OutSourcedNews(OSN)

Short cycles generate high sunspot maxima, wheras long cycles are
characterized by weaker sunspot activity. Friis-Christensen and Lassen
have shown that the close correlation extends back to the 16th century
[68]. C. J. Butler [10] corroborated these results when he investigated
English temperature data since 1796. Together with the results
elaborated by Labitzke and van Loon this is an indication that the solar
influence on climate is considerably stronger than IPCC scientists assume.
http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm



The most convincing argument yet, supporting a strong impact of the
sun’s activity on climate change, is a direct connection between cloud
coverage and *cosmic rays*, discovered by H. Svensmark and E.
Friis-Christensen [111] in 1996. It is shown in Figure 6. Clouds have a
hundred times stronger effect on weather and climate than carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere. Even if the atmosphere’s CO2 content doubled, its
effect would be cancelled out if the cloud cover expanded by 1%, as
shown by H. E. Landsberg [53]. Svensmark’s and Friis-Christensen’s
result is therefore of great importance. The thin curve in Figure 6
presents the monthly mean counting rates of neutrons measured by the
ground-based monitor in Climax, Colorado (right scale). This is an
indirect measure of the strength of galactic and *solar cosmic rays*. The thick curve plots the 12-month running average of the global cloud cover expressed as change in percent (left scale). It is based on homogeneous observations made by geostationary satellites over the oceans. The two curves show a close correlation. The correlation coefficient is
r = 0.95.

Short-range variations in the intensity of *cosmic rays*, caused by
energetic solar eruptions, have the same effect, though shorter. The
plot shows that strong *cosmic rays* go along with a larger cloud cover,
whereas weak *cosmic rays* shrink the cloud cover. The global cloud
coverage diminished from its peak at the end of 1986

" >I hate to break in here but you might remember the Orange groves that
froze from 1980 to 1989....
I just noticed that the freeze of the `80s matches this solar data.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3837/is_1991_August/ai_11911340
< "

 

 to its bottom in the middle of 1990 by more than 3%. According to
observations by V. Ramanathan, B. R. Barkstrom, and E. F. Harrison [91],
clouds have a net cooling effect of -17 W/m2 . Svensmark and
Friis-Christensen [111] conclude from the diminution of this cooling
effect between 1986 and 1990 that the solar irradiance has increased by
about 1.5 W/m2 within these three and a half years. A change of this
order is quite remarkable, since the total radiative forcing by carbon
dioxide accumulated since 1750 has been estimated by the IPCC not to go
beyond 1.5 W/m2 . This means that cosmic rays, strongly modulated by
solar activity, achieve an effect within three and a half years for
which the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere needs
centuries. This shows clearly...
-END-

" If the sun it's self is effecting Cloud cover via cosmic rays, What about the effect that the magnetic field has on the cosmic rays...
Any way you look at it, the cosmic rays will effect the earth, or at least that's NASA's opinion, they point to the Magnetosphere as a major player. Others suggest communications satellites could also be effected.

The cloud cover correlation that links cosmic rays to the weather and so called global warming isn't far fetched, I'm more inclined to believe that the sun causes warming than CO2, Warming isn't necessarily bad or human made or long term. "

 

 



Scientists have been observing changes in the direction of earth's magnetic field which took place recently as well as in the distant past. NASA’s website features a map showing the gradual northward migration of the north magnetic pole in the past century and a half. Since more than double the time interval has elapsed since the last reversal, compared to the time lapse between the previous two pole reversals, some believe we may be overdue for the next north-south flip. (1,2) However, though the interval between reversals of the Earth’s magnetic field can be as short as 5,000 years, it can also be as long as 50 million years. There does not seem to be any logic or rule governing the planet’s behavior.

Countering this frightening vision, NASA predicts that, rather than declining to zero gauss, the magnetic field would become disordered. Thus we might for short time have more than one north and south pole on the planet. This official scientific stance says that the magnetosphere which shields us from *cosmic radiation* would not entirely disappear either. Thus, while communications would be erratic and perhaps at times completely inactivated, humans would find ways to survive. However, there are dissenters in the ranks, pointing to the vast South Atlantic magnetic anomaly and radiation damage to satellites over that region attributed to weakening of the protective magnetosphere. (4)
http://www.pureenergysystems.com/news/2005/02/27/6900064_Magnet_Pole_Shift/