Role of the Sun in Climate Change

[WeatherRusty]

Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb or emit IR photons on a molecular scale. The atmosphere & surface do shed energy but it is through molecular conduction to the surface which then promptly emits IR unimpeded unless intercepted by a greenhouse gas.

You ask a lot of questions. Let me ask you one.

What is meant by that sentence? I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying.

Are you saying the atmosphere does not radiate?

If so then how do you reconcile that with this?

SEE HERE

Do you understand the difference between thermal radiation and radiation emitted by single molecules and atoms?

[physicsguy21]

I never said the atmosphere as a body does not emit, that would be silly.

Enhancing the radiative greenhouse effect raises both the tropopause and the altitude at which the atmosphere emits, which increases the IR release timelength.

[Snow_Miser]

The 10 year trend is not very positive because you are starting in a multi-year nino and ending in a multi-year nina. The effect of ENSO is fairly easily and accurately statistically removed from global temperature records. When the effect is removed, it reveals a rapid warming rate over the last 10 years. You could also start the trends a couple years earlier, in 1999 or 2000 to get a fairly ENSO unbiased trend.

2004 had a neutral ENSO through half of the year, to an El Nino that is barely classified as a Nino. So the "Nino" in 2004 shouldn't have had much of an impact on Global Temperatures, in terms of spiking them upward. There is also a lag time with the El Nino's impacts on Global Temperatures, because of the heat exchanges between the oceans and the atmosphere. While it's also true that 2012 features a La Nina, these impacts may actually be Solar induced, as I have already shown with multiple peer reviewed papers in my opening thread.

The -PDO also plays a role in the recent La Ninas in 2008 and 2011, and the PDO and AMO changing to their negative states alone could lock in no warming for 20-30 years. With more La Ninas and more Cloud Cover with the PDO/AMO being in their negative states, it will offset warming for a few decades to come.

Are you arguing that ENSO is cancelling out a long term warming trend over the last 30 years?

Shouldn't ENSO events still be superimposed over a long term increase in temperatures? The Global Temperatures during El Nino years in 2005, 1998 and 2010 were not statistically significant, consistent with no warming over the last 10 years.

So I don't think it's ENSO, since every single Nino event over the last 10-15 years had led to about the same amount of warming (with the exception of the weak El Ninos in the 2000s).

Quoting Skier:

More importantly, a much more direct measure of the planet's energy imbalance is OHC which has continued to rise at the expected rate the last decade. This is despite TSI dropping and the AA index falling to record low levels. It has had no detectable effect on the planetary energy imbalance.

----------------------------------------------------------

The OHC in the 0-700 meter range has significantly slowed down, it's even close to stopping, wheras OHC in the 0-2000 meter range, a less than ample quality dataset has risen during the last several years.

Here is what Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has to say about this:

This is precisely my point. We should have seen this heat be transfered through the upper 700 meters. From my understanding, the temporal and spatial resolution in the upper 700m is good enough to see this (but we certainly need colleagues at JPL and elsewhere to tell us if it does not have this accuracy).

Below 700 meters, however, the reported warming is based on sparser data so the uncertainty in the plot you have shown for those depths is higher. What is the estimated uncertainty? Before accepting it as sufficiently accurate, we also need to look at the heat transfers through the upper 700 meters.

ARGO floats measure anomalies in temperatures, and if heat were being transfered to the lower levels of the ocean, we should have seen it pass through the 0-700 meter part of the ocean by means of a large spike upward in heat content, then subsequent decrease, as it is being transfered downward into the ocean.

We don't observe that.

Since the quality of the dataset is poorer in the 0-2000 meter range, it can be assumed that this increase is due to a poor dataset.

Quoting Skier:

I also note that you did not include UAH because it actually shows the most warming over the last 10 years. Woodfortrees is also using the old HadCRUT3 which does not include arctic temperature change as HadCRUT4 does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

HadCruT4 is not available on WoodForTrees. UAH shows a slight warming trend over this timeframe, which can be accounted for by satellite drift errors.

[Snow_Miser]

The Sun has increased it's radiative output since the Maunder Minimum by about 1.3Wm^2. This produces a radiative forcing of no more than 0.24W/^2. Compare that to 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2.

The actual increase since the Maunder Minimum is still uncertain, and it determines how much the sun has contributed to recent warming.

Solar Feedbacks, as I have posted, can amplify the solar changes. You are assuming that when TSI increases, there are no feedbacks to amplify this warming. I have shown that there are multiple positive feedbacks, with Cloud cover changes being an example.

[Snow_Miser]

The sun plays a role, but its role has diminished in relative terms with the rise in atmospheric concentration of CO2. When solar activity increases, temperatures will likely warm further. When solar activity becomes quieter, temperatures might be a little cooler than would otherwise be the case, but early evidence suggests that they would not decline to former levels.

Temperatures are not going to decline to former levels because of the anthropogenic forcing from Carbon Dioxide, but that doesn't mean that the sun has not been responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years (1970-2000).

Recent research revealed that even as the sun went through an abnormally lengthy inactive period, the earth maintained an energy imbalance: http://pubs.giss.nas...Hansen_etal.pdf. Global temperatures did not return to levels more like the 1980s or even 1990s during the 2007-2010 bottom in solar activity. Instead, the anomaly during that timeframe was +0.55°C. That's above the 1990s mean anomaly of +0.33°C and somewhat above the 2000-2011 mean anomaly of +0.53°C. The persistent energy imbalance explains this failure of temperatures to respond dramatically to the extraordinary decline in solar activity during the period in question.

Hansen is using energy calculations that haven't even been verified by satellites yet to see if they are right, because the energy imbalance is too small to be measured by satellites.

So in other words, he and you are using evidence that we don't even know is right or not.

[skierinvermont]

2004 had a neutral ENSO through half of the year, to an El Nino that is barely classified as a Nino. So the "Nino" in 2004 shouldn't have had much of an impact on Global Temperatures, in terms of spiking them upward. There is also a lag time with the El Nino's impacts on Global Temperatures, because of the heat exchanges between the oceans and the atmosphere. While it's also true that 2012 features a La Nina, these impacts may actually be Solar induced, as I have already shown with multiple peer reviewed papers in my opening thread.

The -PDO also plays a role in the recent La Ninas in 2008 and 2011, and the PDO and AMO changing to their negative states alone could lock in no warming for 20-30 years. With more La Ninas and more Cloud Cover with the PDO/AMO being in their negative states, it will offset warming for a few decades to come.

Are you arguing that ENSO is cancelling out a long term warming trend over the last 30 years?

Shouldn't ENSO events still be superimposed over a long term increase in temperatures? The Global Temperatures during El Nino years in 2005, 1998 and 2010 were not statistically significant, consistent with no warming over the last 10 years.

So I don't think it's ENSO, since every single Nino event over the last 10-15 years had led to about the same amount of warming (with the exception of the weak El Ninos in the 2000s).

Quoting Skier:

More importantly, a much more direct measure of the planet's energy imbalance is OHC which has continued to rise at the expected rate the last decade. This is despite TSI dropping and the AA index falling to record low levels. It has had no detectable effect on the planetary energy imbalance.

----------------------------------------------------------

The OHC in the 0-700 meter range has significantly slowed down, it's even close to stopping, wheras OHC in the 0-2000 meter range, a less than ample quality dataset has risen during the last several years.

Here is what Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. has to say about this:

This is precisely my point. We should have seen this heat be transfered through the upper 700 meters. From my understanding, the temporal and spatial resolution in the upper 700m is good enough to see this (but we certainly need colleagues at JPL and elsewhere to tell us if it does not have this accuracy).

Below 700 meters, however, the reported warming is based on sparser data so the uncertainty in the plot you have shown for those depths is higher. What is the estimated uncertainty? Before accepting it as sufficiently accurate, we also need to look at the heat transfers through the upper 700 meters.

ARGO floats measure anomalies in temperatures, and if heat were being transfered to the lower levels of the ocean, we should have seen it pass through the 0-700 meter part of the ocean by means of a large spike upward in heat content, then subsequent decrease, as it is being transfered downward into the ocean.

We don't observe that.

Since the quality of the dataset is poorer in the 0-2000 meter range, it can be assumed that this increase is due to a poor dataset.

Quoting Skier:

I also note that you did not include UAH because it actually shows the most warming over the last 10 years. Woodfortrees is also using the old HadCRUT3 which does not include arctic temperature change as HadCRUT4 does.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

HadCruT4 is not available on WoodForTrees. UAH shows a slight warming trend over this timeframe, which can be accounted for by satellite drift errors.

This is not science. You are trying to squeeze every single fact into the box that you want it to.

Regardless of whether the 2004/2005 ENSO was weak or strong, it was positive which has a warming effect (less than that of strong), and we are now in a multi-year Nina. Global temperatures have a very predictable response to the ONI. When this effect is removed statistically, the global temperature trend since 2004 is quite positive. This is just a basic fact. You cannot dispute the statistics.

it's also a joke that you make excuses for using HadCrut3 just because hadcrut4 wasn't on the one site that you used. So get the data. Do the job properly instead of data you know is not good. Blaming the warming on UAH since 2004 on satellite drift is borderline dishonesty. If the satellites drift, then the whole data set is invalid and should be scrapped (or at least interpreted properly given the large error bars). Basically you are saying that when UAH warms faster than RSS, it's satellite drift, but when UAH warms slower than RSS it's right.

I really don't care about some off the cuff comment by Pielke without any supporting evidence. Even he wasn't sure that what he was saying is correct, but you are so eager to dismiss all data that doesn't support your box you immediately assume it is gospel. He doesn't even say that we *DON'T* see the heat transfer. He just says it would be something to look at to verify what is being observed at 700-2000m. Also he is not saying that we should see a spike and then a drop in 0-700m. He is saying that since there are sensors at many levels, we should see it gradually moving lower. Heat is constantly being added to the top. If temporarily there is an increase in transfer to the depths that would stall 0-700m OHC and increase 700+ OHC. You would not see a spike and then a drop. You would just see a stall, which is what we do see. You are grasping at straws. The 0-2000m OHC data has published error bars and uncertainty based on the quality of sampling.

Moreover, sea levels continue to rise which is largely due to the fact that they continue to warm and expand.

[skierinvermont]

Temperatures are not going to decline to former levels because of the anthropogenic forcing from Carbon Dioxide, but that doesn't mean that the sun has not been responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years (1970-2000).

Hansen is using energy calculations that haven't even been verified by satellites yet to see if they are right, because the energy imbalance is too small to be measured by satellites.

So in other words, he and you are using evidence that we don't even know is right or not.

The planetary energy imbalance Hansen is using is coming from ARGO, not satellites. You would know this if you read the paper.

Of course apparently Pielke has single handedly in a single blog comment disprove the estimates of OHC from ARGO (except for the fact that Pielke himself doesn't even believe that and you've just misunderstood him).

[donsutherland1]

Temperatures are not going to decline to former levels because of the anthropogenic forcing from Carbon Dioxide, but that doesn't mean that the sun has not been responsible for most of the warming over the last 30 years (1970-2000).

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic forcing, not changes in solar irradiance, has played the dominant role during that timeframe.

Hansen is using energy calculations that haven't even been verified by satellites yet to see if they are right, because the energy imbalance is too small to be measured by satellites.

So in other words, he and you are using evidence that we don't even know is right or not.

Hansen devoted significant time to discussing uncertainties, among other details. Nevertheless, even as the estimate might not be precise, it is reasonable. The lack of a strong negative temperature response to the extreme solar inactivity is the kind of response one would expect if an energy imbalance persisted, as Hansen concludes was the case

Finally, the limitations of satellites do not present an insurmountable obstacle to estimating the Earth's energy imbalance. Related arguments that accurate measurement of the Earth's temperature record were impossible prior to the satellite era are also baseless. Satellites enhance the ability to measure temperatures, even as their measurement is an indirect one.

In any case, when discussing his methodology, Hansen wrote:

We emphasize the era of Argo data because of its potential for accurate analysis. For consistency with the von Schuckmann and Le Traon (2011) analysis we smooth other annual data with a 6-yr moving linear trend. The 6-yr smoothing is a compromise between minimizing the error and allowing temporal change due to events such as the Pinatubo volcano and the solar cycle to remain apparent in the record.

Heat uptake in the upper 700 m of the ocean (Fig. 9b) has been estimated by Lyman et al. (2010) and Levitus et al. (2009). The 1993–2008 period is of special interest, because satellite altimetry for that period allows accurate measurement of sea level change.

[Snow_Miser]

The planetary energy imbalance Hansen is using is coming from ARGO, not satellites. You would know this if you read the paper.

Of course apparently Pielke has single handedly in a single blog comment disprove the estimates of OHC from ARGO (except for the fact that Pielke himself doesn't even believe that and you've just misunderstood him).

The most accurate way to calculate energy imbalances is with the satellites measuring the amount of energy reaching Earth-Amount of Energy leaving Earth.

Pielke has nothing to do with this comment.

[Snow_Miser]

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic forcing, not changes in solar irradiance, has played the dominant role during that timeframe.

There is not a scientific consensus. The studies that claim so are all flawed for various reasons.

Hansen devoted significant time to discussing uncertainties, among other details. Nevertheless, even as the estimate might not be precise, it is reasonable. The lack of a strong negative temperature response to the extreme solar inactivity is the kind of response one would expect if an energy imbalance persisted, as Hansen concludes was the case

Finally, the limitations of satellites do not present an insurmountable obstacle to estimating the Earth's energy imbalance. Related arguments that accurate measurement of the Earth's temperature record were impossible prior to the satellite era are also baseless. Satellites enhance the ability to measure temperatures, even as their measurement is an indirect one.

In any case, when discussing his methodology, Hansen wrote:

Satellites are the most accurate way of measuring energy imbalance changes, but enegy imbalance changes can also be measured through heat content changes.

But you're taking one study for granted.

Another study by Douglass and Knox 2009 found that using the OHC to calculate radiative energy imbalances found an energy imbalance of ~-0.2 w/m^2 over the last decade, which is consistent with decreasing Solar radiation over this timeframe.

Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of

direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960–

mid-1970s (

−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior

reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.

[WeatherRusty]

The actual increase since the Maunder Minimum is still uncertain, and it determines how much the sun has contributed to recent warming.

Solar Feedbacks, as I have posted, can amplify the solar changes. You are assuming that when TSI increases, there are no feedbacks to amplify this warming. I have shown that there are multiple positive feedbacks, with Cloud cover changes being an example.

You know me better than that! I don't deny feedback processes to radiative forcing, in fact even a moderate climate sensitivity depends on them. As we both know much of the projected warming is due to the action of feedback processes whether said forcing is caused by the Sun, greenhouse gases, aerosols or any combination including several others.

Yes, I made the assumption of zero feedback, solely to make the comparison between the magnitude of forcing produced by solar variation and a single doubling of CO2.

[PhillipS]

If the roughly 40% anthropogenic increase in CO2, a well-known, well-researched GHG, was not responsible for the observed global temperature increase over the past century then the Earth's climate sensitivity must be very low.

If the roughly 0.4% solar variability over the same period did cause the observed global temperature increase then the Earth's climate sensitivity must be extremely high.

Climate sensitivity to changes in forcings can't be both very low and extremely high at the same time. Climate sensitivity includes feedback processes, of course.

[Snow_Miser]

Yes, I made the assumption of zero feedback, solely to make the comparison between the magnitude of forcing produced by solar variation and a single doubling of CO2.

I didn't say you denied the feedback processes... I said that in your paragraph you didn't take feedback processes into account. If Climate sensitivity to CO2 is low and it is high to solar radiation, then those numbers would change entirely.

[Snow_Miser]

Climate sensitivity to changes in forcings can't be both very low and extremely high at the same time. Climate sensitivity includes feedback processes, of course.

The different mechanisms to produce feedbacks with each radiative forcing are what determine how sensitive the climate is to a specific forcing. There will be different feedbacks for different forcings, thus different sensitivities.

[donsutherland1]

Another study by Douglass and Knox 2009 found that using the OHC to calculate radiative energy imbalances found an energy imbalance of ~-0.2 w/m^2 over the last decade, which is consistent with decreasing Solar radiation over this timeframe.

Subsequent research found flaws in that paper, namely that it didn't consider all the evidence that was available. A broader examination of the evidence showed a continuing positive energy imbalance. Moreover, the continuing rise in sea levels and continuing rise in global temperatures are both expected responses to a positive energy imbalance. That global temperatures did not respond dramatically to the extraordinary solar minimum also points to a continuing positive energy imbalance.

In sum, while Hansen's measurements may not be precise--and he discusses the uncertainties in some detail--the overall responses in sea level and global temperatures are consistent with a positive energy imbalance.

[Snow_Miser]

[/font][/size]

That global temperatures did not respond dramatically to the extraordinary solar minimum also points to a continuing positive energy imbalance.

Well that's because they may not have fully responded yet because there is a lag between the solar radiation and the temperature changes, primarily due to the fact that the oceans take years to fully equilibriate to a climate forcing. That is also why CAGW advocates say even if we stop emitting CO2 now, the Earth will still continue to warm, because the oceans have not equilibriated to the CO2 forcing yet. The same applies to the solar forcing.

[physicsguy21]

The different mechanisms to produce feedbacks with each radiative forcing are what determine how sensitive the climate is to a specific forcing. There will be different feedbacks for different forcings, thus different sensitivities.

I disagree, a radiative forcing is a radiative forcing. Where the difference lies is within chemical feedbacks, or mechanical feedbacks. That is where the cloud cover issue comes in.

If the Sun is the main driver of circulation pumps such as the Hadley Cell or Arctic Oscillation, then the forcing from the Sun will be amplified significantly.

[WeatherRusty]

There is not a scientific consensus. The studies that claim so are all flawed for various reasons.

Satellites are the most accurate way of measuring energy imbalance changes, but enegy imbalance changes can also be measured through heat content changes.

But you're taking one study for granted.

Another study by Douglass and Knox 2009 found that using the OHC to calculate radiative energy imbalances found an energy imbalance of ~-0.2 w/m^2 over the last decade, which is consistent with decreasing Solar radiation over this timeframe.

Earth’s radiation imbalance is determined from ocean heat content data and compared with results of

direct measurements. Distinct time intervals of alternating positive and negative values are found: 1960–

mid-1970s (

−0.15), mid-1970s–2000 (+0.15), 2001–present (−0.2 W/m2), and are consistent with prior

reports. These climate shifts limit climate predictability.

Do you believe the IPCC reflects the scientific consensus, or do you think the IPCC creates the appearance of a consensus? I accept the first option and that there is integrity at NOAA, NASA, the NAS etc.

It is difficult to assess the TOA imbalance. It's measurement is not directly determined, it is an inferred value taken by combining satellite and OHC. It is not an instantaneous measurement, but rather a time integrated one. The difficulty in finding it's value is made worse by a shortage in required instrumentation, thus the origin of Keven Trenberth's "it is a travesty comment".

[Snow_Miser]

I disagree, a radiative forcing is a radiative forcing. Where the difference lies is within chemical feedbacks, or mechanical feedbacks. That is where the cloud cover issue comes in.

If the Sun is the main driver of circulation pumps such as the Hadley Cell or Arctic Oscillation, then the forcing from the Sun will be amplified significantly.

If the CO2 increase creates fewer high clouds with warming, and say a TSI increase creates fewer low clouds with GCRs/TSI directly, then the overall end to the warming will be different.

[Snow_Miser]

Do you believe the IPCC reflects the scientific consensus, or do you think the IPCC creates the appearance of a consensus? I accept the first option and that there is integrity at NOAA, NASA, the NAS etc.

The IPCC represents what most government funded climate scientists view. It's not a "consensus" but I think there is a majority on this issue with climate scientists siding more with you than me.

However,

The IPCC has lead authors who were not even M.S. or Ph.D students. It has many who cooperate with the WWF, and green energy companies. That would not produce a scientifically objective conclusion, in my opinion.

[WeatherRusty]

The different mechanisms to produce feedbacks with each radiative forcing are what determine how sensitive the climate is to a specific forcing. There will be different feedbacks for different forcings, thus different sensitivities.

Can you proved peer-reviewed evidence in support of your claim of different feedbacks?

Here is the definition of radiative forcing:

Radiative Forcing, or RF, is specifically defined as the “change in net irradiance at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values.’”

No mention is made as to the source of the forcing. Photons are not aware of their origin. A forcing of xyz is the same regardless of it's source.

[donsutherland1]

Well that's because they may not have fully responded yet because there is a lag between the solar radiation and the temperature changes, primarily due to the fact that the oceans take years to fully equilibriate to a climate forcing. That is also why CAGW advocates say even if we stop emitting CO2 now, the Earth will still continue to warm, because the oceans have not equilibriated to the CO2 forcing yet. The same applies to the solar forcing.

The full response occurs far faster for solar irradiance than for CO2. Even if CO2 emissions are brought into balance with absorption, the atmospheric concentration takes a long time to diminish. Hence, the CO2 forcing continues.

If solar irradiance largely explained the recent temperature trends, there should have been much more response than there was. Instead, everything is consistent with a continuing energy imbalance. Global temperatures generally continued their climb, despite the exceptional solar minimum and also series of La Niña events. In areas where the climate models have predicted warming would be most aggressive e.g., the Arctic, the past two years were the warmest on the instrument record there.

Should an El Niño develop, it will be interesting to see whether the global temperature sets a new record and whether the Arctic does, as well.

[Snow_Miser]

Can you proved peer-reviewed evidence in support of your claim of different feedbacks?

No mention is made as to the source of the forcing. Photons are not aware of their origin. A forcing of xyz is the same regardless of it's source.

Well I've always thought that the sun being an external force and manipulating the external astronomical forces like GCRs, and internal feedbacks like magentic oscillations, and oceanic oscillations, and there would be a different effect than an internal forcing like CO2 not influencing astronomical factors, and magnetic oscillations. I may be wrong on this issue though.

[FPizz]

Donna Laframboise?

so now you are 100% trolling.

Where did your red tag go?

[WeatherRusty]

The IPCC represents what most government funded climate scientists view. It's not a "consensus" but I think there is a majority on this issue with climate scientists siding more with you than me.

However,

The IPCC has lead authors who were not even M.S. or Ph.D students. It has many who cooperate with the WWF, and green energy companies. That would not produce a scientifically objective conclusion, in my opinion.

This is a great discussion and very reasonably posited in my opinion. I have no problem with the introduction of alternative, competing and complimentary concepts such as what Snowlover123 brings forth.

At the same time, I do have a problem and so would the climate science community, with the implication that these concepts should replace AGW as the main driver of climate change.

The IPCC is tasked with assembling, compiling and presenting the current state of climate change science. It does not do the science it reports on.....or at least that is my understanding.

[FPizz]

huh?

For some reason i thought you had a red tag, I guess I was wrong.

[SVT450R]

Donna Laframboise?

so now you are 100% trolling.

Your getting boring please don't come in here and muck up the discussion with your a troll nonsense.

[WeatherRusty]

Well I've always thought that the sun being an external force and manipulating the external astronomical forces like GCRs, and internal feedbacks like magentic oscillations, and oceanic oscillations, and there would be a different effect than an internal forcing like CO2 not influencing astronomical factors, and magnetic oscillations. I may be wrong on this issue though.

You are not wrong. These things make a difference, just not in terms of radiative forcing. Take for example, the differences between warming due to Solar changes versus an enhancement to the greenhouse effect.

We should expect and do see, a pattern of warming indicative of greenhouse warming.

Solar warming should warm both the troposphere and the stratosphere, greenhouse warming warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere.

Nights are warming faster than days. Solar warming would warm days and nights more equally.

[physicsguy21]

You are not wrong. These things make a difference, just not in terms of radiative forcing. Take for example, the differences between warming due to Solar changes versus an enhancement to the greenhouse effect.

We should expect and do see, a pattern of warming indicative of greenhouse warming.

Solar warming should warm both the troposphere and the stratosphere, greenhouse warming warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere.

Nights are warming faster than days. Solar warming would warm days and nights more equally.

Well actually the stratosphere thing is misleading, the stratosphere is coolest during the northern hemispheric summer while the lower troposphere is warmest.

It has to do with solar destruction of ozone, the same mechanism exists during variations on solar activity, the stratosphere actually cools during periods of active solar.

Since 1995 there has been no trend in stratospheric temperatures.

When it comes to nighttime temperature changes, those are always influenced more than daytime temperatures due to increased surface latent heat and humidity during warm periods of any kind.

[Snow_Miser]

The full response occurs far faster for solar irradiance than for CO2. Even if CO2 emissions are brought into balance with absorption, the atmospheric concentration takes a long time to diminish. Hence, the CO2 forcing continues.

If solar irradiance largely explained the recent temperature trends, there should have been much more response than there was. Instead, everything is consistent with a continuing energy imbalance. Global temperatures generally continued their climb, despite the exceptional solar minimum and also series of La Niña events. In areas where the climate models have predicted warming would be most aggressive e.g., the Arctic, the past two years were the warmest on the instrument record there.

Should an El Niño develop, it will be interesting to see whether the global temperature sets a new record and whether the Arctic does, as well.

I agree with your first point, but there is definitely a lag, since the oceans are so vastly deep and they take years to equilibriate to a new forcing, solar or anthropogenic greenhouse gases. Assuming the later lags verify, we may not have even begun to feel the true effects of a reduced solar minimum quite yet.

How do you know that "If solar irradiance largely explained the recent temperature trends, there should have been much more response than there was."

Increased Solar irradiance reaching Earth's Surface creates an energy imbalance because there is more energy reaching the Earth's Surface than radiating out to space.

And agree with your last point that if we do get an El Nino this year into next year that it should prove to be interesting with Global Temperatures.