First Benny’s CCnet subject line:
NEW STUDY: “SOLAR ACTIVITY IS PRIMARY DRIVING FORCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE”
Now Xu et al., which includes several variants on that quote. I’ll try to get them all. First:
Our study reveals that quasy-100-yr fluctuations of solar activity are possibly the primary driving force of Chinese temperatures during the past 6000 years. (emphasis added)
Comparisons between temperature variations and solar activities indicate that both temperature trends on centennial/millennial timescales and climatic events are related to solar variability, suggesting that solar variability is possibly a primary driving force that influences temperatures. (emphasis added)
Quasi-100-year fluctuations of solar activity may be the primary driving force of temperature during the past 6000 years in China. (emphasis added)
Benny, in his comments, suggests that in his subject line he was “simply quoting the authors themselves.” But he wasn’t. The authors used qualifying words. Benny dropped them from his subject line.
Benny asks me, “How do you know what I was thinking?” My answer is that I drew an inference based on three things: first, your decision to drop those words from your headline, second, your failure to point out that the study had no relevance to the warming of the past century, and third your well-documented skepticism of the consensus view regarding the anthropogenic component of current warming.
My apologies if I inferred incorrectly. Perhaps, Benny, you might clarify what significance you think this paper does have, if any, for our understanding of changes in global climate over the past century?