>>"once again jn you dont understand what i was getting at"
Aww shucks thanks for being so nice about it.
>>"I wanted to know if the effects of variable solar radiation once subtracted from temperature(not a straight line) produced a straighter line or an even more crooked one
>>"if it produced a more straighter line then the correlation strengthens (co2 is straight) or improves and one could give more weight to the argument that temp and co2 are correlated"
I see, thanks for making this more clear.
Given you now have have the data in a format easily to visualise, what is your immediate impression given that you don't have the actual data to perform calculations with.
>>"This paper disagrees with the conclusions of a Scafetta and West study,[14] who claim that solar variability is a major if not dominant climate forcing."
Thanks for the reference to the paper.
I have some questions though, maybe you can help me with them. Given what seems like strong criticism of some fundamental aspects of the study:
---and the large number of studies that contradict these findings, can you describe the criteria by which you decided this study was more worth than all the rest. While the argument from popularity is a logical fallacy and I would never mean to imply that other studies must be true because they are more popular - I'm curious to know what it was specifically about this study that makes you doubt the largely accepted views of most of your more-qualified peers in the field of climate science.
