New Peer Reviewed Study Essentially Proves the GCR theory, Mechanism Verified

[BethesdaWX]

This is just one of many more studies to be released within the next 6 months. The effect of GCR creating Aerosols & subsequent GCC increase has been Proven and Reproduced several times over in a Rection chamber. Molecular clusters of acid & Water Vapor Developed quickly, which are the Building Blocks for CCN's, and they developed quickly and numerously. This has been reproduced numerous times, and we now know there Is a mechanism related Indirectly to Geomagnetic Activity. (AA index), magentic Activity of the Sun and its effect on GCR's, which then translate to the climate system.

They have concluded that there definitely is an effect on the Climate, but the question now is How much? That is not known, and may not be known for a Long Time to come. But observations will help, along with 10/BE proxies and past temperature data over the past 10K years from the Volstok Core.

Looking good so far.

http://science.au.dk...aber-skydaekke/

Key points:

• Cosmic rays incrase nucleation rate
• A particle beam is not needed for experiments
• Ions are important for atmospheric nucleation rate
  http://www.agu.org/p...1GL047036.shtml

With the new results just published in the recognised journal Geophysical Research Letters, scientists have succeeded for the first time in directly observing that the electrically charged particles coming from space and hitting the atmosphere at high speed contribute to creating the aerosols that are the prerequisites for cloud formation.

The more cloud cover occurring around the world, the lower the global temperature – and vice versa when there are fewer clouds. The number of particles from space vary from year to year – partly controlled by solar activity. An understanding of the impact of cosmic particles – consisting of electrons, protons and other charged particles – on cloud formation and thereby the number of clouds, is therefore very important as regards climate models

“Before we can say how great the effect is, it’s clear that our results must be verified – just as more measurements and model computations need to be made. However, we can already reveal with no doubt whatsoever that there is an effect.”

“It’s a pleasure to see these results in climate research being achieved at our accelerator. Actually, it’s only possible to do corresponding research at CERN – the joint European research centre,” says Associate Professor Ulrik Uggerhøj, Department of Physics and Astronomy, Aarhus University

[skierinvermont]

CERN has already done this.

In addition, if GCR indeed do produce aerosols which produce clouds, GCR is currently at record high levels. This would produce high clouds cover and lower temperatures.

If anything this study strengthens AGW theory because it suggests GCRs may have contributed a slight cooling over the last 30 year as they have rapidly increased to record levels.

[BethesdaWX]

CERN has already done this.

In addition, if GCR indeed do produce aerosols which produce clouds, GCR is currently at record high levels. This would produce high clouds cover and lower temperatures.

If anything this study strengthens AGW theory because it suggests GCRs may have contributed a slight cooling over the last 30 year as they have rapidly increased to record levels.

Was this post a Joke?!

Before I go further, recognize that Long Term Decreasing GCC Slowly built up Ocean Heat Content over 200yrs+.....Equilibrium of OHC is Very Long Term. Four year intra-cycles of Low Magnetism that occur between solar cycles Won't have a measurable effect on global temperatures for the following reasons below.. I'll explain that, but you should (and do) know it already.

1) AA index Magnetism peaked from 1991 thru 2004 in a Flat-Line, which would continue to warm the oceans as they'd still be absorbing large amounts of Incoming SW radiation, and would not reach an immediate equilibrium, that makes no sense...........this is evidenced in 10/BE concentrations and Ice Core Data.......with the +AMO/+PDO/+IPO/+IOD enhancing the warming thru 2007.

Since 2005 we've been in a slight cooling trend.. remember this is long term....also remember the +PDO phase into 2007 would have the warming effect on the climate, as well, so we should see warming through the mid 2000s anyway.

Through 2008

2) Remember the Lag.....before effect regarding with Magnetism is Longer than TSI before we start seeing effects...(Lag of 6-11yrs, go back to our old debate on that if you wish) before OHC Change, the peak of AA-index Max was in 2004, then began dropping..............And We're talking long term decrease once we reach that 6-11yr point, as in, on a sale of decades to centuries once we see the effect.

3) Now... The AA index is what is used here. Just because we see Magnetism Flat-Lining thru 2004 doesn'tmean GCC has done so as well since we cannot measure it with accuracy.......still doesn't change the fact that is is likely still decreasing GCC, or Stabilizing it at very levels....the oceans would Build Up Energy until equililbrium is reached, and that is Not short term even if GCC were to stay the same at low levels.

:

Yes, the effect of GCR's on GCC is immediate... that much is indeed true as you said yourself... but it won't build back the 5%+ GCC that may have been lost over centuries in 3 yrs, and the Oceans take a Long time and release warmth long term. the effect is gradual.....we're talking 50yr+ timescales here. An extended solar Min representative of the Maunder, for 50 years, still would not equate to a 200yr increase in Solar.

Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect on the surface. A 2% change in low clouds during a solar cycle will change the heat input to the Earth's surface by 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m²). This compares to the total warming of 1.4 W/m² the IPCC cites in the 20th century. (The IPCC does not recognize the effect of the Sun and Cosmic rays, and attributes the warming to CO2.)

Cosmic Ray Flux and Tropical Temperature Variation Over the Phanerozoic 520 million years

The upper curves describe the cosmic ray flux (CRF) using iron meteorite exposure age data. The blue line depicts the nominal CRF, while the yellow shading delineates the allowed error range. The two dashed curves are additional CRF reconstructions that fit within the acceptable range. The red curve describes the nominal CRF reconstruction after its period was fine-tuned to best fit the low-latitude temperature anomaly. The bottom black curve depicts the smoothed temperature change derived from calcitic shells over the Phanerozoic. The red line is the predicted temperature model for the red curve above. The green line is the residual. The top blue bars indicate ice ages.

http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_Part6_SolarEvidence.htm

http://www.space.dtu.dk/english.aspx

[skierinvermont]

GCRs and magnetism create clouds which create cooling.

GCR and geo-AA have increased over the last 100+ years which would cause cooling.

Either that or somehow the low GCR and low Geo-AA from 100 years ago is suddenly causing warming today. I anxiously await your peer-reviewed work demonstrating how the oceans stored a ton of heat 100 years ago and then are releasing it today.

(It should be noted that the effect of GCRs and magnetism on clouds is exceedingly small as there are basically no detectable correlations (some claim a very weak correlation) in the real world, only in laboratory settings)

[tacoman25]

CERN has already done this.

In addition, if GCR indeed do produce aerosols which produce clouds, GCR is currently at record high levels. This would produce high clouds cover and lower temperatures.

If anything this study strengthens AGW theory because it suggests GCRs may have contributed a slight cooling over the last 30 year as they have rapidly increased to record levels.

I think you're missing the point: there are other factors to consider besides GHG. But to you, anything must strengthen AGW theory.

Peer review!! Consensus!!! Straw men!!!

[skierinvermont]

I think you're missing the point: there are other factors to consider besides GHG. But to you, anything must strengthen AGW theory.

Peer review!! Consensus!!! Straw men!!!

Indeed there are other factors to consider which is where the uncertainty comes from (2-4.5C). This study helps eliminate some uncertainty and shows that if anything GCRs and Geo-AA have caused cooling by increasing cloud cover over the course of this century.

[BethesdaWX]

Andrew you show poor understanding here as usual... you have it Backwards. Increasing AA index in the active solar phase would decrease GCR's ability to penetrate, not increase the abundance. Thus LLGCC would Drop. The AA index is somewhat representative of the Sun's coronal magnetic field.

This is how the AA-Index is Calculated: http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html

This is what GCR's have done bia 10/BE proxies. Problem is it only goes to 1980 or so. Knowing Magnetism Peaked from 1991 thru 2004, GCR's dropped further.

Note The relationship is inverse, as the higher coronal ejections prevent GCR's from penetrating.

Here is the AA index over the past 150yrs or so.

Yes Magnetism Dropped very low in 2007/08, but we wouldn't see the same go for global temperature immedately, as GCC needs to build back to levels lost over 150yrs, the energy/heat of Incoming SW radiation absorbed by the oceans would be with us for a long time, its a gradual decrease if we can sustain low Magnetism.

To Sum it up, the Data Makes sense when compared to Temperature.

Do you understand now?

[tacoman25]

Indeed there are other factors to consider which is where the uncertainty comes from (2-4.5C). This study helps eliminate some uncertainty and shows that if anything GCRs and Geo-AA have caused cooling by increasing cloud cover over the course of this century.

Which might help explain why most sources indicate we aren't warming now as quickly as expected.

[skierinvermont]

Yes I understand that, however, the data shows that GCRs are 19% higher than any time in the last 50 years, and have been increasing rapidly since 1990. There has been no corresponding effect on temperature. Atmospheric AND ocean temperature have warmed rapidly since 1990.

[OHSnow]

It's just a theory, not unlike AGW, so it doesn't verify anything. Color me skeptical!

[tacoman25]

It's just a theory, not unlike AGW, so it doesn't verify anything. Color me skeptical!

Is there a comparable lab test that would verify AGW theory?

[BethesdaWX]

Yes I understand that, however, the data shows that GCRs are 19% higher than any time in the last 50 years, and have been increasing rapidly since 1990. There has been no corresponding effect on temperature. Atmospheric AND ocean temperature have warmed rapidly since 1990.

Andrew, what was this supposed to mean? I'm confused, did you mis-type? I do it all the time, its fine.

"GCR and geo-AA have increased over the last 100+ years which would cause cooling". That is what you said....... It makes no sense what-so-ever. The Rising AA-index would end up correlating to lowering GCC, since that is the mechanism in discussion here. GCR's don't directly correlate on short timescales through Modulation of GCC is long term, not short term. OHC build up is very long term, OHC equilibrium is multi-Century... this is not short term in the least!

You are a wicked smart dude...but you shouldn't even attempt to correlate Global Temps to GCR directly short term, it makes no sense at all. Via 10/BE proxies, GCC is not only lowest in over 2000 years, but has not yet begun to increase in response to increased GCR's over the past 5yrs. CRII thru 2005, the point stands here.

In this case, since 2005, we should have basically flat temperatures, and begin to see the cooling between 2011-2015, (yrs 6-11 in lag time qualitatively). Also note the PDO/AMO/IOD all affect GCC, as does ENSO, there are many modulation factors to consider.

Until 2004, GCR's overall were Low, yes there was a small increase since 1990, but it doesn't Matter. Why?..........................Look at 10/BE, and you'd figure it out........Net Equilibrium assures that the Oceans will continue to absorb the Large amounts of incoming SW radiation even with the Drop in GCR's stopping in the early 1990's. Who says Equilibrium has been reached? GCC after all, based on 10/BE, continued to decrease. The proxy does not extend to 2010, but you get the point.

Its Just like Boiling a Pot of Water, It takes time for the water to Reach Equilibrium to the strength of the flame, its not Instant. If equilibrium were instant in all regards, than AGW would not occur, and the climate system would not have a varying temperature An equilibrium at multi-decade/century for OHC, and you see gradual effects.....GCR's today are still relatvely low compared to 300 years ago, even 150 years ago... when looking at 10/BE.

The Longer Term Building Back of GCC and equilibrium of OHC...the Oceans will take 50yrs+ to regulate, it takes awhile...........this is what matters.....this is longer term stuff, not short term.....I don't see why you don't understand this. Its simple, it will take time. I think you maybe mis-understood, below... AA index (solar magnetism) is what interacts with GCR's, and determines how many there are to penetrate into the Earths Atmosphere. Lag for the AA-Index in this Theory is 6-11 years. The AA index peaked from 1991-2004 on a Flat Line.....so 6-11yrs from 2004 is when we'd see the effect on Global temperature.

http://www.ukssdc.ac...ers/nature.html

Its not too hard to understand

[tacoman25]

Yes I understand that, however, the data shows that GCRs are 19% higher than any time in the last 50 years, and have been increasing rapidly since 1990. There has been no corresponding effect on temperature. Atmospheric AND ocean temperature have warmed rapidly since 1990.

If you draw a trend line from 1990-2010, sure you will have an upward increase in GCRs. But the main increase comes in the past 5-6 years, whereas the main temperature increase comes in the 1990s/early 2000s.

[skierinvermont]

Andrew, what was this supposed to mean? I'm confused, did you mis-type? I do it all the time, its fine.

"GCR and geo-AA have increased over the last 100+ years which would cause cooling". That is what you said....... It makes no sense what-so-ever.

Yes, I read the graph wrong. I corrected it in the next post with the actual date of 1990. GCRs are still 20% higher than any time in the last 50 years currently. There would be a fairly quick response in temperature, with perhaps a slight partial lag due to the oceans. The effect on the energy budget would be immediate. Both temperatures and the energy budget show we are rapidly warming / accumulating heat.

[tacoman25]

Yes, I read the graph wrong. I corrected it in the next post with the actual date of 1990. GCRs are still 20% higher than any time in the last 50 years currently. There would be a fairly quick response in temperature, with perhaps a slight partial lag due to the oceans. The effect on the energy budget would be immediate. Both temperatures and the energy budget show we are rapidly warming / accumulating heat.

Um, no.

[BethesdaWX]

GCRs are still 20% higher than any time in the last 50 years currently. There would be a fairly quick response in temperature, with perhaps a slight partial lag due to the oceans. The effect on the energy budget would be immediate. Both temperatures and the energy budget show we are rapidly warming / accumulating heat.

Are you nuts? You obviously don't know anything about the Climate System & Equilibrium, because OHC equilibrium is Multi-Century, and the warmer equilibrium regimine built up over 300yrs thru lower GCC will will take a long time to return to normal, Its a Very Slow Trend after the 6-11yr Lag, this is how things have worked in the Past Via ALL Ice Cores....its the way things work. Yes, the effect will be immediate, but the MEASURABLE effect is Slow... Equilibrium is Long Term... even AGWers agree on this. We're talking Multi-Decade/Century, and the Lag for such changes is 6-11yrs.

Andrew, its clear you're either scared or pushing too hard for nothing, because if you're arguing that Global temps will respond fast, hard, & immediately to a change in GCR's (thru Modulation of GCC), then AGW cannot exist since the climate system is a rapid equilibrium, and vast changes in climate will not occur.

Outgoing LW radiation is highest in the satellite era now,from2004-2011 (today), and AGW requires that there be less and less overall Outgoing LW radiation compared to what is Coming In, in order for us to warm, this has to be true, because we need to warm until we hit equilibrium, and if equilibrium is automatic (Outgoing LW radiation not changing from increased CO2) then AGW won't occur. and the opposite has been true. Instead we've been increasing Outgoing LW radiation as CO2 has been rising. The Earth emits LW radiation at many frequencies outside the CO2 spectrum alone, as an ulterior example.

The Rising AA-index would end up correlating to lowering GCC, since that is the mechanism in discussion here. GCR's don't directly correlate on short timescales through Modulation of GCC is long term, not short term. OHC build up is very long term, OHC equilibrium is multi-Century... this is not short term in the least!

You are a wicked smart dude...but you shouldn't even attempt to correlate Global Temps to GCR directly short term, it makes no sense at all. Via 10/BE proxies, GCC is not only lowest in over 2000 years, but has not yet begun to increase in response to increased GCR's over the past 5yrs. CRII thru 2005, the point stands here. In this case, since 2005, we should have basically flat temperatures, and begin to see the cooling between 2011-2015, (yrs 6-11 in lag time qualitatively). Also note the PDO/AMO/IOD all affect GCC, as does ENSO, there are many modulation factors to consider.

[skierinvermont]

Are you nuts? You obviously don't know anything about the Climate System & Equilibrium, because OHC equilibrium is Multi-Century,and the warmer equilibrium regimine built up over 300yrs thru lower GCC will will take a long time to return to normal

1. The oceans don't take hundreds of years to release heat. If the oceans were warmer than the atmosphere, most of the heat would be released in a short period of maybe 10 years.

2. Even if it did take the oceans hundreds of years to release their heat, that would mean the heat would be released so slowly so as to have a minimal effect on surface temperatures. The rate of heat release would be at most .1W/m2.. which would have almost no effect on surface temperatures. Take all the extra heat in the oceans, divide by 100 years, = less than .1W/m2. Which is nothing.

3. Even ignoring #1 and #2, your theory says that OHC would be dropping as the oceans release their heat to the atmosphere. In other words, you are proposing the "warm" oceans are warming the atmosphere (by releasing the heat they have stored up). Instead we see that BOTH the oceans and the atmosphere are rapidly gaining heat. This is unequivocal proof that the earth is gaining more heat than it is losing. Which can only be attributable to 1) a change in incoming energy, 2) a change in the greenhouse effect, 3) a change in albedo. We know 1 and 3 have changed very little. And we know it's #2 because we know CO2 is a greenhosue gas and LESS LW RADIATION IS ESCAPING THE EARTH"S ATMOSPHERE BY EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION. This is unequivocal proof that CO2 is responsible for the disequilbrium and the warming of the earth.

[BethesdaWX]

1. The oceans don't take hundreds of years to release heat. If the oceans were warmer than the atmosphere, most of the heat would be released in a short period of maybe 10 years.

2. Even if it did take the oceans hundreds of years to release their heat, that would mean the heat would be released so slowly so as to have a minimal effect on surface temperatures. The rate of heat release would be at most .1W/m2.. which would have almost no effect on surface temperatures. Take all the extra heat in the oceans, divide by 100 years, = less than .1W/m2. Which is nothing.

3. Even ignoring #1 and #2, your theory says that OHC would be dropping as the oceans release their heat to the atmosphere. In other words, you are proposing the "warm" oceans are warming the atmosphere (by releasing the heat they have stored up). Instead we see that BOTH the oceans and the atmosphere are rapidly gaining heat. This is unequivocal proof that the earth is gaining more heat than it is losing. Which can only be attributable to 1) a change in incoming energy, 2) a change in the greenhouse effect, 3) a change in albedo. We know 1 and 3 have changed very little. And we know it's #2 because we know CO2 is a greenhosue gas and LESS LW RADIATION IS ESCAPING THE EARTH"S ATMOSPHERE BY EMPIRICAL OBSERVATION. This is unequivocal proof that CO2 is responsible for the disequilbrium and the warming of the earth.

You Mis-interpreted my OHC reference, and made one error.

1) Outgoing LW radiation from the Atmosphere Has Been Increasing via Satellite measurement, (see my other thread), it is now highest in the satellite era. This means that non-CO2 warming has been taking place.

2) In order for OHC to decrease by this Mechanism, GCC needs to decrease first, and this is not immediate, but cumulative over longer timescales!......and is Proven By 10/BE proxies! in, you decrease GCR's,,. Immediately GCC is affected, but the effect in short timescales is Minimal... This is evident in 10/BE proxies. Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earth's surface and exert a strong cooling effect on the surface. Just A 2% change in low clouds during a solar cycle will change the heat input to the Earth's surface by 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m²). This compares to the total warming of 1.4 W/m² the IPCC cites in the 20th century Including CO2 emissions. (The IPCC does not recognize the effect of the Sun and Cosmic rays, and attributes the warming to CO2.) As for GCRs, The correlation gets even better through longer-scale solar cycles. For example, the intensity of cosmic rays varies by 15 percent through the 11-year sun spot cycle. At the longer wavelength decadal-scale, centennial-scale Seuss, and millennial-scale Bond cycles the cosmic ray intensity varies by up to four times that much, causing significant changes to the climate.

So now Imagine a 5% decrease in LLGCC over a 200yr timespan....that would blow out all known drivers referenced by the IPCC including the release of GHGes.

You are Correct...GCR's will have an immediate effect on GCC...but that effect (short term) is minimal and takes time to decrease GCC by 5% or so over time. How do we Know this? Its Easy! 2 Ways

-Look at 10/BE proxy data, and it is easy to see that the trends have Been Long Term (multi decade, and Century, following the Solar Cycle)

-Look at Ice Core data, which by Using DO18 Isotopes, is the best proxy for this type of warming. The Effects, demonstrated here, are Multi-Decade/Century in resonse to GCC.

The 0C line is todays temperature.

So, by this, we know that GCC trends over decades and centuries have had an effect in the past,and are likely having an effect now.

I think the bottom line here, instead of beating at the unknowns, just wait and see what happens. If I'm wrong, We'll know by 2020, because the mean global temp will be as warm as 1998, and there will be warmer years, according to the IPCC.

[skierinvermont]

response to #1:

I'd like to see some evidence that this data on LW radiation is accurate. There is lots of data out there but not all of it is accurate. So you need to read the peer-reviewed studies in which the data was created. Usually a peer-review study is responsible for the creation of the data, but then the data is continually published and you need to go back and read the original study in which the data was created to find out how accurate it is, what purpose it was created for etc. For example, RSS temperature data. RSS temperature data is widely available. You can do a google search and likely you will come across RSS or UAH temperature data. But you will have no idea how accurate this data is unless you go back and look at the peer-reviewed publications that describe the data. You have to go back and read what Mears et al. (RSS) and Christy and Spencer (UAH) have published. When you do you find it that the data is fairly accurate, but a number of problems exist as well. So it's not "highly accurate" but it's also not very poor data either, it's somewhere in between.

You've just posted this graph of OLR. I want to know where it comes from? I want to read a peer-reviewed description of this data before I accept it as accurate. THAT is scientific skepticism. Posting graphs from unknown sources and assuming they are accurate is NOT skeptical.

From what I've read of OLR, I don't think we have accurate absolute measurements. To get accurate absolute measurements you need to measure 100% of the earth simultaneously. Which I don't think we can do. You also have all the satellite drift problems and calibration problems you get from most satellites.

Even if the graph is accurate, it is not necessarily inconsistent with AGW. AGW has little net effect on OLR. An increase in OLR could be due to a 3rd variable operating simultaneous to AGW. But like I said, I am highly doubtful the data is accurate. Prove me wrong and post peer-reviewed literature which says otherwise.

In response to #2:

There is no good evidence that LLGCC has decreased. That would probably be associated with much less global precip that has not been observed. You are just assuming that because GCRs decreased from 1900 to 1990 that LLGCC decreased as well. Again, study after study has shown that GCRs have a minimal effect on GCC. All the CERN study is doing is showing that there could be a very small theoretical effect. If there was a large effect, we would have seen GCC increase dramatically over the last 20 years. We have not.

[BethesdaWX]

response to #1:

I'd like to see some evidence that this data on LW radiation is accurate. There is lots of data out there but not all of it is accurate. So you need to read the peer-reviewed studies in which the data was created. Usually a peer-review study is responsible for the creation of the data, but then the data is continually published and you need to go back and read the original study in which the data was created to find out how accurate it is, what purpose it was created for etc. For example, RSS temperature data. RSS temperature data is widely available. You can do a google search and likely you will come across RSS or UAH temperature data. But you will have no idea how accurate this data is unless you go back and look at the peer-reviewed publications that describe the data. You have to go back and read what Mears et al. (RSS) and Christy and Spencer (UAH) have published. When you do you find it that the data is fairly accurate, but a number of problems exist as well. So it's not "highly accurate" but it's also not very poor data either, it's somewhere in between.

You've just posted this graph of OLR. I want to know where it comes from? I want to read a peer-reviewed description of this data before I accept it as accurate. THAT is scientific skepticism. Posting graphs from unknown sources and assuming they are accurate is NOT skeptical.

From what I've read of OLR, I don't think we have accurate absolute measurements. To get accurate absolute measurements you need to measure 100% of the earth simultaneously. Which I don't think we can do. You also have all the satellite drift problems and calibration problems you get from most satellites.

Even if the graph is accurate, it is not necessarily inconsistent with AGW. AGW has little net effect on OLR. An increase in OLR could be due to a 3rd variable operating simultaneous to AGW. But like I said, I am highly doubtful the data is accurate. Prove me wrong and post peer-reviewed literature which says otherwise.

In response to #2:

There is no good evidence that LLGCC has decreased. That would probably be associated with much less global precip that has not been observed. You are just assuming that because GCRs decreased from 1900 to 1990 that LLGCC decreased as well. Again, study after study has shown that GCRs have a minimal effect on GCC. All the CERN study is doing is showing that there could be a very small theoretical effect. If there was a large effect, we would have seen GCC increase dramatically over the last 20 years. We have not.

1) Uhhh, The source is NOAA/CPC..... which is THE source, not "a" source. Just for you... here is the Code for the Data: ftp://ftp.cdc.noaa.g...p_OLR/readolr.f

NOAA updates the data a few times a year, so its obviously long term used...by the CPC. Its obviously not perfect, as all satellites have a margin of error, but it is still meant for long term trends. You can FOI them if you believe that they are in a skeptic conspiracy You are CORRECT, it doesn't invalidate AGW...and thats why I am a believer in AGW. But it does show that there has been significant warming from other than just AGW, and that this natural warming almost flat-lined beginning 2005...outgoing LW has increased by Several W/m² until then.

This shows that natural warming mostly stopped in 2005, and is now flat-lining.

2) There is obvious evidence that LLGCC has decreased significantly, look at 10/BE proxies (beryllium), I will post it if you want me to. That (and all other evidence) has shown that LLGCC changes respond little overall to the 11yr cycles, as you said, the short term effect is small, but the trends over long term in cycles of grand maxima & Minima affect it, which is also evident in 10/BE proxies. You are correct yet again, the immediate impact is small, but cumulative impact over-time varies GCC by 5% ofter 200yr timespans, and maybe over 3% this Past century. Only a fool would believe GCC cannot vary by 5% through solar influence.

To repost my above paragraph, IF LLGCC were to respond quickly to 11yr solar cycles, just a 2% change in low clouds during a solar cycle will change the heat input to the Earth's surface by 1.2 watts per square metre (W/m²). This compares to the total warming of 1.4 W/m² the IPCC cites in the 20th century Including CO2 emissions. Does that make much sense looking at the temperature records? No LOL! As for GCRs, the correlation gets even better through longer-scale solar cycles. For example, the intensity of cosmic rays varies by 15 percent through the 11-year sun spot cycle. At the longer wavelength decadal-scale, centennial-scale Seuss, and millennial-scale Bond cycles the cosmic ray intensity varies by up to four times that much, causing significant changes to the climate.

Again, look at 10/BE proxies for proof, it is perfect. So now Imagine a 5% decrease in LLGCC over a 200yr timespan....that would blow out all known drivers referenced by the IPCC including the release of GHGes

So yes, there are other ways to re-produce the warming we've seen over the past few centuries. It has happened to greater extents throughout throughout the Holocene based on All Ice Core Proxies, and that was as a result of GCC changes in looking at 10/BE concentrations.