[Esuohlim]

All right, so I'm doing a term paper on geomagnetic storms, and a few of my sources are implying that Global Warming is solely the cause of our sun's highly active solar cycles of the last 50 years or so.

And that the three modern periods of very inactive solar cycles, the Maunder Minimum, the Dalton Minimum, and Sporer Minimum, all correlated with lower than normal global temperatures.

And that the last time we had this much solar activity was around the 1200s, and archivists have reported that the global temperature spike was comparable to what we're going through now.

As someone who was never really convinced of global warming anyway (the "humans are to blame" aspect of it, at least), doesn't this seem absolutely reasonable? Any astronomer could tell you that the sun has been unprecedentedly tumultuous as of late, and that solar activity contributes to our global temperatures (neither of which, of course, is the result of human activity), so why hasn't this been seriously regarded as a perfectly good explanation yet? Is it the whole "correlation doesn't equal causation" thing?