Hello, qam1. Reading the abstract of the paper (supplied by chessplayer above) is illuminating.
I don't see why this is a big deal, Neptune and Earth are two totally different planets in size, atmospheric makeup, distance from the sun, orbital eccentricity, etc. You wouldn't expect them to react in the same exact matter over the same period of time to changes in solar varibility. But what we are seeing is both are showing a warming trend along the same period of time.
And that's what the AUTHORS themselves wrote.
They are doing real science that's why.
But what I find funny, while you and that left wing post you link to try to make a big deal of this, the paper they/you use to try and debunk it contains a whole section titled "Conflicting observations"
I'd take "Low formal statistical significance" over "Conflicting observations" anytime
But one of these "Conflicting observations" stands out as particularly interesting (which conveniently you and the left wing post do not comment on)
Quote "Although our simple seasonal model fits most disk-integrated observations at 467 and 472 nm well, it is not consistent with the local brightness increase beyond 30°N, especially between 1998 and 2002; that hemisphere ought to be declining in overall brightness according to the seasonal model.
Which means seasonal changes can not totally account for the warming trend seen on Neptune which confirms what the “Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature” paper you are trying to debunk it with says.
So the correlations they describe in the paper could very well be -- spurious. Meaning basically nothing more than coincidence.
Suuuuurrree, 7 out of 7 planets all showing a warming trend at the same time earth is, Yeah it's all just one big coincidence, George Bush and those evvviiill Republicans must be hurting beloved Gaia, Al gore says so.