was trying it's best to quietly report that the exit poll data and vote returns clearly showed a victory for Kerry. The reality was he lost, and lost by a pretty healty margin, but because the "group" of people reviewing the data wanted to belive he'd won, they found signs of his victory in the same data that clearly indicated he'd lost. He was so moved by this flawed data, he waited to throw in the towel for a review of the data. (Lucky for all of us, he was not as stupid as Al (End the internal combustion Engine) Gore, and did not try those silly law suits.

You are being a hypocrite right now saying you only trust your sources of 20 million documents, yet you say you don't have the time to read what I'm suggesting? I've read and heard what your saying my whole life. All of us have, and I'm saying we have all been misled, and fooled. Perhaps by good meaning, and caring scientists who read the flawed data, and thought they were acting correctly with it, but in the face of the much better data, and the fact that NONE of the climate models developed and run on computer have come even close to getting the climate right, I think your vaunted "sources" have been writing the fiction all along don't you?

At some point, the sheep/bufalo/wildebeast have to stop running over the cliff, and discover their own path. Stop following the herd, and look around you from time to time. That is all I'm suggesting.

Especially a herd as narrowminded, misled, misguided and wrong-thinking as the Liberal/Invironmentalist crowd has become. It's time to leave the herd for a moment, and check your course, and causes. You might just find them flawed.

 

[Joel W.]

I said i have read 1000's and i should have said there are 20 million more than i havent read yet. (need some time) im not being a hypocrite, i just havent picked up the book yet. no need to be a jerk.. i am totally open minded, i just see what i see and 1+1+1+1 does not equall -4

I disagree with most scientists who think that global warming will only effect us from 100 yrs or more. i think its going to get alot worse very soon. like 10-12 yrs till we start getting to the point where crops wont grow the ocean gulf stream comes to a stop... and we all get very hungry..

anyways i did not mean to offend anyone or slam any one here.. its called a debate The object is to prove your side or disproove the opposition.

i listed my proof, even your author agrees with me.. so im done here...


Next...

and i think just talking about this is a good thing..

 

[Adjuster]

Just had to post again, Read the Entire article from ABC. Amazing, simply amazing.
The "statement" tagged to the end of the book review notes it as "science fiction" and then goes off on some diatribe that could be pulled, literally from the book, as if written by the author himself. Almost word for word from the book, the position of the "envrionmentalists" discribed in the "work of science fiction." Funny, but they just inadvertantly made his book a work of science fact with that statement, since it's so clearly EXACTLY what the "fake" scientists say.

I don't think there is a huge group of environmentalists setting off bombs, and creating Tsunami's to try and prove their point, and raise money. They do however glom onto every storm, and event and try and tie it to their version of reality. (A clearly flawed version in my opinion, and not just before this book.)

The great thing about the book is ANYONE can read it. It's entertaining, yet manages to make a good point that the thinking of the 60's and 70's, using data that was flawed, and that spawned the "Global Warming Theory" is still alive today, even though the data has proven it's wrong. Like the earth being flat, there are many that will cling to what they have been taught untill the overwhelming data shows otherwise.

You guys notice these "scientists" used the phrase "Fossil Fuels" in their press release? I challange any of you to do some reasearch on what oil/gas is actually made of. Your going to find it's hydrocarbons, and that the scientists who study, find and work in the industry all know they are not fossil fuels. (If they were, we would have run out of them years ago, the bio mass to create them has been used over and over and over again, clearly proving they are not dead dinosarus and rotted plant life.) The oil is also coming from areas deeper than fossil record, proving that the rock where we can find oil, is deeper than life on the surface of the planet, so "fossil fuels" is a total misnomer. Hydrocarbons is much more accurate, and you find hydrocarbons on every planet in our Solar system, and likely on all the other planets in the galaxy(s).

 

[Joel W.]

"Global Warming Theory" is still alive today, even though the data has proven it's wrong.

i just wanted to see some of this proof, thats all i asked for.. and of course i read the entire article...


hahhaha ok now im really done...your ok by me adjuster. good debate my friend...

 

[p5150]

Charlie has a good point, and that interview snippet is what he says in the book. It is getting slightly warmer. About .04 of one degree C. Four tenths of a degree in 50 years.

Ohhh, let's declare the sky is falling. (And he admits that with the urban heat factored out of the values, we have actually seen a net cooling effect of the atmosphere in the book.).

Then why are glaciers and the ice caps receeding? Has the melting point of ice changed?

Right now we have the best climate data ever based on satilites, not somebody going out and reading a thermometer and noting the peak and low temps each day. Most of the older data is simply that, and there is a good chance it has some errors built in. (Faulty equipment, or they forgot to reset it, things like that.) The data from satilites is accurate to the extreme, and does not suffer from group think. (Discussed later.) This hyper accurate data shows the upper atmosphere to be slightly cooling if anything. Of course the change is so small it's almost not worth mentioning. A few hundredths of a degree cooler, C.

Dont you find it odd that the concentration of CO2 stayed relatively flat for nearly 1000 years and that it has suddenly peaked within the last 50?

Wow man - you are seriously brainwashed. I used to feel the same way you do. Then I turned off the major news channels and AM talk radio and went to unbiased sources of news for my information.

Why does everything "environmental" have to be considered "liberal"?

 

[Adjuster]

Funny thing about the polar ice and glaciers world wide.

The Ice in Antartica is getting thicker right now.
North pole ice has receeded, but glacial movment is hard to track, and study since the data we have is so short term when your talking about ice that is thousands of years old in places. (Or older.)

The climate changes in cycles, that much we do know. How much, and how often is up for much debate, but the best guesses are that current changes are us coming out of a mini ice age of about 400 years, but continuing to end the 10,000 year cycle of ice ages. (We are due to have another one actually according to the cycle, it could happen tomarrow, or 100/500 or so years from now.)

We talk about sea level changes, and really the fact is that sea levels have been rising for about 10,000 years, but the change in height is in mm, not feet, and nobody is going to see a huge change in their lifetime based on the data we have today. (Again, this appears to be normal, and a cycle that has gone on about every 10,000 years in recient history. The planet today is not very much like it was 1000 or 2000 or especially 3000 years ago. Areas of dry land were quite wet, and areas wet today, were dry. Forrests change, landscapes and the animals that live on them move and change. Things come and go, and it's all very normal.

If I'm narrowminded and brainwashed in your opinion, that's too bad.(For you that is.) I think I'm not stuck on the idea that what I learned in school based on some theory of gloom and doom from the early 70's bad science is going to hold much weight in light of the much better data and thinking of today.

The sooner we all realize that "global warming" is about as much a truth as the earth being flat, or that "fossil fuels" was always a misnomer, and is not based in good science, the better. It brings your focus to using these hydrocarbons in the best ways possible, for everyone. It brings new ideas to forrest management, land use and other subjects that have been really screwed up due to narrowminded envrionmentalist opinions that we should only do nothing, and leave things as they are... "pristine" or whatever that means. (Truth is Native Americans hunted and burned the forrests long before we arrived, and the people who were here before them did the same. The climate has changed, and Man has little, or nothing to do about it. Leave your "old growth" forrests alone, and they just catch on fire and burn up to ash. This changes the forrest forever, and a new set of trees and plants takes over in the ashes of the old one. We have learned by all the mistakes of Yellowstone and other places that we have the manage the forrests, or they fall apart, and change in ways we don't like. (Like burning off completely for example.) Logging and fires are good things when used in a thoughtfull manner. Our needs for power can be balanced with the needs of a few fish to spawn. CO2 reduction is less of an issue when you really look at how much it adds to the TOTAL amount of the atmosphere, and take out urban effect heating on the temp of the planet. (And suddenly, you find that we are looking at possibly .04tenths of a degree C total increase in 50 years.... Or less. The upper atmosphere has not changed, or trends slightly colder if anything. So much for it raising the temp of the planet.)

10,000 years from now, when the next set of humans are in our same position, I wonder if they are will be debating the latest "global warming" theory? LOL

 

[Joel W.]

Arctic Sea Ice
Arctic Ocean
Has shrunk by 6 percent since 1978, with a 14 percent loss of thicker, year-round ice. Has thinned by 40 percent in less than 30 years.

Greenland Ice Sheet
Greenland
Has thinned by more than a meter a year on its southern and eastern edges since 1993.

Columbia Glacier
Alaska,
United States
Has retreated nearly 13 kilometers since 1982. In 1999, retreat rate increased from 25 meters per day to 35 meters per day.

Glacier National Park
Rocky Mtns., United States
Since 1850, the number of glaciers has dropped from 150 to fewer than 50. Remaining glaciers could disappear completely in 30 years.

Antarctic Sea Ice
Southern Ocean
Ice to the west of the Antarctic Peninsula decreased by some 20 percent between 1973 and 1993, and continues to decline.

Pine Island Glacier
West Antarctica
Grounding line (where glacier hits ocean and floats) retreated 1.2 kilometers a year between 1992 and 1996. Ice thinned at a rate of 3.5 meters per year.

Larsen B Ice Shelf
Antarctic Peninsula
Calved a 200 km2 iceberg in early 1998. Lost an additional 1,714 km2 during the 1998-1999 season, and 300 km2 so far during the 1999-2000 season.

Tasman Glacier
New Zealand
Terminus has retreated 3 kilometers since 1971, and main front has retreated 1.5 kilometers since 1982. Has thinned by up to 200 meters on average since the 1971-82 period. Icebergs began to break off in 1991, accelerating the collapse.

Meren, Carstenz, and Northwall Firn Glaciers
Irian Jaya, Indonesia
Rate of retreat increased to 45 meters a year in 1995, up from only 30 meters a year in 1936. Glacial area shrank by some 84 percent between 1936 and 1995. Meren Glacier is now close to disappearing altogether.

Dokriani Bamak Glacier
Himalayas, India
Retreated by 20 meters in 1998, compared with an average retreat of 16.5 meters over the previous 5 years.

Duosuogang Peak
Ulan Ula Mtns., China
Glaciers have shrunk by some 60 percent since the early 1970s.

Tien Shan Mountains
Central Asia
Twenty-two percent of glacial ice volume has disappeared in the past 40 years.

Caucasus Mountains
Russia
Glacial volume has declined by 50 percent in the past century.

Alps Western
Europe
Glacial area has shrunk by 35 to 40 percent and volume has declined by more than 50 percent since 1850. Glaciers could be reduced to only a small fraction of their present mass within decades.

Mt. Kenya Kenya
Largest glacier has lost 92 percent of its mass since the late 1800s.

Speka Glacier
Uganda
Retreated by more than 150 meters between 1977 and 1990, compared with only 35-45 meters between 1958 and 1977.

Upsala Glacier Argentina
Has retreated 60 meters a year on average over the last 60 years, and rate is accelerating.

Quelccaya Glacier
Andes, Peru
Rate of retreat increased to 30 meters a year in the 1990s, up from only 3 meters a year between the 1970s and 1990.

sorry for the massive long post but he made me do it... lol...

 

[p5150]

.04 tenths eh?

 

[p5150]

are you going to actually post some references or just continue to tell us to read the book?

 

[americanjebus]

i beleive the earth is changing temperature,

but not that its directly our fault, its gonna warm up/ cool down no matter what we do, its been doign it through MUCH harsher conditions before. all we are doing is killing off some species and makiing smog,

 

[Adjuster]

There are many sources listed in the book. I'm not going to write them all down here. (Again.)

Keep in mind, that MOST of the reports have a "global warming" slant written into them, even when the data they are presenting does not clearly support that position, and many of the scientists so much as say that. (I'm sure at risk of losing funding and other employment issues, since your employer never likes to hear that what your researching might not be what they want you to find.)

Take out the urban effect on surface temp data, and the "overall" warming of the planet is suddenly alot less than the "global warming" theory suggests. (There are some saying a 3C change will happen, and others, with this data revised down based on city growth, and the verifiable increase of cities being hotter than forrests/farm land etc.) Revised, it's less than one degree C. And that is an estimate based on a guess that the source data was modified corectly. (It's called the Urban Effect on surface temp.)

Note too, that I have yet to see a model on any super computer that shows anything close to accurate preditions of weather and tempature years in the future. This is why you can get a 10 day forcast, but generally it's revised every hour for the next 240 hours of that 10 days. THE MODELS ARE JUST A GUESS, and THEY ARE OFTEN WRONG.

If we can't predict the weather just 10 days in advance, how do you think they are going to nail down an accurate predition of weather 10 years in advance? Or even 10 months? Good luck on that one.

I never held "global warming" theory in high regard. The idea that we are going to change the world's climate by burning hydrocarbons, and building cities is pretty interesting, and at the same time, far fetched.

What we do as humans on this planet is so small in comparison to the other life forms residing here is pretty minimal. In sheer bio mass, humans are WAY down the list of life occupying the planet. Insects outnumber us by tens of thousands of pounds. Other mamals also outnumber us in bio mass. These "natural" sources of gases outnumber us by many times as well. (This is before we even start down the path of natual sources of gases from the sea, land and other geologic events like volcanos.)

I belive what we are watching is a normal cycle of the planet and it's weather systems we live in. Humans have little to do with it, and beyond some smog around the major cities, we have little to no effect. (And the smog is nothing compared to wild fire smoke, or a single volcanic event, those natual events can actually have a direct short term effect on the weather in some cases.) Imagine a Yellowstone sized volcano. About 50 miles or more in diameter, throwing up an ash plume miles into the atmosphere. Beyond the localized smothering of land with a thick layer of ash, the airborne ash would have a global effect. Perhaps you should lobby to pass laws to not allow the earth to have these volcanos? (Like gun control, you know what's best for the earth right?)

I say let's get rid of this silly theory as quickly as it's come into popular thought. The world has better things to worry about in my opinion.

 

[p5150]

There are many sources listed in the book. I'm not going to write them all down here. (Again.)

You never listed them in the first place.

Take out the urban effect on surface temp data, and the "overall" warming of the planet is suddenly alot less than the "global warming" theory suggests. (There are some saying a 3C change will happen, and others, with this data revised down based on city growth, and the verifiable increase of cities being hotter than forrests/farm land etc.) Revised, it's less than one degree C. And that is an estimate based on a guess that the source data was modified corectly. (It's called the Urban Effect on surface temp.)

You should note, through all your impeccable research, that the best indicator of GW is OCEAN TEMPS, not surface temps.

Note too, that I have yet to see a model on any super computer that shows anything close to accurate preditions of weather and tempature years in the future. This is why you can get a 10 day forcast, but generally it's revised every hour for the next 240 hours of that 10 days. THE MODELS ARE JUST A GUESS, and THEY ARE OFTEN WRONG.

If we can't predict the weather just 10 days in advance, how do you think they are going to nail down an accurate predition of weather 10 years in advance? Or even 10 months? Good luck on that one.

We are looking at historical data, not predicting the future.

Once again, are you going to continue to quote the book and state your opinion or are you going to post some data that is worth a shit?

 

[Justin]

We are looking at historical data, not predicting the future.

How are temperatures from so long ago being measured?

 

[Adjuster]

P5150, are you afraid to read the book?

 

[Adjuster]

Here, this is funny stuff.
Guess I was wrong, the little ice age is 10,000 years, and every 100,000 is the big one.

http://www.iceagenow.com/

You wanted sources? YOU GOT EM! Read this and weep, it's long, it's dry and it's scathing on the GW theory. (Using I might add, data that is very reliable, and makes sense, the SUN controlls much more on this planet than man ever will.)

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen/Landscheidt-1.html

Here is a quote from this article. Your going to love this gripping stuff.

There is cogent evidence that the Sun's eruptional activity, too, has a strong effect in the tropics. Fig. 2 after Neff et al. (2001) shows a strong correlation between solar eruptions, driving the solar wind, and tropical circulation and rainfall. The dark profile represents oxygen isotope variations (ä18O) in a dated stalagmite from Oman. The ä18O record, covering more than 3000 years (9.6 to 6.1 kyr before present), serves as a proxy for change in tropical circulation and monsoon rainfall. The bright Ä14C profile shows radiocarbon deviations derived from the analysis of dated tree rings. The level of radiocarbon production in the atmosphere depends on the changing intensity of cosmic rays. Because of the reverse relationship of cosmic rays with solar activity – strong solar wind forms a strong magnetic shield against cosmic rays whereas a weak solar wind shield reflects less cosmic rays - the radiocarbon record serves as a proxy of the Sun's activity. Most scientists think that these proxy data are related to the activity of sunspots and faculae linked to relatively weak changes in irradiance. Actually, the radiocarbon data are a proxy of the Sun' eruptional activity driving the solar wind. Energetic solar eruptions do not accumulate around the sunspot maximum. In most cycles they shun the maximum phase and can even occur close to a sunspot minimum. The upper panel in Fig. 2 covers the whole investigated interval, whereas the lower panel shows the nearly perfect synchronicity between the sun's eruptional activity and tropical circulation in detail.

To parahprase, it says the sun is directly responsible for cooler, or hotter temps at the equator. If you can read the entire article, it's very informative, yet most of it is WAY over the average persons head. (Mine included.)

 

[Joel W.]

How are temperatures from so long ago being measured?

the thermometer was invented in 1724... but there are other ways as well to detremine past temps. but i need coffee before i can answer your question better..

 

[Joel W.]

Here, this is funny stuff.
Guess I was wrong, the little ice age is 10,000 years, and every 100,000 is the big one. {QUOTE]

finally a link, ohh no its "another book for sale"....

your second link blames solar euruptions for the global warming? doesnt really disproove global warming isnt happening.... thats how the greenhouse gasses work , capturing the suns heat..

 

[Adjuster]

This however, is the best part of the scientific paper on the Sun's relationship to our planets weather and tempature.

Read it and weep you last holdouts to the Global Warming Theory.

(By the way, State of Fear is much better written. To bad this sun data was not used in the book, it's very compelling.)

10. IPCC's hypothesis of man-made warming
not in the way of global cooling

I do not expect that the effects of man-made greenhouse gases will eliminate the sun's predominance. If these effects were as strong as the IPCC pretends, my diverse climate forecasts, exclusively based on solar activity, would not have had any chance to turn out correct. This all the more so as they cover recent years and decades the warming of which, according to IPCC statements, cannot be explained by natural forcing.

The IPCC's “story lines”, far from forecasts as practised in other fields of science, are nearly exclusively supported by runs of General Circulation Models (GCM). These models are based on the same type of nonlinear differential equations which induced Lorenz in 1961 to acknowledge that long-range weather predictions are impossible because of the atmosphere's extreme sensitivity to initial conditions. It is not conceivable that the “Butterfly Effect” should disappear when the prediction range of a few days is extended to decades and centuries.

Some climatologists concede that there is a problem. Schönwiese (1994) remarks: “Consequently we should conclude that climatic change cannot be predicted (by GCMs). It is correct that the varied and complex processes in the atmosphere cannot be predicted beyond the theoretical limit of a month via step by step calculations in circulation models, neither today, nor in the future. Yet there is the possibility of a conditioned forecast. The condition is that a special factor within the complex cause and effect relationship is so strong that it clearly dominates all other factors. In addition, the behaviour of that single dominant causal factor must be predictable with certainty, or a high degree of probability.” A look at the literature shows that these conditions are not fulfilled. In addition, there are technical and mathematical difficulties. Peixoto and Oort (1992) aptly comment: “The integration of a fully coupled model including the atmosphere, ocean, land, and cryosphere with very different internal time scales poses almost insurmountable difficulties in reaching a final solution, even if all interacting processes were completely understood.”

So it is no wonder that validated GCM-forecasts are a rare species. The IPCC-hypothesis of global warming requires that long-wave radiation to space is reduced because of the accumulating anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Actually, satellites have observed a trend of increasing tropical long-wave radiation to space over the past two decades (Wielicki et al., 2002). GCMs predict greater increase in temperature with increasing distance from the equator, but observations show no net change in the polar regions in the past four decades (Comiso, 2000; Przybylak, 2000; Venegas and Mysak, 2000). According to the most recent data, Antarctica has cooled significantly (Doran et al., 2002) instead of warming.

Most important is a discrepancy between GMC-forecast and observation as to evaporation. Even if the IPCC's theoretical considerations were correct, CO2 alone could manage only about 0.8° C of warming within more than a century. This small amount of warming, however, would increase evaporation at the surface and raise the concentration of water vapour, by far the strongest greenhouse gas in the atmosphere. According to the climate models, this positive feedback would cause a much larger warming than CO2 and other weak greenhouse gases alone. So it is crucial for the IPCC-hypothesis of global warming that observation shows a decrease in evaporation in the Northern hemisphere over the past 50 years instead of the predicted increase (Roderick and Farquhar (2002). There are many other points, but they would go beyond the frame of this paper.

 

[Adjuster]

Just for you P5150, here are the references from this ONE article. (All scientic I might add.) (had to cut some off, there is a 15,000 charater limit you know. I just learned that.)

References

Adler, N. O. de and Elías, A. G. (2000): Solar variability associated to ionospheric, stratospheric, and tropospheric parameters. In: Vázquez , M. and Schmieder, B, ed.: The solar cycle and terrestrial climate. European Space Agency, Special Publication463, 509-512.

Balachandran, N. K., Rind, D., and Shindell, D. T. (1999): Effects of solar cycle variability on the lower stratosphere. J. Geophys. Res. 104, 27321-27339.

Baliunas, S. und Soon, W. (1995): Are variations in the length of the activity cycle related to changes in brightness in solar-type stars? Astrophys. J. 450, 896.

Beer, J. (2000): Polar ice as an archive for solar cycles and the terrestrial climate. In: Vázquez, M. and Schmieder, B, ed.: The solar cycle and terrestrial climate. European Space Agency, Special Publication 463, 671-680.
Beer, J. and Joos, C. F. (1994): 10Be as an indicator of solar variability and climate. In: E. Nesme-Ribes, ed.: The solar engine and its influence on terrestrial atmosphere and climate. Berlin, Springer-Verlag, 221-233.

Berner, U. and Streif, H. J., ed. (2000): Klimafakten: Der Rückblick – Ein Schlüssel für die Zukunft. Stuttgart, E. Schweizerbart'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung.

Blizard, J. B. (1987): Long-range prediction of solar activity. In: Rampino, M. R., Sanders, J. E., Newman, W. S. und Königsson, L. K., eds.: Climate. History, Periodicity, and predictability. New York, van Nostrand Reinhold, 415-420.

Bossolasco, M., Dagnino, I., Elena, A. und Flocchini, G. (1973): Thunderstorm activity and interplanetary magnetic field. Riv. Italiana Geofis. 22, 293.

Brier, G. W. (1979): Use of the difference equation methods for predicting sunspot numbers. In: B. M. McCormac und T. A. Seliga, ed.: Solar-terrestrial influences on weather and climate. Dordrecht, Reidel, 209-214.

Brooks, C. E. P. (1926): The relations of solar and meteorological phenomena – A summary of the literature from 1914 to 1924. Paris, First Report of the Commission for the Study of Solar and Terrestrial Relationships, ICSU, 66-100.

Bucha, V. (1983): Direct relations between solar activity and atmospheric circulation. Studia geophysica et geodaetica 27, 19-45.

Butler, C. J. (1996): A two-century comparison of sunspot cycle length and temperature change – the evidence from Northern Ireland. In: ESEF The Global Warming Debate. Cambridge, European Sciencce and Environment Forum, 215-223.

Cliver, E. W., Boriakoff, V., Feynman, J. (1998): Solar variability and climate change:Geomagnetic aa index and global surface temperature. Geophys. Res. Lett. 25, 1035-1038.

Cole, T. W. (1973): Periodicities in solar activity. Solar Phys. 30, 103-110.

Comiso, J. C. (2000): Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements. J. Climate 13, 1674-1696.

Dicke, R. H.: The sun's rotation and relativity. Nature 202 (1964), 432.

Doran, P. D., Priscu, J. C., Lyons, W. B., Walsh, J. E., Fountain, A. G., McKnight, D. M., Moorhead, D. L., Virginia, R. A., Wall, D. H., Clow, G. D., Fritsen, C. H., McKay, C. P., and Parsons, A. N. (2002): Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response. Nature 415, 517-520.

Eddy, J. A. (1977): Climate and the changing sun. Clim. Change 1, 173-190.

Egorova, L. Y., Vovk, V. Ya., and Troshichev, O. A. (2000): Influence of variations of cosmic rays on atmospheric pressure and temperature in the Southern pole region. J. Atmos. Solar-Terr. Phys. 62, 955-966.

Fairbridge, R. W. and Shirley, J. H. (1987): Prolonged minima and the 179-year cycle of the solar inertial motion. Solar Physics 110, 191-220.

Friis-Christensen, E. and Lassen, K. (1991): Length of the solar cycle: an indicator of solar activity closely associated with climate. Science 254, 698-700.

Gleissberg, W. (1958): The 80-year sunspot cycle. J. Brit. Astron. Ass. 68, 150.

Haigh, J. D.(1996): On the impact of solar variability on climate. Nature 272, 981-984.

Hartmann, R. (1972): Vorläufige Epochen der Maxima und Minima des 80-jährigen Sonnenfleckenzyklus. Veröff. Astr. Inst. Univ. Frankfurt 50, 118.

Herman, J. R. and Goldberg (1978): Sun, weather, and climate. New York, Dover Publications.

Hodell, D. A., Brenner, M., Curtis, J. H., and Guilderson, T. (2001): Solar forcing of drought frequency in the Maya lowlands. Science 292, 1367-1370.

Hoyt, D. V. (1979): Variations in sunspot structure and climate. Clim. Change 2, 79-92.

Hoyt, D. V. and Schatten, K. H. (1997): The role of the sun in climate change. New York-Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1997.

Joselyn, J. A. (1997): EOS. Trans. Geophys. Union 78, 210.

Juckett, D. A. (2000): Solar activity cycles, north/south asymmetries, and differential rotation associated with spin-orbit variations. Solar Phys. 191, 201.

Labitzke, K. und van Loon, H. (1993): Some recent studies of probable connection between solar and atmospheric variability. Ann. Geophysicae 11, 1084.

Lamb, H. H. (1977): Climate: Present, past, and future. Vol. 2: Climatic history and the future. London, Methuen, p. 430.

Landscheidt, T.(1976): Beziehungen zwischen der Sonnenaktivität und dem Massenzentrum des Sonnensystems. Nachr. D. Olbersgesellschaft Bremen 100, 3-19.

Landscheidt, T. (1981): Swinging sun, 79-year cycle, and climatic change. J. interdiscipl. Cycle Res. 12, 3-19.

Landscheidt, T. (1983): Solar oscillations, sunspot cycles, and climatic change. In: McCormac, B. M., ed.: Weather and climate responses to solar variations. Boulder, Associated University Press, 293-308.

Landscheidt, T. (1984): Cycles of solar flares and weather. In: Moerner, N.A. und Karlén, W., eds..: Climatic changes on a yearly to millenial basis. Dordrecht, D. Reidel, 475, 476.

Landscheidt, T. (1986 a): Long-range forecast of energetic x-ray bursts based on cycles of flares. In: Simon, P. A., Heckman, G., and Shea, M. A., eds.: Solar-terrestrial predictions. Proceedings of a workshop at Meudon, 18.-22. Juni 1984. Boulder, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 81-89.

Landscheidt, T. (1986 b): Long-range forecast of sunspot cycles. In: Simon, P. A., Heckman, G. and Shea, M. A., eds.: Solar-terrestrial predictions. Proceedings of a workshop at Meudon, 18.-22. Juni 1984. Boulder, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 48-57.

Landscheidt, T. (1987): Long-range forecasts of solar cycles and climate change. In: Rampino, M. R., Sanders, J. E., Newman, W. S. and Königsson, L. K., eds.: Climate. History, Periodicity, and predictability. New York, van Nostrand Reinhold, 421-445.

Landscheidt, T. (1988): Solar rotation, impulses of the torque in the Sun's motion, and climatic variation. Clim. Change 12, 265-295.

Landscheidt, T.(1990): Relationship between rainfall in the northern hemisphere and impulses of the torque in the Sun's motion. In: K. H. Schatten and A. Arking, eds.: Climate impact of solar variability. Greenbelt, NASA, 259-266.

Landscheidt, T.(1995a): Global warming or Little Ice Age? In: Finkl, C. W., ed.: Holocene cycles. A Jubilee volume in celebration of the 80th birthday of Rhodes W. Fairbridge. Fort Lauderdale, The Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), 371-382.

Landscheidt, T. (1995b): Die kosmische Funktion des Goldenen Schnitts. In: Richter, P. H., ed.: Sterne, Mond und Kometen. Bremen, Hauschild, 240-276.

Landscheidt, T. (1998 a): Forecast of global temperature, El Niño, and cloud coverage by astronomical means. In: Bate, R., ed.: Global Warming. The continuing debate. Cambridge, The European Science and Environment Forum (ESEF), 172-183.

Landscheidt, T. (1998 b): Solar activity - A dominant factor in climate dynamics.
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm.

Landscheidt, T. (1999 a): Solar activity controls El Niño and La Niña.
http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/sun-enso.htm.

Landscheidt, T. (1999 b): Extrema in sunspot cycle linked to Sun's motion. Solar Physics 189, 413-424.

Landscheidt, T. (2000 a): Solar forcing of El Niño and La Niña. In: Vázquez , M. and Schmieder, B, ed.: The solar cycle and terrestrial climate. European Space Agency, Special Publication 463, 135-140.

Landscheidt, T. (2000 b): Solar wind near Earth: Indicator of variations in global temperature. In: Vázquez, M. and Schmieder, B, ed.: The solar cycle and terrestrial climate. European Space Agency, Special Publication 463, 497-500.

Landscheidt, T. (2000 c): River Po discharges and cycles of solar activity. Hydrol. Sci. J. 45, 491-493.

Landscheidt, T. (2000 d): Sun's role in the satellite-balloon-surface issue.
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/temps.htm.

Landscheidt, T. (2000 e): New confirmation of strong solar forcing of climate.
http://www.john-daly.com/po.htm.

Landscheidt, T. (2001 a): Solar eruptions linked to North Atlantic Oscillation.
http://www.john-daly.com/theodor/solarnao.htm.

Landscheidt, T. (2001 b): Trends in Pacific Decadal Oscillation subjected to solar forcing.
http://www.john-daly/theodor/pdotrend.htm.

Landscheidt, T. (2002): El Niño forecast revisited. http://www.john-daly.com/sun-enso/revisited.htm.

Landscheidt, T. und Wöhl, H. (1986): Solares Aktivitätsminimum erst 1989/90? Sterne und Weltraum, 584.

Lassen, K. and Friis-Christensen, E. (1995): Variability of the solar cycle length during the past five centuries and the apparent association with terrestrial climate. J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 835.

Lau, K. M. and Weng, H. (1995): Climate signal detection using wavelet transform. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 76, 2391-2402.

Lean, J., Beer, J., and Bradley, R. (1995): Reconstruction of solar irradiance since 1610: implications for climate change. Geophys. Res. Lett. 22, 3195-3198.

Lockwood, R., Stamper, R., and Wild, M. N. (1999): A doubling of the Sun's coronal magnetic field during the past 100 years. Nature 399, 437-439.

Neubauer, L. (1983): Sudden stratospheric warmings correlated with sudden commencements and solar proton events. In: McCormac, B. M. (ed.), Weather and Climate Responses to Solar Variations. Colorado Associated University Press, Boulder, 395-397.

Markson, R. und Muir, M. (1980): Solar wind control of the earth's electric field. Science 208, 979.

Neff, U., Burns, S. J., Mangini, A., Mudelsee, M., Fleitmann, D., and Matter, A. (2001): Strong coherence between solar variability and the monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr ago. Nature 411, 290-293.

Pallé Bagó, E. and Butler, C. J. (2000): The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming. Astron. Geophys. 41, 4.18-4.22.

Pang, K. D. and Yau, K. K. (2002): Ancient observations link changes in the sun's brightness and erath's climate. EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 83, 481, 489-490.

Peixoto, J. P. and Oort, A. H. (1992): Physics of climate. New York, American Institute of Physics.