Two Review Papers Conclude — It is the SUN! Not CO2.

Review paper on cosmoclimatology finds the Sun controls climate change, not CO2

A new SPPI & CO2 Science review paper entitled Solar Influence on Climate: Cosmic Rays reviews the literature on Svensmark’s theory of cosmoclimatologyand concludes, “Clearly, in light of all the evidence presented above, the flux of galactic cosmic rays wields an important influence on Earth’s climate, and likely much more so than that exhibited by the modern increase in atmospheric CO2 , making fluctuations in the Sun the primary candidate for “prime determinant” of Earth’s climatic state.”

Full Paper is HERE:

Review paper finds European climate change due to the Sun, not CO2

A new SPPI & CO2 Science review paper entitled Solar Influence on European Temperatures finds extensive evidence that solar activity has dominated European climate change of the past 2 millennia  which “suggests that there is little reason to attribute 20th-century global warming to the concomitant increase in the air’s CO2 content. Natural variability appears quite capable of explaining it all. In conclusion, paleoclimatic studies from Europe provide more evidence for the global reality of solar-induced temperature oscillations pervading both glacial and interglacial periods, which oscillations are looking more and more likely as the primary forcing agent responsible for driving temperature change during the Current Warm Period. The concurrent historical increase in the air’s CO2 content, on the other hand, is likely little more than a bit player.”


“In yet another refutation of the theory of CO2-induced global warming, Mangini et al. found “a high correlation between δ18O and δ14C, that reflects the amount of radiocarbon in the upper atmosphere,” and they note that this correlation “suggests that solar variability was a major driver of climate in Central Europe during the past 2 millennia.” In this regard, they report that “the maxima of δ18O coincide with solar minima (Dalton, Maunder, Sporer, Wolf, as well as with minima at around AD 700, 500 and 300),” and that “the coldest period between 1688 and 1698 coincided with the Maunder Minimum.” Also, in a linear-model analysis of the percent of variance of their full temperature reconstruction that is individually explained by solar and CO2 forcing, they found that the impact of the Sun was fully 279 times greater than that of the air’s CO2 concentration, noting that “the flat evolution of CO2 during the first 19 centuries yields almost vanishing correlation coefficients with the temperature reconstructions.”

The Full Paper is HERE.

H/T to the Hockey Schtick for the introduction and links to the review papers.



About Russ Steele

Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.
This entry was posted in Cosmic Rays, Dalton, History, Maunder, Solar. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Two Review Papers Conclude — It is the SUN! Not CO2.

  1. David says:

    I am confused I thought it was my SUV. Who would have thought it was a giant fusion reactor converting 4 million tons of hydrogen to helium a second. Well I guess I can quit feeling guilty about breathing.

  2. Hi Russ,
    the German Ministry Of Environment didn’t receive a copy of the “Review paper finds European climate change due to the Sun, not CO2”.
    They still believe “It is indeed warming…What’s behind the climate change debate?”. You may have read the post on

    They argue in this document that the fluctuations of the energy flow of the sun, converted to the earth’s surface, is only 0.07 % and is too little to have an impact. They forget that the CO2 level of now 400 ppm is only 0.04 % and the change in the industrial age, 280 ppm to 400 ppm, is only about 0.012 %. 0.07 % vs. 0.012 %.

    Even if CO2 would drive the temperature, the argument has a problem. In the Vostok ice core data the change from about 180 ppm CO2 to about 280 ppm CO2 is showing a temperature difference of 10 degree Celsius. The industrial age has a change from about 280 ppm CO2 to 380 ppm CO2 (now 400) and it shows only a temperature difference of about 1 degree Celsius. I don’t know how the AGW believer can explain this. Is the ice age 100 ppm CO2 worse than the 100 ppm CO2 in the industrial age. If the AGW believer could prove this mathematical, then I guess we could conclude from this that the next 100 ppm CO2 increase could be only 0.1 degree Celsius change. The danger is over. It must be the sun but we can’t tax it. Back to the drawing board. 😉

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s