Your title is half right - the sun affects global climate (sunspots are a proxy for solar activity). But the conclusion that sunspot activity correlates with temperature is incorrect.
Earth's climate is very sensitive to solar activity. Sami Solanki at the Max Planck Insitute compared solar activity & temperatures over the past 1150 years and found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity. When sunspot activity was low during the Maunder Minimum in the 1600's or the Dalton Minimum in the 1800's, the earth went through 'small ice ages'. The sun has been unusually hot in the last century - solar output rose dramatically in the early 20th century accompanied by a sharp rise in global temperatures.
However, Solanki also found the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures started rising while solar activity stayed level. This led him to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
The sun has been the primary driver of Earth's climate in the past but solar variations are conspicuous in their absence over the last 30 years of long term global warming.
John,
Thanks for your insight. I appreciate your comments. I have seen several articles from more than one source (Reuters, Junkscience.com, National Post from Canada to name a few) where the correlation of sunspot activity, intensity, and cosmic rays can all or each explain a significant portion of climate change. The article posted here is just one of them. BTW, this post summarizes the attached article. The conclusions belong to the author, R. Timothy Patterson of the Financial Post.
Adding to this is the effects of global warming that has been observed on both Mars and Neptune. I also saw an article on GW on Pluto but I cannot cite that as reliable data because it is so limited.
I do not claim that the sun's effects are the sole cause for the warming we have been experiencing but I am totally opposed to the pre-drawn conclusion that global warming is solely caused by human activities or that it portends a catastrophe.
Based on previous history, global warming may be beneficial to humans. The latest modeling that I have seen indicates that the effects of global warming will be to increase the temperature at the poles more than in the moderate latitudes. As I see it that should help to lessen severe weather and moderate temperature over the planet.
Of course as the article says, the only constant in the climate is change so no matter what happens it won't stay that way for long.
Thanks again for stopping by. Hope to keep up the discussion.
I agree that our understanding of climate and atmospherics remains an inexact science. IMO, interest began a few decades back when the prospect of 'nuclear winter' came up, prodded by Carl Sagan and others.
I was just re-reading Paul Kennedy's 1992 'Preparing For the 21st Century, and by that time economists and social thinkers were concerned enough to study the possible effect of sea level rise, rainfall shift and rising temperature on agronomics and population distribution. At that time, predictions of atmospheric CO2
estimated 600 ppm by 2050, based on
increments at that time. So the concern, while suddenly a great debate topic, is not a new one. From a biological standpoint, human
life has had little impact on nature for eons, until the 1900s and of course our population has increased to 5 billion as of late. If we can
dry up rivers, deforest the Amazon,
use up aquifers and burn 4.3 billion tons of coal a year, non-science sense suggests we can alter nature as a species; there is no reason to think we might not affect the atmosphere as well. But, until we understand the 'natural' climate fluctuation fully, metrics on artifical effects remain insufficient to take drastic compensitory steps. I grew up in N Wisconsin many decades back: every stream was lined with paper mills which ran their industrial effluent directly to the river. Last year, I visited and found the papermills gone, the fish back and people swimming in clear water. So, once
a problem manifests itself, we humans are capable of fixing it...this one just isn't clear yet.
BB-
You make a point that I feel very strongly about. Humans have shown throughout the 60's and 70's that we can cause real damage through pollution. The paper mills, phosphates in our detergents, CO, soot, and other pollutants are real problems. We absolutely must eliminate these sources and clean up the effects of this pollution. As a chemical engineer I take pollution very seriously.
The global warming hysteria has created a situation where the very gas we exhale is considered a pollutant. This is absurd. With (I think it is now) 6 billion people, I wonder how much of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is simply the result of breathing. It would be interesting to calculate some day. Even the alarmists concede that the most drastic of measures will still result in an increase of CO2 over the next century. Such measures would not only destroy our lifestyle but will completely eliminate any chance for the third world to develop and improve their lot in life. So once we are all living at the most basic of levels then a single volcanic eruption can totally change the entire situation and all our suffering is for nothing which it likely is anyway.
If we expended the energy that we have going towards global warming to solve real problems such as malaria, energy independence from several fronts (increased oil drilling, oil sands from Canada, wind, solar, nuclear and fuel cells) we would do far more to improve our environment than by shutting down our society trying to solve a problem that might not actually exist.
thanks Veritas for the info here!..I'm backkkkkkkk!..Texas was a blast! 
Liberals will believe anything, Veritas. I'll have a video up on Monday about hundreds of liberals signing a petition to ban water! I'm not joking. They'll sign anything! Of course the petitioner calls it "Dihydrogen Monoxide", and they didn't know what it was but they didn't ask. Sheesh!
I don't see why Angel thought Texas was a blast, bless her heart. She's far too kind. It rained while she was here. Crickets covered the tennis court on the day she played tennis, and it scared her because she didn't know what they were, bless her heart.
Hey, Veritas... it's raining. No... it's been pouring. I'm sure you've noticed that?! 
No Gayle, I have been clueless. We are not getting the rain here in Houston (well maybe it is starting this weekend) that you are getting in the hill country. We've had some showers but nothing too much.
A couple of weeks ago my wife went on a field trip for school to Enchanted Rock and other areas around there. Then I saw all of the flooding and heavy rain and was really surprised. I guess I really have been working too hard.
Commenting by HaloScan
