Solar Cycle Length and Global Temperatures In 'The Great Climate Change Swindle' the following graph was presented (the blue line is temperature, the red line is the solar cycle length - just watch those colours, but all graphs show a temperature peak at about 1900): http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w207/Smithy2007_photos/IMGP4525_TemperatureVersusSolarActi.jpg Why does the red line (solar cycle length) stop in about 1975/1980? In other words, what happened to the prediction for the last 20 years? Obviously someone doesn't want to reveal a problem... It took me a while (because this is such an old theory) but I eventually uncovered the reason. That piece of science was updated in about 3 May, 2000! It has now been shown that there is no correlation past about 1975/1980! In other words the solar cycle length can no longer explain the warming that is being observed since about 1975/1980. The new prediction veers off wildly (after about 1975/1980) from the original prediction (which did follow the temperature up). As described by 'Danmarks Meteorologiske Institut', the image presented on TV is compatible with the old version (up to about 1975/1980). Scientists then discovered that more recent data was actually more evidence against the sun being the cause of recent warming: http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/welcome.shtml On the left below, as understood before 2000 (the black line is now temperature, the red line is the solar cycle length - note this is old science (pre-3 May 2000)): http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/solarterrestrial/sunclimate/soltmp_s.jpg http://web.dmi.dk/fsweb/soljord/solklima/TKL99fig1.jpg On the right above, Comparison of the New version (both lines now represent the temperature, the red line is the actual temperature (with a peak in about 1900), the blue is the temperature now predicted by the solar cycle length data (the prediction no longer matches the actual observations!) ) QUOTE: "While the curves do not match perfectly at any time, they start to diverge noticeably by the 1980's. We interpret this widening gap as evidence for an additional influence on the temperature - over and above what the Sun is causing. We think this is likely to be due to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. We base this interpretation on such modelling work as that by Mitchell, et al. (Nature, 1995, vol. 376, p. 501) in which the combined effects of greenhouse gasses and aerosols have the property seen above - an accelerating temperature increase from about the 1970's." This handy site put me on the trail: 'The Role of the Sun in 20th Century Climate Change' is discussed here: http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/solar/solar.htm And a mention in ordinary news from 3 May, 2000 (no wonder the presented graph is so hard to explain, it's totally historic!): http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/734983.stm QUOTE: "They found that, while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius since 1980." The sun does have an effect, however since about 1975/1980 it's effect isn't enough to explain the warming. That's why they didn't show both lines past 1975/1980 ... sneaky ... but you all spotted that right? The early divergence (before 1975/1980) is seen to be minor natural variation by most scientists. The major deviation after about 1975/1980 is apparently seen as 'secret' by the presenters, and to main-stream science it shows how the sun cannot be the cause of the later warming. So another piece of dodgy 'evidence' bites the dust ... :-)