I've been fascinated in the effects of the solar cycle on our atmosphere and climate, but electroverse is a fringe source and, from my understanding, a denier of man-made climate change. Half of the article you linked to is talking about the elites and mainstream media suppressing/ignoring information.

If you think the elites and mainstream media are telling the truth about man-made climate change, then be my guest. Based on solar activity, we're heading for a mini Ice Age with peak cold around 2035, much like the mini Ice Age that peaked in the early 1800s says the graph from NASA.

May I ask you which of the > 1700 peer-reviewed papers with measured data, and models that are freely available in English on the IPCC website [1] have you

a) read

b) found errors in?

There is a Nobel Prize there for you if you can show its all wrong.

[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/

My guess is absolutely zero.

Ah young grasshopper, I went to school in the 70s when the big boogeyman was global _cooling_: a new ice age, vast sheets of ice sweeping across the American continent, mammoths roaming the frigid wastes, Time Magazine covers and so on. Turns out, they were correct: the earth has been gently cooling down since the 1930s, a period so hot in this country that my grandparents were forced to move west because of the heat. So I know climate scientists are full of shit today. Carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. It's the other way around: warmer weather causes more carbon dioxide outgassing by the oceans. Colder water holds CO2 better as anyone who's had a warm beer knows all too well. Which is awesome since carbon is the building block of all life.

Yes, you can have both both cold and hot extremes. No, this has fuck all to do with solar activity.

The mini Ice Age in the early 1800s would disagree.

That’s a lot of nonsense in quite a few words.

1) The notable event climate-wise in the early 19th century was the year without a summer, which, whilst breaking records of low temperatures, was caused by a volcanic eruption. Other than that, this period was quite similar to the 4 centuries before, so there is nothing special about “the early 1800s”.

2) Solar activity just does not add up. We haven’t seen anything like an increase that would explain a change by even +0.5°C (we’re on our way to 2°C).

3) Solar cycles are ~10 years, not 4 centuries, which is how long the little ice age lasted.

4) There is no indication that the Milankovich cycle has changed, which means that we would still be in that little ice age without greenhouse gases. Global warming cannot be explained by orbital mechanics either.

5) The average global temperature during that period decreased by ~0.2°C, or about -0.05°C per century; again we’re on our way to +2°C in ~1 century. The rates of change have nothing in common.

TL;DR: yeah, fuck all to do with solar activity.

>we’re on our way to +2°C in ~1 century.

Strange then that the number of hot days and average maximum temperature in the US has dropped sharply in the last century. But I'm sure you're right and the sun has fuck all to do with earth's temperature.

> the number of hot days and average maximum temperature in the US has dropped sharply in the last century

A reference would increase confidence in these assertions. But even so, it’s irrelevant because:

> But I'm sure you're right and the sun has fuck all to do with earth's temperature.

Solar activity hasn’t been increasing massively over the last century, whilst average temperatures did.

And: “the US” is not “the world”.

>A reference would increase confidence in these assertions.

The one and only Tony Heller: https://realclimatescience.com/2021/06/yes-climate-change-ma...

>Solar activity hasn’t been increasing massively over the last century, whilst average temperatures did.

Not really. The earth has been gently cooling down since the 1930s. The US has the best temperature records which is why it's the most useful to study.

Damn. I did not realise we had to discuss the colour of the sky. If you want anyone to believe that the average temperature of the Earth is not actually increasing, then you'd better have very solid references. As it is there really is no point discussing.

Also, are your fantastically accurate American satellites affected by the sub-par, inaccurate technology the rest of the world uses when they look outside the borders of the US? Because these also show a global warming.