Both papers awful and should be rejected. They clearly don't know the climate literature - and like many seem not to want to accept that the climate is changing because of our emissions of greenhouse gases. Solar variability/climate relationships (use to be called solar/weather relationships) have generally been awful articles for decades. I'm not sure why Barrie Pittock decided to write the paper I referred to in 1983 (and the earlier one in 1978), but I'm glad he did. I have referred to this paper a few times in articles I've written, but I've referred to it much more in rejecting articles of this type. There is really only one paper where a solar influence on climate on decadal and longer timescales that has been shown to be possible (i.e. it passes Pittock's criteria).
NOAA’s Arctic report card released at #AGU17
7 hours ago