Re: It's the Sun, Stupi
Of course it can't, and it isn't. Without the 1365 +/-1 Watts of solar irradience, a climate model would depict Earth as a snowball. But this wasn't a climate model, if you think this paper was then you need to actually read it for yourself. There is a huge difference between a climate model, and a statistical model used to analyze data. It was simple correlation analysis, and severely flawed correlation analysis. If you don't refine the signal, then the two factors you're interested in will be influenced by the other exogenous variables.
The prime energy variable, solar electromagnetic, cannot ever be excluded from climate models, models that do exclude that powerful force quite simply cannot be anything other than completely bogus despite your protestations.
Of course it can't, and it isn't. Without the 1365 +/-1 Watts of solar irradience, a climate model would depict Earth as a snowball. But this wasn't a climate model, if you think this paper was then you need to actually read it for yourself. There is a huge difference between a climate model, and a statistical model used to analyze data. It was simple correlation analysis, and severely flawed correlation analysis. If you don't refine the signal, then the two factors you're interested in will be influenced by the other exogenous variables.