Many people today are totally convinced that changes in human activity are the cause of climate change. I want to show that actually, the exact opposite is true. I suggest further that most climate change originates beyond the Earth, mainly in the Sun. Firstly a list of accepted facts (even though many are not usually applied to climate change):
1. Chemical reaction rates vary with temperature. A modest temperature rise can lead to chemical reactions happening much faster. This is true of a wide variety of chemical reactions. It is taught to students of chemistry.
2. Life is governed by a bunch of chemical reactions. As such its activity is affected by temperature. In general life is more active in day time than at night, and more active in summer than winter, in other words when it is warmer. Studies of animals, birds and insects invariably show that activity varies with temperature. Life is teaming at the equator and more sparse at the poles. Humans are animals too and subject to the same causes.
3. The flow of CO2 between atmosphere, plants, oceans etc are essentially chemical reactions and their rates are governed by temperature. Chemists know that solubility of gases in water is strongly affected by temperature. Atmospheric CO2 is strongly related to partial pressure of CO2 in the oceans.
4. There are long and medium term cycles in the Sun that affect climate on Earth. Some of the well accepted solar cycles are the 208 year Seuss (or de Vries) cycle and the 2300 year Halstatt cycle. See wikipedia. An irregular cycle of about 50-60 years is also important in the medium term. Very long cycles called Milankovitch cycles affect ice ages (23,000 years, 41,000 years, 100,000 years and 400,000 years) and are associated with Earth axis and orbital variations and are not at issue here.
5. These medium to long term cycles are observed in both solar proxies and climate proxies. It is clear that any variations in solar activity must affect the earth’s climate as near enough to 100% of heat arriving at the earth originates in the Sun.
6. Logically we should expect that these solar fluctuations will affect climate on Earth and as a result the amount of human activity. All the facts are consistent with this view put forward here. And yet no-one seems to ever consider this approach. When I have mentioned it as a possible cause I have generally been laughed at. But, no sensible argument against the ideas has been advanced.
7. Because of human ideas about the importance of humans, they got mixed up and somehow came to believe that changes in human activity are causing changes in climate. This is demonstrably false. The normally proposed mechanism is that human economic activity creates CO2 which affects temperature change. The observed fact is that temperature change precedes CO2 change. This cannot possibly happen if human CO2 production is the primary cause of temperature change.
My favourite quotation relating to cycles is relevant here:
“Life is a phenomenon. Its production is due to the influence of the dynamics of the cosmos on a passive subject. It lives due to dynamics, each oscillation of organic pulsation is coordinated with the cosmic heart in a grandiose whole of nebulas, stars, the sun and the planet.”
– Alexander L Chizhevsky
What I describe was clearly understood by this great cycles researcher at least 60 years ago.
If my proposal is taken seriously then it would suggest that when natural solar cycles and the resulting natural climate cycles lead to lower temperatures, then human activity will naturally decline and so will CO2 in the atmosphere. But the temperature changes will lead the CO2 changes once again.
If this idea is not taken seriously, then arguments need to be put forward against the above facts and logic. And all of the facts must be faced. Anyone who cannot explain why temperature changes precede CO2 changes simply does not understand what is going on.
Cycles Research Institute
Leslie Carol Botha
K. David (Rudraksha) Katzmire
Ray Tomes
tallbloke
Cycles Research Institute's Blog 
Ray, I think to a certain extent the position is not if cycles affect the climate. They do.
The issue on many peoples mind is to what degree does human activity affect the climate. This is because our human condition and decision making patterns alter the environment around us in a noticeable way. Thus people who “care” about their environment are seeking understanding of the process and perhaps ways to mitigate their affects.
This paper seems to indicate that we humans have no direct input into the environment as it relates to CO2. Thus in my humble opinion you are using a sledge hammer when a boning knife would appear to be a better tool.
Perhaps if you alter the approach of this paper to a more neutral tone you might find more acceptance for it. If people read an introduction that seeks to help them understand the issue as they see it occurring rather than a set of physical or chemical ‘facts’ I believe you will make better headway. Then again I am assuming you wish more people to read your position papers on these matters ? If not then please disregard my comments.
Hi Paul
So we agree that there are climate cycles. IMO these arise because of solar cycles of the same period. I do not argue that human activity has no effect. Rather I argue that changes in human activity are a result of changes in Solar activity. There are many other examples of this, such as Chizhevsky’s finding that wars occur in 11 and 22 year cycles and others) synchronized with Solar cycles.
The key point that you do not address is, if humans are the cause of CO2 changes, and CO2 changes are the cause of temperature changes, then how do you explain that temperature changes precede CO2 changes by about 6 months. Other people that have looked at this particular issue have come to this same conclusion. No-one who argues in favour of human causes ever addresses this question in a meaningful way.
Regards
Ray
Hello Mr. Ray, I’m suprised by all but all talk about the idea of the Wave Structure of Matter I feel very nervous because I’ve been looking for information about something that visualize, and exactly what I just saw in a Youtube video, speaks of wave structure of matter and physics Is that all should ultimately be explained by a single realistic model that has actual waves of a single type that will explain both light and matter and everything that exists. waouu
the explanation you give, is all that I see around me, all the circular waves, I observe, in any space I am. I’ve perceived that I’m here in reality but I’m about to cross another reality, I’ve seen the objects as they move like waves, as shown in the video his teory.
I knew what I was observing was not a fantasy created by my brain. Thanks for all that information, I know one day I cross the border of what my mind thinks it’s real and meet with other parallel universes.
Interesting article here that relates to my suggestion – Climate cycles influence human conflict http://www.astrobio.net/blog/?p=1280
Pingback: Makes sense. | Daily Pundit
wikipedia is not a good source. give me a causal effect. Don’t just tell me I’m wrong.
In this case (208 year and 2300 year cycles) wikipedia is quite correct. My own analysis shows these same periods. You give no evidence to the contrary. There is no need for a causal effect to say that cycles exist. Existence comes prior to cause and effect which is just our way of trying to make sense of what exists.
wikipedia can be changed by anyone! anybody could have written somethin that isn’t true!
They could. But they didn’t.