Its the Sun and solar Magnetic Fields. Any Questions?

Clearly the correlation with magnetic fields is way better than the correlation with temperature and CO2. About the only correlation you can scientifically make with temperature and CO2 is that temperature causes changes in CO2 concentration, not the reverse.

Surprisingly, or maybe not, The article does not state what you claim.

"It is found that from 1610 till about the first half of the 20th century the variation of the long-term average terrestrial ground temperatures is chiefly due to the variation of solar activity"

and

"The effect of the present solar low activity cycle (#24), in addition to the recent Phase Transition results in a reduced value of ΔTsun during the past decade. That component may be responsible for the slower rise of the temperature that occurred after about 2000."

I think a more pertinent question would be how you could come to the conclusion you did based on the above as the above states specifically that the period before roughly 1950 was mainly governed by the Sun while after that point was not and the recent slowdown in warming may be due to the Sun's solar cycle 24 and the Sun's declining output.

PS: I'm curious what blog you got this link off of. Did it ever occur to you that you should actually read the source first?

I'm with Gringo on this one. It's still early but it does appear that the solar forcing effect on climate is at least becoming a bit more mature and pointing towards larger solar influence than previously thought. A really good experiment will be in the coming years as we observe the end of Cycle 24 and beginning of 25 and compare to global surface temperatures. I just wonder how long the "missing heat" can keep going into the oceans before somebody steps up and says there may just not have been any heat all along?

In the end, I don't think this really matters. The political will seems to be deflating so the science will probably return to more of a background activity unless something really big and conclusive comes up.

<<A new study showing that the sun and variations in solar magnetic field strength that are SOLEY responsible for variations in earths climate patterns.>>

No it doesn't.

Heck, the most important part of the paper, it's Conclusions, is aptly titled:

"4. CONCLUSIONS; OPEN QUESTIONS.

During the major part of the investigated time period, 1610 up to ~1900-1950, the variation of the terrestrial ground temperature appears to be related to solar varability, apart from apparently chaotic and irregular non-systematic fluctuations. The effect of the present solar low activity cycle (#24),

in addition to the recent Phase Transition results in a reduced value of ΔTsun during the past decade. That component may be responsible for the slower rise of the temperature that occurred after about 2000. "

Notice that last line: MAY BE responsible. The Conclusions of this paper then continue to list a series of question which the authors believe must be addressed in order to "greatly improve our knowledge of the solar dynamo".

Nowhere is this paper as conclusive as you'd like it to be.

Well the Sun has little if any effect on climate change, nit enough to even be considered. AGW isn't a religion, it is proven science. OMG basic temperature readings worldwide have shown the warming. A 12 year old could figure that out.. So didn't you forget to blame socialism or Gore for

And here's one more quote from your paper that you seem to have missed:

"The increase that started around the beginning of the 20th century is apparently non-solar and has another, most probably anthropogenic origin"

Oops!

Going off of press releases or newly released papers is a bad idea. Let others analyze it first. This is how the hockey stick was shown to be flawed.

You totally ignored some good answers.

hes the it will always be a imagnetic field