Your link has nothing to do with solar radiation levels. The solar energy output fluctuates on both 20 and 50 year cycles. It is never at a constant "minimum" or "maximum".
You cannot provide me with a model that includes solar radiation that supports AGW because when those cycles are added to the computer model, all human influence is negated.
This is just plain not true.
"Scientific consensus" two hundred years ago stated that bloodletting was beneficial in treatment of many diseases. Hmmmm That didn't quite pan out, did it?
Irrelevant.
The warmer community finds "consensus" among themselves, but not all scientists agree. The warmers merely try to shut dissenting voices out of the debate.
Very few people predicted cooling is the point you seem to have missed.
CO2 is a bit played in climate. It's greenhouse effects are mitigated by the increased in the albedo of the atmosphere from the increased CO2 levels. It was this increased albedo level that the fear mongers were using to drive their "theories" in the 70's. Their "theory" fell apart after the temps started rising again after steadily dropping for about 40 years while CO2 levels rose steadily.
A majority predicted warming would continue soon. They predicted this during a period when temperatures were dropping. You seem to be missing the very key point that
nobody ever said that CO2 was the only factor. Therefore, just because CO2 was rising in that period doesn't mean that temperature was predicted to always be rising.
Add that to the FACT that human activity is a very small contributor to CO2 levels in the first place. There is far more CO2 produced by the oceans through decomposition & natural leakage of methane case from subsurface fissures than humans are capable of producing.
Human activity is responsible for virtually all of the
net change in CO2 concentrations from pre-industrial levels. The ocean and other natural sources emit far more CO2, true, but when skeptics spit that talking point at you they're ignoring the fact that nature is also a
massive carbon sink. Every growing season vast quantities of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere by nature. In total, nature is actually a
net carbon sink.
The "greenhouse" gas that has the most to do with climate change is water vapor. Again, the primary source is the ocean. As solar radiation increases, more water evaporates. As solar radiation decreases, so does evaporation. If humans stopped all CO2 emissions tomorrow (including breathing) it would not cause a significant change in planetary temperature.
Water vapor is responsible for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect, yes. However, water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing. It amplifies existing temperature trends (in either direction) but cannot actually start a trend on its own because the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere is determined by temperature, not the other way around.
Historically, CO2 has acted in the same manner. A warming trend caused ice to melt and the ocean to release more CO2, increasing the greenhouse effect, causing a little more warming, releasing a little more CO2, etc. The reverse happened during a cooling trend, amplifying the cooling. However, this time around there was an artificial addition of CO2 to the atmosphere. We've increased levels about 40% since the pre-industrial era.
On a side note, there have been benefits from the rising CO2 levels. On is an increase in crop yields.
These benefits are outweighed by the other effects of climate change. Cropy yields are predicted to drop, not rise.
