http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25771510

This shows the Sun's activities have more correlation with the Earth's temperature than CO2

Anybody that says it's NOT the Sun is a DENIER because that's what all the good scientific and empirical evidence shows. Climate changes have ALWAYS tracked with changes in solar activity --- and have never tracked with CO2 levels.

I doubt we are going into a Maunder Minimum as this article mentions. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...

I think it's more likely we are just going into a cooler period like we had in the 1970's when the current Warmists were then screeching about Global Cooling.

The Sun drives just about every natural process on the planet and it's just common sense (something Warmists are sorely lacking) that when solar activity increases the Earth gets warmer and vice versa.

Of course you can't hold people responsible and tax them for what the Sun does, and higher taxes and GREENS lording over us is what the man-made Global Warming scam is all about. So it's to be expected what Climate Cultists will deny the Sun controls climate with all their might.

But at this point, they just look silly. It sure looks like that 30 year taxpayer funded gravy train they've been riding is about to get derailed, and that is long overdue.

-----------------------

Did you watch your “evidence”?

>> This shows the Sun's activities have more correlation with the Earth's temperature than CO2<<

It does not say anything about correlations. Anyway, that is irrelevant since climate scientists have always known (and said) that the sun was the major factor that influenced climate.

>> Flunky: The article has an abundant inferences to lower solar activity. Too bad you missed them all. But that's what you get when you don't know science and pick the wrong side of the issue. <<

But it never says that the result will be a reduction in global temperature similar to historical cool periods. In fact, the story ends noting that because of AGW, solar output comparable to the Maunder Minimum will not have the same effect on global temperature as did the Maunder Minimum.

Again, I would state that most climatologists have noticed the giant fusion ball of hydrogen and helium in the sky. If your argument is that the sun affects the earth's climate, well, bravo! Afraid you don't get any medals or honours for that observation at this stage in our scientific history.

What the sun does still doesn't tell us how the energy it puts out interacts with our planet. That involves the CO2 you pretend we're not adding or isn't a greenhouse gas. And since we add additional CO2, that interaction changes. Our planet gets warmer than it would have been. The sun might be putting out a bit less energy, but our planet will be warmer than it would have been without the additional CO2. The sun might keep its output the same, but our planet will be warmer than it would have been without the additional CO2. The sun might put out more energy, but our planet will be warmer than it would have been without the additional CO2.

It's that additional warmth that's the problem.

The article says this winter could be cold because of a solar lull. That doesn't imply correlation over the past 20 years, for example. Kindly pick out the line in the article that allows you to make that assertion, particularly the 'more correlation than CO2'. Where, *exactly*, does that article say such a thing?

Yet again, you're adding 2 and 2 and ending up with 43,453. Which isn't only way off the mark, but is odd.

The chemical formulation of increased CO2 levels and how they affect atmospheric temperatures incrementally is well hidden within the confines of the chemistry field. A good source to find out how a 0.012% increase of CO2 in our atmosphere (rise from 0.028% to 0.04%) does effect our atmosphere is with a nuclear physicist or an engineer. They've known this for many years now.

The answers to many of these questions have already been answered by these intelligent people, but we can always use some "grand-standing" by self-important individuals to let us know how the money ($300 billion yearly) has been misused and to show people how politically motivated the AGW crowd really is.

Shall we reflect back about 10 years and recall all of the failed predictions by climate science and show where "no bad predictions" have been made by the opposing viewpoint?

You can also make pretty good correlations between sunspot numbers and the hemlines of women's skirts. But nobody is crazy enough to claim high sunspot numbers make skirts short.

Weather science may not be very good, but the physics of the heat balance of Earth as a whole is. You can argue about the details of what effects on the weather will result from that change, but do not fool yourself into thinking the added CO2 does not cause any effect at all.

Quote-based science, at your advanced level:

"Dik: Happy new year, Jane.

Jane: Happy new year, Dik. Wasn't it cold last night?

Dik: Yes, it was cold, but it's getting warming now. Must be because winter is going away. Hurrah!

Jane: I think it is getting warmer because the sun is rising in a clear sky, as it normally does in the daytime.

Sage: Ha, Ha, Ha! I know this is tricky for you, Jane, but it doesn't take a PhD to realize that so-called winter is just a plot by socialist parents to make us freedom loving kids stay inside and do our homework."

(Dik with the C is politically incorrect. Another socialist plot of the socialist YA computer program, no doubt.)

As long as the PDO and the AMO are modulated by Solar Activity, then the answer is yes. Saturn with an oribtal period of 29.46 years and Jupiter with an orbital period of 11.86 years appear to modulate the Suns magnetic field intensity and cause predictable oscillations of GCR flux in the upper atmosphere and modulate the transparency of the atmosphere there by reducing the amount of energy recieved by Earths climate system. However the oceans buffer huge amounts of energy and are constantly working to reach thermal equilibrium between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. The PDO was predicted to switch to a negative phase in 1999 and cause global cooling for 25 - 30 years. And that is exactly what happened, just as it has done for hundreds of years.