NASA released a new paper on January 8, 2013.
From the paper.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate.
The paper is very detailed and well defined. How much do you beleive it will impact the debate on the impact of CO2 to AGW?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
Ottawa Mike
Favorite Answer
@John just kills me: "The anti-science members will always find something to "debate"." Lol, what do the "science members" do?
Oops, slightly derailed since I do love humor, even if unintentional.
I'm going to go for wild-assed speculation in my answer here. I predict this is the beginning of NASA slowly backing away from AGW trying to be one of the few institutions around with any credibility left when the house of cards topples. I kind of detected the same thing with the new Met Office forecast of basically flatter temperatures than their previous, now non-available, forecasts.
pegminer
Stop the presses, this just in: "Solar variations affect climate!!"
Umm, well, we kind of already knew that the sun affected climate, and no doubt it does so in both obvious and more subtle ways. This does nothing to convince anyone that the changing concentration of greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere is not changing the climate. In fact, you'll find that some of the conference participants (such as Isaac Held) are active researchers in the field of climate change and AGW.
By the way, this "paper" is not a paper, it is a series of extended abstracts from a conference As such, it probably was not peer reviewed and when you say it is "very detailed," you must not have looked at many scientific papers at all--it is quite superficial. There are good scientists at this conference, though, and I have no doubt that some of them will publish REAL papers on the same subjects.
Hey Dook
There is no debate, at least not the one your brainwashers have tricked you into believing.
There are lots of small debates about exactly how various past species came and went over the eons, but not about the massively proven reality of evolution. Ditto man-made global climate change. Debates on details, not on the proven reality of the phenomenon.
You "forgot" to not tell another stupid denier fib (surprise, surprise). NASA didn't "release a new paper." Had you bothered to read the article you linked to, you might have realized that it concerned findings discussed at a workshop of the National Research Council, not NASA. The truth, which your lame lie fails to conceal is that
YOU COPIED PASTED this chickenshite attempt at anti-science trickery from anti-science blog
Wattsup. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/09/nasa-on-the-sun-tiny-variations-can-have-a-significant-effect-on-terrestrial-climate/
Don't you ever get tired of regurgitating other people's stupid deceits?
Or do you think we can't see through this pitiful dishonesty?
Or are you too ignorant to realize how thoroughly you've been duped?
Jeff M
I have a feeling that those that don;t read it all the way through will immediately jump to the conclusion that the paper states that the sun is what controls current warming and not the atmosphere. Actually the paper says the complete opposite and fully backs what has been stated by those people that are aware that AGW is real. Other than that I don;t see it changing the debate at all.
Anonymous
"Will this paper impact the Global Warming Debate?" - Among the science illiterate and the science literate? Not at all. The anti-science members will always find something to "debate".
I read this report two days ago. As soon as I read I instantly knew that the worshipers of Apollo, the denial industry puppets and Anthony Watt's lap dogs would have a field day with this. Why? Because, as with your example, very few of the anti-science, denial industry puppets would ever read beyond the point to where they could cherry pick some data to "debate" over. In this case, I knew that few of these people would read beyond the first two paragraphs.
But, wait! There is more to this article:
"In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example."
and - (The worshipers of Apollo will not like the last sentence)
"Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature. "If there is indeed a solar effect on climate, it is manifested by changes in general circulation rather than in a direct temperature signal." This fits in with the conclusion of the IPCC and previous NRC reports that solar variability is NOT the cause of global warming over the last 50 years."
Yes, the "debates" will continue, but the science behind the AGWT remains the same. .... I seriously wish someone could delegate the AGWT to the trash heap of blown theories. That simply has not happened yet. Scientist work with the theory that best explains the observations. Due to this, the AGWT is still alive, well and the ruling champion of climate science. .... Getting stronger everyday!