That's the problem with clipping. Yes, the authors say that there may be a solar effect that is worth looking into, but they also note that it is much smaller on Earth than anthropogenic factors.

I know one of the authors of the paper and I blog about it at
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/neptunes-brightness-and-solar-variation-13256.html

Here's a clip from that blog entry, but I suggest reading the whole thing:

Certainly those changes may be due to factors on Neptune that have yet to be understood, but changes in the sun must also be considered. The solar variations are not simply in intensity (total solar irradiance), which can account for no more than about 1% of the observed increase...

That's the problem with clipping. Yes, the authors say that there may be a solar effect that is worth looking into, but they also note that it is much smaller on Earth than anthropogenic factors.

I know one of the authors of the paper and I blog about it at
http://www.scienceblog.com/cms/neptunes-brightness-and-solar-variation-13256.html

Here's a clip from that blog entry, but I suggest reading the whole thing:

Certainly those changes may be due to factors on Neptune that have yet to be understood, but changes in the sun must also be considered. The solar variations are not simply in intensity (total solar irradiance), which can account for no more than about 1% of the observed increase in Neptune's brightness.

"However," write Hammel and Lockwood, "other components of the solar output might have an impact on the atmospheres of both Neptune and Earth (e.g., ultraviolet flux, magnetic field strength, cosmic ray shielding)."

They do not dispute that Earth's recent warming is primarily caused by human influences and note that "(s)purious coincidences among low-frequency signals in natural phenomena are notoriously common."

---

I hope that last paragraph puts the paper in perspective. People who pounce on the clip to promote their agenda will look foolish when viewed in the context of the full paper.

Hi Dr.FredB

Yes, very good to add that last paragraph and something I had hoped to convey in my comments about this paper but likely failed to truly do.

But that last paragraph is not a panacea for the doubt of some. Human systems are rife with inertia (this hysteresis can be a good thing too) and one of the mechanisms of that inertia is group think and risk aversion. I would not expect them to say that this is evidence that global warming theory is wrong on many counts. Scientifically there is not enough evidence to say that, they even mention the statistical uselessness of the data so far. But human systems dynamics need to be considered as well.

My big problem in the climate scie...

Hi Dr.FredB

Yes, very good to add that last paragraph and something I had hoped to convey in my comments about this paper but likely failed to truly do.

But that last paragraph is not a panacea for the doubt of some. Human systems are rife with inertia (this hysteresis can be a good thing too) and one of the mechanisms of that inertia is group think and risk aversion. I would not expect them to say that this is evidence that global warming theory is wrong on many counts. Scientifically there is not enough evidence to say that, they even mention the statistical uselessness of the data so far. But human systems dynamics need to be considered as well.

My big problem in the climate science world is that there is too little consideration of human systems dynamics - and that accusation goes to "both" sides of the issue.