Morgan wrote:
"Irrelevant. The site is not authoritative."
You have to be kidding me? Because a non-authoritative site posts somebody?s work, you're calling it irrelevant? I guess we can throw out any scientific work that Greenpeace has on their website.
As far as the article goes - why don't you read the entire thing. Here's an important point
"But now Lassen and another colleague, Peter Thejll, an astrophysicist, have updated the research. They found that, while the solar cycle still accounts for about half the temperature rise since 1900, it fails to explain a rise of 0.4 degrees Celsius since 1980."So 50% of the warming from the 1860-1980's was caused by solar activity. Half! Surely something as significant as this would be included in GCM's that everybody seems to have blind faith in? Oh, yeah - that's right..........they don't!
So climate modellers have left out a dominant warming process out of the models, which means they've either underestimated the effect of a cooling process, or overestimated the effect of a warming process. Either way, these GCMS aren't correct. If you don't understand the system, you can't project forward.
I think the last two paragraphs are particularly relevant, especially to this site.
"The authors recognise the controversial nature of the subject, and say they hope their findings will move climate researchers towards a more balanced view.
Peter Thejll said: "It became political. We're now seeing that the Sun plays a role, and something in addition to the Sun. Maybe that will help people see there is room for both." This is something you need to learn Morgan - the world isn't either black or white, nor 1's and 0's. The earth's climate is a wonderfully complex thing, and to dumb it down to a linear relationship between CO2 and temperature is nothing more than intellectual laziness.