Climate Feedback

Sun not a cause of global warming

Posted by Olive Heffernan on behalf of Quirin Schiermeier

The sun, despite claims to the contrary, is not a factor in recent climate change.

Nature had a news article last week about a paper – and the reactions to it – by Mike Lockwood and Claus Froehlich. Their comprehensive (and conclusive) (re)-analysis of solar trends concludes that the sum of natural changes in solar activity since 1985 would have cooled our climate, were it not for the strong warming effect of increased greenhouse gas concentrations.

The findings, published in Proceedings of the Royal Society A, went online yesterday and have triggered a world-wide echo in the media and in the climate-crazy blogosphere.

That is surprising inasmuch the data are by not what you would call a scientific breakthrough. Indeed, most climate scientists will hardly consider the findings particularly new or surprising. Granted, bringing into line solar observations and measurements (and associated theories) collected during the 20th century is anything but trivial. But no matter how one looks at the issue, existing data were long supposed sufficient to disprove the only seemingly reasonable idea that global warming might be the natural result of increased solar activity.

Lockwood and Froehlich’s study does however go a step further. The two find that the correlation between solar activity and temperature trends post-1985 is actually negative. This means that changes to the sun (including cosmic ray intensity, for that matter) have contributed Less than Zero to the recent sharp rise in average global temperatures.

End of debate? Unfortunately no, I would guess. The inaptly so-named ‘climate sceptics’ who are keen to let mankind off the global warming hook, will not easily abandon this battle-tried warhorse. A natural sun-climate link, albeit invisible and unverifiable, is just the most persuasive among the set of quasi-plausible arguments with which upright eco-optimists attempt to dismiss as a (left-wing? anti-liberal?) conspiracy theory mankind’s responsibility for global warming. The ‘Great Global Warming Swindle’ documentary, to be aired tomorrow in Australia, is just the most-recent example of such attempts to argue that climate change is the effect of the sun.

To further confuse things and the public, solar changes do seem to have had an impact on past climates. Moreover, it is at least not impossible that cosmic ray intensity does influences clouds and climate. There’s nothing wrong with investigating these things – that’s how science goes. But blaming the sun for recent global warming is no science-backed position anymore – it is deliberate disinformation.

Quirin Schiermeier

German Correspondent



  1. Report this comment

    Eduardo Zorita said:

    Unfortunately, this is in my opinion another example of what science journalism should not be:

    take a scientific paper, barely one week old, and elevate it to the final word, which it is almost a crime to argue against. Many of us would argue that in science there is no such final word. Results that had been taken for rock-solid are revisited and found incomplete, or are qualified, or even debunked. This is not different in climatology, and yet policy-makers have to accept this state of affairs take decisions and act in situations which might not been 100% certain. Much more so in the field of climate change.

    In the present example, it would to be clear to many that a lack of trend in recorded solar output rules out any role of the sun in the recent warming. However, a quick look at the published literature reveals that this view might be somewhat superficial. For instance, in a paper by Waple, Mann and Bradley (Climate Dynamics vol 18, 563 ; 2002) a lag between solar irradiance and global mean surface temperature of about 10-15 years has been identified. This would mean that if last solar grand maximum took place in 1985, the corresponding maximum of the temperature response would have occurred between 1995 and 2000.

    To be fair, this is also just one single paper and perhaps other analyses may have reached different conclusions on the lag between sun and temperature, but it illustrates that things may be more complex than at first sight. Even if the case for solar influence on recent Earth temperatures looks weak, as I think it does, good science journalism should rather try to disentangle these different aspects for the interested non-expert, instead of repeating the well-known political litany, which in any case can be read everyday in the tabloids. But, alas, this would be deliberate information.

  2. Report this comment

    David C. Smith said:

    Mr. Zorita:

    Thank you for posting the comment above. I don’t understand how a correspondent from a top science magazine can write such a blatantly biased and unscientific review on a blog that is supposed to rise above such amateurism.

    Question for Nature Blog: Who makes the editorial decisions for what contributions should be posted or not posted? I would prefer that posts be limited to scientists and researchers, or at least that contributions from researchers be distinguished from those by other opinion-writers.

  3. Report this comment

    JamesG said:

    If there is now a general scientific agreement that the Sun has played an important part in climate change from the last century to 1985 then that is indeed a significant change in attitudes because the solar irradiance argument is still being totally dismissed by many scientists simply because it doesn’t match up those latter 20 years – despite a pretty good correlation for the previous years. Can we all now try to live with this conclusion which is based more on common sense than common science and which may reconcile the debate so we can move on to the next level? Nir Shaviv stated that 2/3 of warming is likely solar and the rest is likely man-made. So is he now to be considered mainstream and not a skeptic? If so, hoorah!

  4. Report this comment

    Edwyn Mayhew said:

    In a way the sun is ultimately the cause of global warming because it sustains the existence of the human species who contribute greatly to global warming. Im not sure if thats a bit of a silly comment but it does indicate that the idea of responsibility for climate change is quite complex philosophical issue and perhaps we accept rather simplistic reductionist answers instead of investigating the nuances of responsibility.

  5. Report this comment

    S. Frankild said:

    Have IQ suddenly dropped in Germany or has it just dropped for the well paid and unprofessional “divas” of the UN sponsored “climate-change-propaganda institute” (IPCC)?

    The blog by Mr. Heffernan is an amazingly wrong contribution and it is an embracement for Nature which already has a bad record for publishing junk science on the subject of climate change.

    Real scientists would tell you that it is call “climate science” not “climate change”. Yes the climate does change but through natural processes first and foremost. The word “change” is evident of a contaminating bias which costs billions of dollars worldwide while people are starving and dying in the millions of common diseases. Many deaths could be prevented if “climate change” was not draining every dollar we have for improving the state of the world.

    The conclusions of Mr. Heffernan, and the paper he refers to, are as wrong as wrong will ever be. Mr. Heffernan reports that since 1985 there has been a negative correlation between solar activity and climate change. Please consider the very very tiny infinitely small time scale! 27 years of negative correlation!? Let us hurry to conclude the sun makes the earth cooler than without the sun!!!! No child, or Nobel price winner in physics for that matter, would accept such a blatantly attempt to disprove all testable scientific knowledge we have on solar influence dating back billions of years. Of cause the sun heats – come on Mr. Heffernan – who are you trying to fool – are you an educated man at all? I do not think so for a minute.

    Mr. Heffernan makes a philosophical mistake of the size of the Hindenburger – here is why: If the correlation is negative and significant then the sun HAS a role by his own account – a significant role – it is just not the correct role unfortunately. In Mr. Heffernans “bizzarro-world” the sun is a cooling factor for the earth. It would be funny if it was not so sad.

  6. Report this comment

    Olive Heffernan said:

    Dear S. Frankild,

    Many thanks for your comment. I should probably first point out that I am female and thus not ‘Mr’ and secondly that the piece on solar activity and climate change was written in fact by my colleague Quirin Schiermeier, as indicated on the post itself.

    As for the content of your comment, no-one is saying that the sun doesn’t heat or that the earth would be warmer without the sun.

    Rather, the news piece and blog post is looking at the question of whether the sun’s activity can be deemed resposnible for the increase in global temperatures in recent times….and concludes that solar activity is not responsible for these trends. The paper finds that solar activity, which goes in cycles, has been relatively (and that’s a key word!) weak since 1985, and therefore can’t explain the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after this date.

    I hope that helps to clarify your understanding of this post!

    PS. This has brought to my attention the potential for confusion associated with my posting comments on behlf of others, so from now on I’ll just include the contributors’ name at the top and details at the end of the post.

  7. Report this comment

    Kiminori Itoh said:

    Although I agree with the claim that globally averaged temperature increased after 1985 while solar activity has shown some decrease, this means neither that; 1) solar activity changes will not affect the global climate in future, nor that 2) we understand the contribution of solar activity changes to the global climate (in particular, the first half of the 20th century).

    As for the first point, there are considerable amount of papers which show a large effect of solar activity changes on human society: for instance, D. Verschuren et al., Rainfall and drought in equatorial east Africa during the past 1,100 years, Nature, 403, 410 – 414 (2000): and, J. Nyberg et al., Low Atlantic hurricane activity in the 1970s and 1980s compared to the past 270 years, Nature, 447, 698-702 (2007). The former finds a good correlation between solar activity and rainfall at the region in question, and the latter suggests solar UV changes and resultant wind changes in the troposphere induced by ozone layer heating. Moreover, there is some evidence that solar magnetic activity can affect North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO): for instance, F. Boberg and H. Lundstedt, Solar Wind Variations Related to Fluctuations of the North Atlantic Oscillation, Geophys. Res. Lett., (2002) 29, 1718, 10.1029/2002GL014903: and D. R. Palamara and E. A. Bryant, Geomagnetic activity forcing of the Northern Annular Mode via the stratosphere, Annales Geophysicae (2004) 22: 725–731. NAO (and AO) is, of course, a dominant driver of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere, and its influence (even its sign) is not uniform spatially and temporary.

    Thus, the solar activity changes may largely affect regional climates rather than globally averaged temperature because positive change and negative change are cancelled with each other when averaged. Thus, it is very dangerous to consider the solar activity changes to be minor in the climate change because local and/or regional climate changes are really important for us.

    As for the second point, we yet to explain the increase in the global temperature during the first half of the 20th century. In reality, climate models which seem to succeed to explain the temperature increase assume large solar output changes, e.g., 0.5 % (IPCC AR4 WGI report). However, it is theoretically likely that solar output changes are no more than 0.1 % during this period (e.g., H. C. Spruit, Theory of Luminosity and Radius Variations, in “The Sun in Time,” ed. by C. P. Sonett et al., pp. 118-158). This means that the large temperature increase before 1950 is not explained in terms of solar output changes.

    When we cannot explain the first half of the 20th century temperature change with solar output change, then why we can deny its contribution during the latter half? It seems to me that the present situation (and the finding of Lockwood and Froehlich) only tells us that our understanding of the effect of solar activity on the climate is still insufficient and necessary.

  8. Report this comment

    Tarun K Juyal said:

    I am a regular reader of your blog. And I am very impress with your blog upon Global Warming. Now I am also write a blog upon Global Warming. This blog is collection of news & reviews like the study found that global warming since 1985 has been caused neither by an increase in solar radiation nor by a decrease in the flux of galactic cosmic rays. Some researchers had also suggested that the latter might influence global warming because the rays trigger cloud formation.

  9. Report this comment

    Timo Hämeranta said:

    About solar influence please see the following new study:

    Camp, Charles D., and Ka Kit Tung, 2007. Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection. Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L14703, doi:10.1029/2007GL030207, July 18, 2007


    By projecting surface temperature data (1959–2004) onto the spatial structure obtained objectively from the composite mean difference between solar max and solar min years, we obtain a global warming signal of almost 0.2°K attributable to the 11-year solar cycle. The statistical significance of such a globally coherent solar response at the surface is established for the first time.

  10. Report this comment

    PaulM said:

    The paper of Lockwood and Frohlich is simply wrong, and the commentaries on it such as that by Schiermeier are even worse. The paper was not ‘comprehensive’. The only significant measure is the Sun’s TSI (total solar irradiance); L&F chose one dataset (PMOD) but if they had chosen the other (ACRIM) they would have found a small positive trend. The negative trend that they claim is less than one part in 10,000 over 20 years, way below the accuracy of the instrumentation, and quite insignificant.

    What is really irritating is that one does not need to be an expert in the field to reach these conclusions. All that is required is basic numeracy plus the ability to look at the data objectively. It is sad that these abilities appear to be lacking in so many journalists and even scientists.

  11. Report this comment

    S. Frankild said:

    Dear Ms. Heffernan

    I acknowledge that you are posting on behalf of other people but you chose to publish the posting nevertheless. This is unfortunate due to the facts that I presented in my own comments as well as the comments of a few other people on the blog.

    Your response to me was:

    “As for the content of your comment, no-one is saying that the sun does not heat or that the earth would be warmer without the sun.”

    That is incorrect (again). The reasoning Quirin Schiermeier presented IS INDEED fundamentally flawed and totally orthogonal to all current knowledge. There is no turning back now. You do argue for a “theory” in which a positive solar output can cause a negative influence on the heating of the earth. Boltzmann would turn in his grave if he knew that someone was actually seriously saying this.

    Here are your own words from the posting:

    “Their comprehensive (and conclusive) (re)-analysis of solar trends concludes that the sum of natural changes in solar activity since 1985 would have cooled our climate”


    “This means that changes to the sun (including cosmic ray intensity, for that matter) have contributed Less than Zero to the recent sharp rise in average global temperatures.”

    These claims are is preposterous! Those two sentences are nothing less than illegitimate claims and it is entirely fair to call this kind of manipulative reasoning for its rightful name: it is JUNK SCIENCE!

    The statements directly violate the first law of thermodynamics and the law of energy conservation. You have argued against the most basic knowledge of the physical world and no matter what you may say after this, the damage is done. You have made a deliberate attack to corrupt science and you are partly responsible for the negative effects this kind of ill-will religious ranting may cause. Shame on you.

    You simply cannot ever claim that higher order effects are larger than the first order effects in the relative simple energy calculus regarding solar energy output and earth energy input. No claims of “complexity” can disregard basic energy conservation. A hotter sun MUST lead to an INCREASE in temperature to the first order i.e. the order of our models that contain most of the predictive power (please not this). The time delay between the solar energy input and the rise in global temperature is in the order of a decade (as correctly pointed out another commentator Mr. Eduardo Zorita on july 15). Do not confuse this with a cooling role of the sun – it will never ever happen. You fool no-one.

    I am through discussing this subject with you as you are clearly not compelled to listen to reason or simply accept the natural laws of thermodynamics. Deep down you must know you are contaminating science with ridiculous claims and because someone can get a paper published it does not make it so. It is just a matter of time before the fabricated lies of the global warming community (religious sect perhaps?) are accepted to be completely false by the general public. You can fool someone for a time, but you cannot fool everybody all the time. Do not quit your day job.

  12. Report this comment

    Adrianne said:

    The interesting conclusion that the sun is not to blame for recent warming could have been common scientific ground since long, if more attention had been given to the “climatic revolution” as the dramatic temperature increase in the Arctic from 1918 to 1940 had been called by H.W.Ahlmann back in 1946, (The Geographical Journal, 1946). Actually it was primarily a “Big Spitsbergen Warming” which started in winter 1918/19 with a temperature jump of almost 10 degrees, as now thoroughly explained at: . Neither the sun nor CO2 could have triggered this event, as Spitsbergen is without sunshine during winter for many months. And how is the event judged today? This 90 years old Arctic warming remains “one of the most puzzling climate anomalies of the 20th century”, says Lennart Bengtsson, et al, JoC, 2004. The given reference tells a different story, at least it is setting certain facts right:

    (1) The “climate revolution” in the Arctic started in winter 1918/19, and

    (2) The location of the climate revolution was Spitsbergen.

    Only when this facts are clear and acknowledged, one may find out while already in 1930, B.J. Birkeland regarded this event as “probably be the greatest yet known on earth”, Met. Zeitschrift 1930, and what has caused the event.

  13. Report this comment

    D.Cutler said:


    Please keep posting. We need more of your informed analysis.

  14. Report this comment

    Ben said:

    S Farnkild,

    “The statements directly violate the first law of thermodynamics and the law of energy conservation. You have argued against the most basic knowledge of the physical world and no matter what you may say after this, the damage is done”

    I think you are misinterpreting what Ms. Heffernan is saying. No one is arguing that the sun does not warm the earth. Obviously it does, regardless of the energy output. What the paper says, is that the TREND in solar forcing over the most recent period would lead to cooling. The sun is still warming the earth, obviously, just warming it LESS. You may disagree with the substance of the paper, but the personal attacks are hardly fair. I encourage you to submit a comment or your own analysis of the paper to Proceedings of the Royal Society, if you feel so strongly.

  15. Report this comment

    D.Cutler said:

    I have read that the IPCC models involve only a very small direct warming effect for CO2, with the main effect being the result of amplification of this initial effect by an increase in evaporation of water. This would be consistent with water vapour being a far more important greenhouse gas than CO2, but I have been unable to get independent confirmation. Can anyone help?

  16. Report this comment

    S. Frankild said:

    Dear Ben

    The Lockwood and Froehlich paper is flawed in many ways and the authors are not experts in climatology. They make the mistake of assuming a 1:1 correspondence between solar activity and earth heating, forgetting the time-delay it takes to heat the entire earth heat capacity of the atmosphere, water and land masses. The sun is the master and earth is the slave.

    Lockwood and Froehlich make their wrong conclusion by assuming the 1:1 correspondence between solar activity and earth warming. The missing time-delay makes them conclude that solar activity is negatively correlated with warming based on less than 30 years of observation – not nearly enough time to spot the real trend. Mr. Nir Shaviv – an expert on climatology – describes the massive errors Lockwood and Froehlich makes:

    The actual cause of earth climate variation (change if you like) has been described by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel D. Marsh and corroborated by tons of evidence since then (ice core drills etc.) dating billions of years back. This explanation implicates the sun as playing two roles in earth warming and cooling:

    Role no. 1) solar wind + deep space radiation controls earth cloud cover. More solar wind equals less cloud cover equals a hotter earth.

    Role no. 2) is basic thermodynamics.

    Thus, we already have massive information of solar activity and earth temperature. It all translates to the fact that a more “active” sun will translate into a more warm earth. This trend is normalized by the deep space radiation, but the fact remains: The SUNTEMP relationship is undeniably stronger than any minute influence of the weak greenhouse gas CO2 everybody is talking about. Water vapor is 10.000 times more concentrated in the atmosphere and it is a many times more potent greenhouse gas compared to CO2. Lockwood and Froehlich have been able to publish a paper with an embracing conclusion. Its really amazing they got through the review process.

  17. Report this comment

    Mike M. said:

    The sad thing about this whole argument is how much some people WANT man to be responsible for global warming. Froelich and Lockwood concede that the sun has been responsible in the past for climate change…just not this time. Without understanding exactly how the sun has done this in the past how can they be so sure it is not responsible now? Personally, I’ll wait for the results of the CLOUD experiment at the CERN lab in Geneva before I rule it out.

  18. Report this comment

    bigcitylib said:

    S. Frankild,

    That argument does not work, it seems to me, because the other matches between solar activity and Earth warming do NOT take into account any delay.

    So if you invoke a delay to explain a lack of correlation in this case, you have to apply it to previous cycles and, it seems to me, suddenly the solar/earth warming matches will all fall out of synch for ALL OF THOSE.

  19. Report this comment

    S. Frankild said:

    Dear Bigcitylib,

    Time-delays are as real as this blog. As in any heat-exchange system there is a delay between the forcing and the effect. When you warm a cup of water there is a delay. The heater element warms to 100 degrees Celsius and then slowly the water average temperature follows – with some delay you can imagine. The water does not boil immediately – if so – where do you bye your water heater? I would like such a device. The same thing is of cause true for all solar activity forcings on temperature. Even the light takes 8 minutes to travel to us, so you have a time-delay again. Compared to the minute cup of water in your kitchen, the earth is a gigantic reservoir. I am sure you agree. You do not heat the earth in a matter of minutes. The earth as a system takes decades to heat or cool. The oceans take hundreds of years to warm/cool. That makes sense right? I hope so because there is pretty much water on earth. Time-delays are a natural part of basic equations of thermodynamics.

    Let me mention another time-delay which really should compel you to take a long hard look at global warming. It goes like this: The changes (or variation) in CO2 is lacking the solar trend by approximately 800 years. No that is a rather substantial time-delay wouldn’t you say? Look at ice core data. It is public and it is absolutely devastating to the global warming theory. How can CO2 be lacking temperature? Should it not be the other way around? It seems as when the temperature increase THEN CO2 follows. That is the raw data – indisputable I am afraid. CO2 cannot cause temperature to increase – no – it is temperature that first starts to increase (due to solar activity) and then later CO2 goes up. The explanation is that when temperature increases then the world oceans slowly gets warmer thus, the oceans heat and the ocean CO2 storage capacity decreases. The result of the warming is that CO2 is released to the atmosphere from the hotter oceans. Every ice drill ever made confirms this pattern: Temperature controls CO2, not the other way around. We know exactly why – the ocean is the key. So sleep well and enjoy the fact that forcings and time-delays exists. The delay might be a second, a minute, an hour or even 800 long years but their certainly exists and there are no problems for the solar activity boys. We like time-delays – they are so common.

  20. Report this comment

    bigcitylib said:

    Mr. Frankild,

    Your most recent comment is the standard denialist talking points on this issue.

    So let me just repeat my earlier point, in case you want to try again to answer it:

    All the PAST correlations between “solar cycles” and earth warming/cooling noted by folks like Svensmark do not, as far as I can tell, invoke time delays. If they did, these correlations would most likely cease to exist, and all to show a correlation between CURRENT solar activity and current warming. Take your choice as to which scenario you prefer.

  21. Report this comment

    JamesG said:

    BCL: There is a delay of about 10 years in Sami Solanki’s graph.

  22. Report this comment

    Fred056 said:

    Those who claim that the current warming trend has nothing to do with the 200 billion tonnes of carbon we have dumped into the atmosphere – because it is such a “weak” greenhouse gas – need to explain why they see no detectable effect, apparently, from the added load, and also should explain just how the earth has repeatedly emerged from ice ages? If it is due to the sun, why are there no indications in proxy data that the sun’s output has varied over the past million years or so?

  23. Report this comment

    Amith Ahluwalia said:

    Hello all, I am a mere undergraduate student at the University of British Columbia. I would just like to pose a question/comment. The report that is referred to at the beginning of this blog talks of a negative effect over the past 20 odd years. It appears to me that when talking about the cycles of the sun and overall global climate variation in temperature over the past billion years or million years, or even thousand years, that 20 years is a little small to be making major conclusions from. Maybe as a undergrad I don’t have enough experience, but I just wanted to add that to the discussion. I hope I am not pointing out the obvious.

  24. Report this comment

    SF said:

    Dear Amith,

    I am especially glad that you use the term ‘climate variation’ and not ‘climate change’ which seems to impose the notion that the climate is going out of control from a steady state. But since much of Europe was once covered by desert, the climate simply has to make huge fluctuations in the total absence of human activity. It is quite elementary. In addition, I can also only agree with you that 20 years is a microscopic time slice compared to other data sources which confirms that there has always been a tight relationship between the state of the sun and earth temperature. This is indeed an unbroken relationship that dates back millions of years. It is deeply concerning that the report looks at 20 random years and not other time slices. Do they only report when the random fluctuations show a negative correlation? What about all the other 20 year periods with positive correlation? We do not hear about them so much. Biased science is an increasingly growing problem in the climate debate. Small scale studies are especially prone to misinterpretation and bias. Science is not a matter of rank, its a matter of testing theories rigorously and as an undergrad you do a better job than any climate change alarmists regardless of scientific stature.

  25. Report this comment

    willie mcdonald said:

    The Truth about Global Warming

    By Willie J. McDonald

    Non- Fiction


    I’m an expert in the subject of global warming. The real reason for global warming is the earth’s orbit around the sun is decaying, in other words the earth is moving closer to the sun. I’ve studied this phenomenon since July-1983, warning people of the coming destruction, and death. People called me crazy at first. I understand the weather was normal at that time, now the weather is beginning to support my finings. December- 2007: Houston, Texas is experiencing warm sunny winters, a record high of 81degrees. Eventually Houston’s winters will completely disappear, as time goes on. Houston is the perfect place to observe global warming, what’s occurring in Houston in winter will occur to the rest of the world. The sun is over the southern hemisphere now, and in the past the sun’s peripheral heat, and rays stayed within that part of the hemisphere, away from the equator, and the outer edges of the polar ice caps. The sun is thousands of times larger, than earth. The earth has moved, so close to the sun that it’s peripheral rays, and heat has spread over the equator from the southern hemisphere to the southern part of the northern hemisphere, where Houston, Texas is located, and the sun’s peripheral heat, and rays has spread over the outer edges of the south pole, and is melting the ice. The same thing will occur, when the sun reaches the northern hemisphere. The peripheral heat and rays will spread over the equator, and heat the northern part of the southern hemisphere, and melt the ice on the outer edges of the North Pole, Just ask the governments of Greenland, and Iceland about their melting ice packs. This trend will continue, until all the ice in both polar ice caps are melted, and until winter no longer exist in both hemispheres, back, and forth one polar ice cap at a time. There is enough ice in both polar ice caps to flood 90% of the existing land mass of this planet. The warmer the winters, the hotter the summers. The direct heat, and rays from the sun will intensify as the earth move closer, that’s the area of the earth the sun is stationed directly over. I grew up in Houston, Texas. I remember the hotter part of the day use to be 12:00 noon, now its 5:00 o’clock in the after noon. This is more evidence of earth’s orbit is decaying. December- 2007: The thunderstorm, and floods that occurred in the States of Oregon, And Washington was suppose to by a snowstorm, after all its winter, but the atmosphere was too warm to support a snowstorm, so a thunderstorm was created instead, the flooding was extraordinary. January-2008 tornadoes touch down in the mid-west of America, causing death, and destruction in the millions of dollars. The only different between a snowstorm, and a thunderstorm is the temperature of the upper atmosphere. The position of the sun to the earth determines the temperature of the upper atmosphere. This is the type of weather that will dominate in the future, floods, and tornados during the winter months, when these storms are not suppose to develop. The weather will go from one extreme to the other, from flooding to droughts in various parts of the United States, and the world. Food production will gradually come to a halt, because of the weather.

    As I said in the past global warming has nothing to do with C02 gases, R-12 gases, CFC gases, a hole in the ozone, the sun going nova, nor methane gases leaking from the ocean’s floor, as you will see in the future. Global warming will not be reverse by riding the atmosphere of these gases. Some of these gases have polluted the atmosphere since the industrial revolution in America, and Europe. In the early 20th century, before emission devices were installed on automobiles, and trucks the air in many cities was, so polluted it blotted out the sun, And cause breathing problems. There was no global temperature increase during this time period. Global warming is in its beginning stages, and will gradually get worse. It will not occur over night, and the winters will diminish gradually, over the decades. June-1978: I went to the mountains of Big Bear, California. It over looks the city of Los Angles, California. The greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, trucks, and industrial activity was, so bad a very noticeable thick haze formed reducing visibility by 40%.There was no noticeable spike in temperature in Los Angeles, California, during that period. Carbon dioxide is poisonous to all animals, including humans. If the levels of C02 gases are, so high why there haven’t been reports of carbon dioxide poisonings, such conditions require hospitalization. The reason the earth is moving closer to the sun the molten core of the planet is cooling, because it’s not getting enough crude oil (fuel). The oil companies drill into an oil well to extract the crude oil. These oil wells are actually self- pressurizing fuel cells, and over time the crude oil extraction process used by the oil companies releases the pressures needed to force the oil into the outer core. All oil wells (self pressurizing fuel cells) must be capped off, and the pressure within them brought back to normal, so the crude oil can be forced into the outer core. This will raise the temperature in the core, and strengthen the earth’s magnetic field, and push the earth away from the sun. The higher the temperature in the core the stronger the earth’s magnetic field, and the cooler the temperature in the core, the weaker the earth’s magnetic field. The core is cooling, because it’s not getting the fuel (crude oil) it once did, before man discovered crude oil, and new uses for it. Everything that generates energy, or expends energy needs fuel, and the earth is no different from any other machine. Animals derive their energy from food, plants derive their energy from water, and sun light, automobiles from gasoline, rockets from rocket fuel, thunderstorm, snowstorms, hurricanes, and tornados derive their energy from electricity, because these storms are electro- magnetic phenomenon. The earth generates a magnetic energy field, and it is derived from combustion of crude oil in its outer core. This is a man made situation, not the will of God. People take the earth’s magnetic field for granted, because it’s invisible, and silent. The magnetic field holds people, object, and the oceans to the surface of earth; it keeps the air we breathe from escaping into space. It protects life on this planet from the harshness, and radiation of space, it protects life on the surface of this planet from sun flares, and it locks the earth in orbit around the sun, locks the moon in orbit around the earth, and keeps the earth at a safe distance from the sun. Contrary to popular belief the electro- magnetic energy in thunderstorms, winter storms, hurricanes, and tornados are not generated by sunspots, neither sun flares, nor energy flares from deep space. The energy in these storms is generated by the earth magnetic field. The earth acts as a generator’s armature. The earth turns at a thousand miles per hour, its magnetic field brushes against the magnetic field of the surrounding universe. The energy is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere, and dispersed throughout the earth’s atmosphere, and that’s just some of the things earth’s magnetic field does.

    The earth is a self-contained biosphere. These fuel cell (oil wells) can be re-pressurized by igniting the methane gases in them. In fuel cells thought to be empty, such as spindle top in Beaumont, Texas. It will be necessary to pump in a mixture of air, and methane gas, and ignite the mixture. The gas will expand, when ignited creating the necessary pressure to force the remaining oil into the core. These fuel cells extend for thousands of miles, from the upper crust down to the outer core of the planet.The oil companies can only drill less, than ten miles down. There are millions of gallons of crude oil remaining in these fuel cells, and they are located all around this planet for even heating of the core. Uneven heating of the core will result in a shift of the earth’s axes. Normalizing the flow of crude oil to the core will increase the temperature in the outer core, and the outer core heats the inner core, which generates the earth’s magnetic field. If left alone the temperature in the outer core will stabilize. This is the only way to save all life on this planet. The evidence that large quantities of crude oil is combusted, and sustain the high temperatures in the core. Every conceivable by-product of crude oil is ejected from volcanoes all around this planet, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and sulfur dioxide, etc. The materials ejected from volcanoes originate from the outer core. There is a point of no return, because it will take decades to reheat the core back to normal temperatures. Volcanoes are the means by which the outer core rids itself of spent fuel, and volcanoes regulate the pressures in the outer core.Volcanoes extends from the surface of the planet down to the outer core.Volcanic eruptions in the past occurred more frequently, and they occurred in various parts around the planet, and were much more powerful, than volcanic eruptions in present days. This is more evidence the core is cooling. The more violent, and frequent the eruption, the higher the temperature in the core, and the cooler the temperature in the core, the less frequent, and the less violent, and the less wide spread the eruptions will occur. Many volcanoes are lying dormant, and haven’t erupted in centuries. Crude oil is capable of generating temperatures found in the core, after all crude oil is a hydro- carbon, and hydro-carbons are used to melt, and manufacture steel There are three types of hydro- carbons, crude oil- a liquid, methane- a gas, and coal- a solid. The tremendous pressures ejected from volcanoes are due to the combustion of crude oil in the outer core. The gases in all hydrocarbons expand, when ignited, and will create pressure in an enclose vessel, such as the core of this planet. I pray someone read this letter, and is intelligent enough to see the truth. There are two different diagnoses, but only one right solution. My solution is the only correct one. The leading scientists are wrong about everything. Cleaning the air will not reverse global warming. Please keep an open mind. If we choose the wrong solution we will leave our grandchildren and great grandchildren a future that doesn’t exist. It will be a hellish existence. The leading scientist will think of another excuse for global warming, when they realize they are wrong, and their plans are not working. Please don’t let them do that, times is running out! Remember there is a point of no return. If the earth past the point of no return, or if the core temperature downs below the flash point of crude oil all is lost.

    Mr. Willie J. McDonald

    4640 Main St. #221

    Houston, Tx. 77002


  26. Report this comment

    Freezing Jim said:

    Global Warmests – answer 1 question and 1 question ONLY Why are the polar icecaps on MARS MELTING– Hmmm could it be the SUN – Al Gore — Iwould love to see you in a debate with FACT prepared scientists NOT JIMMIED models """"

  27. Report this comment

    David B. Benson said:

    Freezing Jim It is easy to go and check scientific sources.

    With regard to earth’s global warming, there has been no change in solar insolation worth mentioning for over one hundred years. There has been a significant change in CO2 levels in that period of time.

Comments are closed.