Global Warming Alarmists: What do you think of this?

Irregardless of the actual wording of this article, the responses are wonderful. I love how 15 years ago, scientists talked up how the increase in sunspot activity was going to drastically affect the climate of the planet. Yet, now that the activity is ceasing, it's "oh, it won't have any noticeable effect."

So, Global Warmists, or whatever you call yourselfs, you can't have it both ways. It can't have a HUGE impact when it increases the global temperature, but have little to NO impact when it decreases the temperature. Either sunspots have little to no effect at all, which if the last 10 years is any indication, is completely false, or the sunspots have a major impact on the climate, both for warmer and for cooler, which is far more likely, based solely on my own observations. Sunspot activity increases=global temperature increases=milder winters and hotter summers for Denver, Colorado. Sunspot activity decreases=global temperature decreases=cooler winter (near record snowfall for Colorado mountains this year) and possibly a cooler summer for Denver, Colorado? We'll see.

Well it is clearly known that our knowledge of the sun and the natural cycles are limited. NASA clearly states this as one of their top uncertainites in regards to climate change (http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/).

This article highlights that the authors still are unsure of the exact nature of the sun's behvaiour or upcoming cycle.

So you are merely referencing us to an article about information that is already known ... I would imagine those in the scientific field are even more aware of the situation than we are too. Is this news meant to be earth breaking?? As stated NASA have had this published online for all to read prior to this article ... it is nothing that I already wasn't aware of.

Does it change the scientific evidence that supports the conclusion that there is very high confidence humans are having a net effect on global warming?? NO ... because it is merely stating that the solar radiation should decline soon, and if this happens but global temperatures continue to rise it will infact provide stronger scientific evidence that supports AGW.

So what do I think of it? Well it will be interesting to see what is observed both from the sun and on Earth. The solar outputs can now be measured (unlike during the Little Ice Age) and a greater understanding of the Earth's climate can be discovered (if the sun spots do "hibernate"). This may help to clear up some of the uncertainities of Earth's climate, which is always good for science.

I wanted to see who this Fuelner was because his response seemed so biased. He is a government funded PIK scientist. Clearly he is knowlegeable

I found an interesting article that explained much of the underlying science which was argued recently. It didnt' depict Fuelner in too bad of a light but did confirm his bias IMO.

http://notrickszone.com/2011/05/18/skeptics-and-al...

The article concluded with this:

<<<From the report one gets the impression that PIK puts a lot faith in climate models and is suspicious observations that do not conform to their models. In real science one ought to be suspicious of models that do not conform to real-life observations. Michael Limburg also added in his e-mail:

The scientific position and ability of PIK scientists during that meeting was rather weak. Whenever they had to agree that observation do not show any special increase neither in extreme weather, temperature nor sea level and so on, they mentioned: ‘But our models show…’ “

That their science is weak ought not be a surprise. What else could one possibly expect from a science that ignores observations and relies on models?>>>

Good point. Without Models, AGW fall flat on its face, obviously. They hang on to those models tooth and nail.

There are multiple "significant" inputs that drive temperature. The strength of the inputs (the weight of their significance) varies, but any of the significant inputs can change the system. If it were just a matter of the single strongest influence then there would be only one significant variable.

In their research into recent global temperature, the first things - the very first things - climate scientists investigated and tested were all of the natural factors known to influence temperature variability, including every measure of solar energy and every climate cycle that responds to solar variability and other geophysical cycles. In every test, these factors failed to fully explain the observed temperature. The temperature can be explained however, when AGW is included in the equation.

Isn’t this more proof that solar activity has a far greater impact on climate on Earth rather than human activity?

No. And the more pertinent question is: can you read?

Or did you just "happen" to miss the last section of the article you copy-cat linked to, which says:

"The temperature change associated with any reduction in sunspot activity would likely be minimal and may not be enough to offset the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming, according to scientists who have published recent papers on the topic....any offset of global warming due to a grand minimum of solar activity would be merely a temporary effect..."

"A new Maunder-type solar activity minimum cannot offset the global warming caused by human greenhouse gas emissions," wrote authors Georg Feulner and Stefan Rahmstorf.

I predict they are going to eat those words.

-Signed "unconvinced"

If you read the entire article, you'd see that, near the bottom, it says the effects of anthropogenic warming are likely to outweigh the effects of the solar activity cycle.

In other words, just like scientists already freely acknowledge, solar activity has some effect on the climate. But atmospheric CO2 has an effect too, and in the quantities that we are emitting it, the effects of anthropogenic CO2 are likely to be far greater than the effects of solar variation.

i think you are trying to hard to and discredit global climate change and getting nowhere

Are you asking if it's more proof that the Sun is the main driver of climate when sunspots seems to be in hibernation and we just had one of the warmest years on record? That's not exactly proof of the type you are claiming it to be. Actually it points to the exact opposite.

Well ever hear of the calm before the storm?