Joanne Nova leaps at the chance to blame the sun for the recent warming. In the process she shoots her own foot on the Medieval Warm Period, then shoves it in her mouth on Climate Sensitivity. Oh, and the paper is just another example of curve fitting crap.
The MWP in Scafetta’s paper looks like this, which depicts a MWP that is colder than today, something Nova has tried to convince us is not the case.
Nova somehow confuses Scafetta’s projection amount for warming between 2000-2100 with a figure for Climate Sensitivity – quite different things. Perhaps Jo saw a small number, got all excited and jumped to conclusions?
Of the paper itself, published in the notorious E&E, this paper is a repeat of previous curve fitting exercises with no physical basis for a particular curve having an impact on the climate. As exposed by real climate scientists, curve fitting without justification for any connection to the real world is meaningless.
Scafetta’s wants to replace the known radiative properties of greenhouse gases and negative forcing of aerosols with some artificially tuned factors, without any physical reason for doing so. That’s just absurd. He might as well include a curve for “the number of pirates over time”, that might provide a better fit but without a physical reason for why a pirate would cause warming, it’s a pointless curve fitting exercise.
So, if the curve-fitting points to periodicities that are anywhere near any of the frequencies that can be associated with a celestial object, then that’s apparently sufficient. You can get quite a range of periodicities if you consider all the planets in our solar system, their resonances and harmonics, see any of Scafetta’s recent papers for more examples. And of course, if there are parts of the data that do not match the periodicity you believe to be there, you can just throw it away to make the cycles fit. Quite easy really.