Cosmological cycles may explain ancient climate change on a scale of tens of thousands of years. If it was tough on non-human plants and animals too bad. We could be on a long term cooling cycle which is being overwhelmed by warming via a non-cosmological source. By coincidence tomato growers use the greenhouse effect to warm things up. Perhaps that provides a clue to comparatively rapid warming in the last century.

One day fossil fuels will be used up and Earth will revert to cosmological cycles. The big if is whether h. saps can make it til then.

Taswegian, you may be correct about hs surviving that far.....

We are entering the "End Times" now. Ask the JW mob.

David

Sunspots and solar winds affect our climate. And there's an 11-year cycle from maximum activity to none, when the sun takes on the fried egg look. Then there's a 200-year cycle, where the sun waxes and wanes, warms and cools.

And it's expanding and will in time consume the solar system.

None of this (these) known science (observations) explain current climate change. Which if following known cycles, would be ushering in a mini-ice age.

If we want our species to survive? Then we need to change and accept that planet earth is a lifeboat, and we are all in it together.

Doing what you've always done while expecting a different result, is madness. Or where the inmates have taken over and are running the asylum.

Time to remove the roadblocks/prevaricating politicians and sweep them out of office ASAP!

We the world needs to electrify our economies and replace fossil fuels with clean carbon free alternatives.

Nuclear power, MSR thorium, MSR nuclear waste burners, burning waste we are paid to take, hydrogen and a host of others that we can do or are available.
Alan B.

The author's suggestion that solar activity is the primary driver of recent climate change is not supported by the scientific consensus emphasising the significant impact of human-caused carbon dioxide emissions, which is based on a substantial body of evidence demonstrating the critical role of greenhouse gases in driving recent global warming; a consensus based on extensive research and analysis by hundreds of scientists globally.

The author's focus on solar variability and the effects of sunspots and solar cycles overstates their impact on climate change, especially when considering long-term trends. Studies indicate that the influence of solar irradiance variations on Earth's climate over the past century has been relatively minor compared to the effects of greenhouse gases. The marked increase in global temperatures observed since the industrial revolution cannot be explained by solar activity alone.

Furthermore, the article presents controversial hypotheses, such as those proposed by Svensmark regarding "cosmoclimatology," as if they were widely accepted or conclusively proven. While these ideas contribute to our understanding of potential climate drivers, it must be said that the scientific community remains divided on their validity. The relationship between cosmic rays, cloud cover, and climate change has yet to be conclusively established, and these theories do not enjoy the same level of consensus support as other explanations for climate change.

Additionally, the author underrepresents of the vast amount of peer-reviewed research supporting the significant role of anthropogenic factors in climate change. Engaging with this literature would provide a more balanced view and strengthen the article's arguments by considering the evidence and counterpoints from a broader scientific perspective.

Lastly, the author touches on themes of political correctness and the suppression of alternative viewpoints, introducing a non-scientific dimension to the debate. While scientific inquiry should remain open to new ideas and evidence, suggesting that the mainstream scientific view here is politically motivated is baseless and falls squarely in the realms of conspiratorial thinking.

The scientific community benefits from thorough debates and the exploration of diverse hypotheses, but they must be grounded in solid evidence and a comprehensive understanding of existing research, not cherry-picking and conspiracy theories.

I've been banging on about the Svensmark theory on these pages for a long time now....

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20516#362081

It remains, in my view, the best explanation of the post Little Ice Age temperature rise. Indeed it remains the best explanation for things like the Little Ice Age.

In the end, the science and the actual climate will have the final say on all this. But the interesting issue at this time is the debauchment of science in the name of protecting the current, favoured narrative. The decisions by CERN to supress and/or massage the results of their experiment in the Cosmic Ray Flux theories is but one data point in the ongoing efforts to bolster the increasingly untenable CO2 mania.

Western civilisation was built on the victory of science over superstition. It seems we are reverting while trying ever-so-hard to convince ourselves that we are still following the science.