re: #192 LudwigVanQuixote

OT but I need to rain on the parades of some AGW deniers again. It seems that many are all pumped about a new science article about solar variations.

Following will be the abstract from the paper itself. This is referring to a very technical detail of things that might need to included into present models to predict el nino in one part of the Earth’s system during 11 year cycles.

The warming trend is much larger than 11 years.

Some seem to think that any climate article with the word sun in it, is somehow a magic bullet. This is just false. Suppose for an instant that you were correct beyond your wildest dreams, and that decreased solar activity did indeed have a pronounced effect on the rate of warming…

Unfortunately for the denier side, WE ARE STILL WARMING EVEN THOUGH THE SUN IS GIVING US A BREAK! What would that mean, if the atmosphere is the same when things get back to normal? So, here is the abstract of the paper this article talks about. Please do us the kindness of pointing out the part that contradicts AGW.

So just again, how is this contradicting AGW?

Spotted the same thing the other day Ludwig . Massive, epic facepalm.

“OMG scientists admitz that teh sun affects temprachoorz! AGW is teh wrong!” Yeah, over an 11 year period, dumbasses. Over the longer period - no overall change in the sun’s output.