9 blog reactions to http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/11/a-phenomenological-sequel/

a lag of more than 30 years when direct measurements of quantities (galactic cosmic rays, 10.7 cm solar radio, magnetic index, level of sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths) do not indicate any trend in the solar activity since the 1950s…”Update: S&W try again, with a “cavalier stitching of data series”, “some suspicious results”, and “sloppy” analysis… In any case, elevated levels of greenhouse gas trap additional solar energy whatever it’

Just remember, RealClimate is your friend... And, to review the quality of the material here, one can simply rely on your friends. So, going to frind RealClimate, let us take the first three on the list. Scafetta and West: RealClimate's deconstruction: The study by S&W has some suspicious results ... their analysis is sloppy in the estimate of change, underestimating the observed temperature change ... the paper oozes of vague but subjective and cherry-picked statements ... paper also offers

(which usually sounds more like, “Nah, nah — told you so!”) is based on faulty conclusions. The report that Mr. Behrend and Sen. Inhofe rely on for their head-in-the-sand conclusions is chock full of unfounded speculative statements, misreadings and ignorance of available data and misrepresentation of their cited sources. Even some of these folks’ “So what?” attitude turns out to be based on false premises. For instance, many “deniers” claim that as atmospheric CO2 rises plants will begin working overtime to convert

(which usually sounds more like, “Nah, nah — told you so!”) is based on faulty conclusions. The report that Mr. Behrend and Sen. Inhofe rely on for their head-in-the-sand conclusions is chock full of unfounded speculative statements, misreadings and ignorance of available data and misrepresentation of their cited sources. Even some of these folks’ “So what?” attitude turns out to be based on false premises. For instance, many “deniers” claim that as atmospheric CO2 rises plants will begin working overtime to convert

Just remember, RealClimate is your friend… And, to review the quality of the material here, one can simply rely on your friends. So, going to frind RealClimate, let us take the first three on the list. Scafetta and West: RealClimate’s deconstruction: The study by S&W has some suspicious results … their analysis is sloppy in the estimate of change, underestimating the observed temperature change … the paper oozes of vague but subjective and cherry-picked statements

possibility. (It's less clear that the Medieval Warm period is a sufficiently coherent phenomenon to require an explanation). Then, there is the Bad, exemplified by two papers by Scaffetta and West that have been discussed on RealClimate here and here... If the sun were significantly contributing to global warming, by the way, that would logically require us to restrict CO2 emissions ever more radically, since that would be the only part of the equation we could influence.

A phenomenological sequel Six Degrees Les Chevaliers de l’Ordre de la Terre Plate, Part I: Allègre and Courtillot Global dimming and global warming BBC contrarian top 10

changes of the climate. With the preferred magnitude of variability as given by Moberg et al. 2005, one of their conclusions is that that Sun is responsible for roughly 50% of the observed 20th century warming. Links to other analyses: Climate Audit Real ClimateSteve McIntyre says that in a personal discussion, Nicola Scafetta argued that different forcings influence the climate differently which is a subtlety not allowed in most existing models. Well, it is a somewhat awkward assumption but nevertheless, it

t vouch for this paper as I have merely skimmed it and have not even begun to work through the details. At this point, I am threading it for discussion. Luboš discusses it here and Rasmus(now out of the penalty box) at RC here .