Will this paper impact the Global Warming Debate?

@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.

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the way, this "paper" is not a paper, it is a series of extended abstracts from a conference As such, it probably was not peer reviewed and when you say it is "very detailed," you must not have looked at many scientific papers at all--it is quite superficial.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.

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-...

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?

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.

"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!

If no major news worthy event occurs in the next year or so It may result in some interesting discussion in the real world.

However since we're not allowed to link to anything in the free PDF download, it wont have any noticeable effect in this rapidly degenerating yahoo sub category.

Looks like NASA is wisely starting to hedge their bets just in case the static climate of the past 15 years continues for another 10 or15 years.

<<<There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate >>>

You might think the dim witted alarmists would figure out that this indicates we don't know as much as they thought but that isn't something their religion allows.

<<<Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th-early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative.>>>

Speculative? I notice that they don't suggest that other claims are speculative as well. NASA is biased toward catastrophic AGW probably due to funding and wackos like Hansen IMO. What isn't speculative?

Will it have an impact? I speculate that it probably will but any suggestions that impact alarmists omniscience will be poo pooed by the usual suspects.

Based not only I what I saw in the article, but from my understanding for several years. can the Sun effect global average temperature? Absolutely.

But, a separate question is, the one as to whether the Sun is responsible for recent warming. Both TSI and cosmic ray forcing correlate well to Sunspot Number. Because of scaling issures, it is necessary to use two graphs to display the recent trends in global average temperature and in sunspot number. But now, I will let the graphs do the talking.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp-dts/from:...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:196...

Well this is the part that will stick with me.

"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."

I have a feeling many wont understand it

The sun is the single most important factor in climate. From what I gathered, NASA is finally giving the sun-climate relationship some more attention. Perhaps this means they are doubting AGW. There are a few references to AGW in the paper, but a strong point that is being made is to what extent does solar activity influence climatic changes? The sun does impact regional climate alot, explaining variations in climate that alarmists often dub as proof of AGW.

"Indeed, Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific. According to the report, when researchers look at sea surface temperature data during sunspot peak years, the tropical Pacific shows a pronounced La Nina-like pattern, with a cooling of almost 1o C in the equatorial eastern Pacific. In addition, "there are signs of enhanced precipitation in the Pacific ITCZ (Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone ) and SPCZ (South Pacific Convergence Zone) as well as above-normal sea-level pressure in the mid-latitude North and South Pacific," correlated with peaks in the sunspot cycle."

For those of you unfamiliar with La Nina:

"La Niña often causes drought conditions in the western Pacific; flooding in northern South America; mild wet summers in northern North America, and drought in the southeastern United States."

Essentially, this suggests that the weather in these areas commonly attribbuted to AGW is a result of the Sun and sea surface temperature. NASA just confirmed this.