WTOP - Live Stream on Climate Change

[Snow_Miser]

My bottom line is this. I am not smart enough (I don't believe anyone is) to assimilate all the material being thrown about in this debate. I depend on the collective scientific consensus as endorsed by organizations such as the National Academy of Science to help me sort all this out.

I understand the physical basis for AGW fairly well and it fits in nicely with my general scientific understanding. I find very little conflict with mainstream scientific principles if any. You can provide studies in support of what you are doing here, all well and good, but if the collective opinion of the scientific community is that those studies fail to convince what is someone like me, who admits to not knowing it all supposed to think? Am I to throw out all that I find very convincing because Snowlover123 is convinced otherwise by studies which have not given rise to mainstream acceptance?

Ahhh, when all hope is lost, resort to that imaginary consensus again.

The problem is that there is no such consensus. These councils that write "position statements" for these large organizations are quite small, and do not necessarily reflect the views of it's members.

For example, the American Meteorological Society has a council size of 21 members, and it has taken the stance that humans are responsible for most of the climate change observed over the 20th Century, however, 48% of it's members in a recent survey, acknowledged that they do not agree with such a statement.

So in the AMS, roughly, it is roughly split 50/50 on whether humans are primarily causing Global Warming.

Some consensus.

[WeatherRusty]

Ahhh, when all hope is lost, resort to that imaginary consensus again.

The problem is that there is no such consensus. These councils that write "position statements" for these large organizations are quite small, and do not necessarily reflect the views of it's members.

For example, the American Meteorological Society has a council size of 21 members, and it has taken the stance that humans are responsible for most of the climate change observed over the 20th Century, however, 48% of it's members in a recent survey, acknowledged that they do not agree with such a statement.

So in the AMS, roughly, it is roughly split 50/50 on whether humans are primarily causing Global Warming.

Some consensus.

The consensus is within the community of those scientists actively working in fields related to climatology. That's were the often bandied about 97% figure pertains to.

When all hope is lost? You are funny! Hope for what by the way? Active mitigation? I've held little hope for that anyway, at least not to the degree deemed necessary to make any meaningful difference. When the world wakes up it will be to late to prevent whatever the outcome turns out to be. I am not much of a risk taker, I don't like playing Russian Roulette with my descendants future.

[Snow_Miser]

The consensus is within the community of those scientists actively working in fields related to climatology. That's were the often bandied about 97% figure pertains to.

The 97% number that advocates enjoy citing, is actually a serious misrepresentation.

That 97% number would probably include the vast majority of skeptics, since the Doran and Zimmerman question was "do you believe that human activity is a significant contributing factor to the changing mean global temperatures?" not a dominant cause.

In fact, I would say yes to that question, but I would disagree that it is the dominant cause. Significant can mean 10-30%, and therefore the poll's question was ambiguous to what significant actually means. Does it mean greater than 10%? 20%? 60% contribution from anthropogenic causes? It is a shame that so many people decide to misrepresent the question that was not worded properly. I am sure that if it was polled concerning if anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions were responsible for most (greater than 50% of the warming observed) of the observed warming, then the 97% number would go poof.

[WeatherRusty]

The CO2 effect is nonlinear. With no CO2 there would be little water vapor and earth would be an icebox. A small amount of CO2 is all it takes to get out of the frozen state. But rather than a knob, my preferred analogy is an amplifier. Coming out of the last ice age the SH warmed and melted first, releasing CO2 and spreading warmth to the NH. The warmth seems to reach some maximum in the interglacial periods despite what CO2 does. The last interglacial was warmer with similar CO2. Now that we are adding CO2 the amplifier analogy can be tossed, along with the knob analogy. The only pertinent question is weather feedback, sometimes called water vapor feedback [water vapor distribution is controlled by weather and the distribution is all that matters. More concentration of water vapor (dry areas, wet areas) means cooling. More diffuse water vapor (everywhere gets a little more moist) means warming]

The solar contribution was to enhance AGW in the 80's and 90's and retard AGW very recently. The atmospheric temperature response to solar lags the solar just like atmospheric temperature lags CO2. Solar rose up through the mid 80's (using an 11 year average of TSI). That accounts for some of the enhanced warming in the 80's and 90's. There also should be some future cooling (or reduction in warming) from the late 00's solar minimum. But I do not believe the solar contribution is very strong compared to ongoing AGW.

Solar also affects weather, low solar -> more GCR -> more clouds -> ??? and low solar UV -> more blocking -> ??? Those do not have much if any short term effect on atmospheric temperature. But that weather effect is an important consideration in weather feedback because the distribution matters.

To the bolded.....NO, NO, NO

CO2 forcing is constant in one direction. Solar forcing is variable in two directions.

The temperature response to a radiative forcing is immediate. The lag is with the time required to reach thermal equilibrium with the forcing.

[Msalgado]

Basic thermodynamics.

[WeatherRusty]

Basic thermodynamics.

Correct.

Whatever decline in global temperature there was incident to the solar minimum of the 2000s has ceased entirely. People tend to regard a lag as some sort of memory built into the system. The system has no memory. It responds instantly to a change in electromagnetic radiation.

When people hear it stated that the oceans have great "thermal inertia", what is being referred to is the mixing throughout the water column of heat entering at the surface. It takes time or a lag for the mixing to maximize entropy.

[Msalgado]

Absolutely. Skeptics with little actual understanding of the reasons for lag will often simply throw it out as a wildcard to fill the gaps in their pet theory. Oh we can't account for it? Must be lag!

[Snow_Miser]

Absolutely. Skeptics with little actual understanding of the reasons for lag will often simply throw it out as a wildcard to fill the gaps in their pet theory. Oh we can't account for it? Must be lag!

You guys love to throw aerosoles as a wild card, for why we have not warmed as much as the high sensitivites proposed by the IPCC said we should have warmed.

Oh, and this is how a heat sink like the oceans responds to a change in the climate forcing by the way:

These numbers are arbitrary, but note that as the forcing declines, the temperature is still going up, and then flatlines.

[WeatherRusty]

You guys love to throw aerosoles as a wild card, for why we have not warmed as much as the high sensitivites proposed by the IPCC said we should have warmed.

Oh, and this is how a heat sink like the oceans responds to a change in the climate forcing by the way:

These numbers are arbitrary, but note that as the forcing declines, the temperature is still going up, and then flatlines.

Except that light scattering aerosols are a real phenomenon, what is the real physical basis for your chart? Can you explain your chart in terms of physics?

[Vergent]

You guys love to throw aerosoles as a wild card, for why we have not warmed as much as the high sensitivites proposed by the IPCC said we should have warmed.

Oh, and this is how a heat sink like the oceans responds to a change in the climate forcing by the way:

These numbers are arbitrary, but note that as the forcing declines, the temperature is still going up, and then flatlines.

Duh, the forcing is still elevated. Your lag "theory" has the temperature rising with the forcing at minimum.

[Snow_Miser]

Except that light scattering aerosols are a real phenomenon, what is the real physical basis for your chart? Can you explain your chart in terms of physics?

We also "know" that these aerosols are at a 55 year low, so it is unlikely that they are masking much warming.

The radiative forcing in the beginning causes warming. Suddenly, that radiative forcing starts to decrease. This has an immediate temperature response, but not an immediate temperature decrease. The temperatures are still increasing (albeit more slowly than before) because they have not reached equilibrium with the radiative forcing yet. Eventually, equilibrium is met with the radiative forcing and the temperature. Once the radiative forcing decreases even further, then a negative energy imbalance occurs, and the temperatures begin to go down, first more gradually, then more rapidly.

So yes, there should be a lag with temperatures and solar activity.

[Snow_Miser]

Duh, the forcing is still elevated. Your lag "theory" has the temperature rising with the forcing at minimum.

Wrong.

We have not warmed in the last 10-15 years, so no, we have not warmed.

[Msalgado]

You guys love to throw aerosoles as a wild card, for why we have not warmed as much as the high sensitivites proposed by the IPCC said we should have warmed.

Oh, and this is how a heat sink like the oceans responds to a change in the climate forcing by the way:

These numbers are arbitrary, but note that as the forcing declines, the temperature is still going up, and then flatlines.

Not sure how you think this contradicts what I said.

If I'm in a car and I put the gas pedal all the way down the car will obviously accelerate. If after 2 seconds, I ease up on the pedal slightly, the car will STILL accelerate. However, if I let go of the pedal completely, the car will start to slow down.

[Snow_Miser]

Not sure how you think this contradicts what I said.

If I'm in a car and I put the gas pedal all the way down the car will obviously accelerate. If after 2 seconds, I ease up on the pedal slightly, the car will STILL accelerate. However, if I let go of the pedal completely, the car will start to slow down.

This is not analogous at all, since the oceans have very different properties than that of a car.

[Msalgado]

Wrong.

We have not warmed in the last 10-15 years, so no, we have not warmed.

You can repeat this until you are blue in the face but it is simply not true. As long as this is the basis of your arguments I do not foresee you being taken very seriously.

[Msalgado]

This is not analogous at all, since the oceans have very different properties than that of a car.

Obviously I meant it as a perfect comparison and not a general analogy on basic physics principles you obviously misunderstand. Adding energy to the oceans cannot be compared to adding energy to a car at all. Good catch.

[TerryM]

Wrong.

We have not warmed in the last 10-15 years, so no, we have not warmed.

Claims that are so easily proven wrong ruin your credibility.

Terry

[bluewave]

This is the best that I could find in regard to any time lags:

http://iopscience.io...44022/fulltext/

An interesting result is the time lags found. For volcanic eruptions the resulting cooling lags by about half a year, whereas the warming associated with El Niño events lags the multivariate ENSO index by 2–5 months. For ENSO the largest lag is found in the lower troposphere, whereas for solar forcing the lag in the surface data is larger. This is consistent with ENSO forcing the climate system from below (via ocean heat release) while solar irradiance forces the system from the top. The lags found here are consistent with those from Lean and Rind (2008) for the longer period 1889–2006, namely 6 months for volcanoes, 4 months for ENSO and 1 month for solar variations.

Finally, we list the linear trend in the signals due to ENSO, volcanic forcing and solar variation in table 3. The magnitudes of these trend contributions are quite small compared to the overall trends. In fact the net trend due to these three factors is negative for all data sets except UAH, for which it is zero. Hence these factors have not contributed to an upward trend in temperature data, rather they have contributed a very slight downward trend. Except for UAH data, the trend which is attributable to global warming is therefore very slightly greater than that which is observed in the unadjusted data.

[PhillipS]

We also "know" that these aerosols are at a 55 year low, so it is unlikely that they are masking much warming.

The radiative forcing in the beginning causes warming. Suddenly, that radiative forcing starts to decrease. This has an immediate temperature response, but not an immediate temperature decrease. The temperatures are still increasing (albeit more slowly than before) because they have not reached equilibrium with the radiative forcing yet. Eventually, equilibrium is met with the radiative forcing and the temperature. Once the radiative forcing decreases even further, then a negative energy imbalance occurs, and the temperatures begin to go down, first more gradually, then more rapidly.

So yes, there should be a lag with temperatures and solar activity.

Here is the observational record (with no hypotheticals involved). Now, please show us where the seven year lag is?

[Snow_Miser]

Claims that are so easily proven wrong ruin your credibility.

Terry

Sorry, but I have posted many graphs in prior threads to back this point up, all of the leading temperature datasets agree with the point I brought up above.

[Snow_Miser]

Here is the observational record (with no hypotheticals involved). Now, please show us where the seven year lag is?

I have addressed this graph many times now in posts such as these two:

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/35448-chart-showing-global-temps-disconnect-with-amo-pdo-solar-etc/page__view__findpost__p__1639055

and here:

http://www.americanwx.com/bb/index.php/topic/35448-chart-showing-global-temps-disconnect-with-amo-pdo-solar-etc/page__view__findpost__p__1639486

Funny how you didn't bother to reply to my second post, and yet you insist on spamming this misleading graph all over the climate change forum.

[PhillipS]

I have addressed this graph many times now in posts such as these two:

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1639055

and here:

http://www.americanw...ost__p__1639486

Funny how you didn't bother to reply to my second post, and yet you insist on spamming this misleading graph all over the climate change forum.

Almost as funny as how you prefer hypothetical amplifications and processes to observational data and solid physics.

You haven't addressed the chart I posted (and I doubt you ever will) but, okay, here is a chart from your 2nd link:

Now, show us your claimed 7 years lag between solar activity and global temps. We'll wait.

.

[WeatherRusty]

Eric(skeptic)

The atmospheric temperature response to solar lags the solar just like atmospheric temperature lags CO2.

To the bolded.....NO, NO, NO

CO2 forcing is constant in one direction. Solar forcing is variable in two directions.

The temperature response to a radiative forcing is immediate. The lag is with the time required to reach thermal equilibrium with the forcing.

The above is what prompted this discussion.

I never said there would be no lag. I was disagreeing with the idea that the lag from solar is identical to that from CO2 induced forcing.

The lag due to solar radiative forcing is complicated by the fact of solar variability. The forcing is not consistent in one direction like it is for CO2. That coupled with the fact that solar variability in terms of the excursions up and down are limited in terms of radiative forcing, while the forcing given by rising CO2 is essentially open ended (a long as we continue adding to the concentration) means once again that the thermal response to solar variation rides on the back of the trend set by CO2.

The net forcing is all that matters, and between CO2 and solar radiative forcing CO2 dominates over periods longer than about 7 years. Any lag is to the change in net forcing.

[Snow_Miser]

Almost as funny as how you prefer hypothetical amplifications and processes to observational data and solid physics.

You haven't addressed the chart I posted (and I doubt you ever will) but, okay, here is a chart from your 2nd link:

Now, show us your claimed 7 years lag between solar activity and global temps. We'll wait.

.

Yes I have, read the links.

The total forcing observed during a solar cycle is 7x as large as what you would expect with just TSI alone, suggesting the need for an amplifying mechanism. Multiple analyses have confirmed this now.

As for the lag? It is well established in the scientific literature.

http://www.academicj... Al-Thoyaib.pdf

The connection between aa and

global temperature pointed that the corresponding

temperature has occurred in 1998, with lag ~ 8 yrs.

Around 1997, the aa reached the minimum value during

the considered period. After that, the aa increased slowly

to a moderate values (or reasonable) until 2003.

Accordingly, the future temperature can be predicted

from the present aa geomagnetic measures, by allowing

the lag time of ~ 6-7 yr.

http://www.sciencedi...273117707001925

The influence of ∼200-year solar activity variations (de Vries cyclicity) on climatic parameters has been analyzed. Analysis of palaeoclimatic data from different regions of the Earth for the last millennium has shown that ∼200-year variations in solar activity give rise to a pronounced climatic response. Owing to a nonlinear character of the processes in the atmosphere–ocean system and the inertia of this system, the climatic response to the global influence of solar activity variations has been found to have a regional character. The regions where the climatic response to long-term solar activity variations is stable and the regions where the climatic response is unstable, both in time and space, have been revealed. It has also been found that a considerable lag of the climatic response and reversal of its sign with respect to the solar signal can occur. Comparison of the obtained results with the simulation predictions of the atmosphere–ocean system response to long-term solar irradiance variations (T > 40 years) has shown that there is a good agreement between experimental and simulation results.

[PhillipS]

Yes I have, read the links.

The total forcing observed during a solar cycle is 7x as large as what you would expect with just TSI alone, suggesting the need for an amplifying mechanism. Multiple analyses have confirmed this now.

As for the lag? It is well established in the scientific literature.

http://www.academicj... Al-Thoyaib.pdf

http://www.sciencedi...273117707001925

It is so cute how you describe one obscure paper as "the scientific literature". But the paper doesn't support your position as you seem to think it does. No physical process for the lag is given, just the rhetorical handwaving:

The excess of aa geomagnetics led to excess solar energy which stored and accumulated for few future years in the near-Earth system, leading to the global temperature variability.

Stored where and how? Accumulated where and how? What process is he referring to?

Figure 3 shows that depending on how you cherrypick your intervals the lag can appear to be anywhere from 0 to 7 years - which indicates to a honest skeptic that the lag values are artifacts of the analysis, not of the data.

And in the conclusions they write:

Since the pattern of the recent observed warming agrees better with the greenhouse warming pattern than with the solar output response, it is likely that one of these factors is the increase of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.

The second paper you link to, Raspopov et al, 2007, is an equally weak straw to grasp. In the first place the de Vries solar cycle is purely hypothetical at this point - evidence may or may not be found to support it, but it's not anywhere near as robust as th e11-year solar cycle.

And as above, the paper doesn't support your position. The authors looked at a number of tree ring proxies and believe that they found evidence of a roughly 210 year cycle. But in their own words:

The waveforms evident in the band-pass filtered (summer temperatures, precipitation, and Δ14С) have similar

periodicities, however, they are not in phase (Table 1). This shift can be due to the reservoir effect in the 14С deposition in tree rings.

. . .

However, the phase shift caused by the reservoir effect in Δ14С (20 years) is insufficient to explain the phase shift for the temperature record of Maksimov and Grebenyuk (150 years) and the precipitation record from Tibet (100 years) (Table 1).

Only by using ad hoc manipulations can they show any correlation between the proxy series. And the final skeptical note was sounded when near the end of the paper they pasted in a chart of calcite variations from a Permian (250 M years ago) core purportedly showing a 200 year cycle when it clearly shows a 175 year cycle. This is the 'Kitchen Sink' approach to paper writing - throw in everything you can, relevant or not, and hope enough gets past the reviewers to get published. Poor science and not at all convincing.

[Snow_Miser]

It is so cute how you describe one obscure paper as "the scientific literature". But the paper doesn't support your position as you seem to think it does. No physical process for the lag is given, just the rhetorical handwaving:

The excess of aa geomagnetics led to excess years in the near-Earth system, leading to the global temperature variability.

Stored where and how? Accumulated where and how? What process is he referring to?

Figure 3 shows that depending on how you cherrypick your intervals the lag can appear to be anywhere from 0 to 7 years - which indicates to a honest skeptic that the lag values are artifacts of the analysis, not of the data.

And in the conclusions they write:

Since the pattern of the recent observed warming agrees better with the greenhouse warming pattern than with the solar output response, it is likely that one of these factors is the increase of the atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.

The second paper you link to, Raspopov et al, 2007, is an equally weak straw to grasp. In the first place the de Vries solar cycle is purely hypothetical at this point - evidence may or may not be found to support it, but it's not anywhere near as robust as th e11-year solar cycle.

And as above, the paper doesn't support your position. The authors looked at a number of tree ring proxies and believe that they found evidence of a roughly 210 year cycle. But in their own words:

The waveforms evident in the band-pass filtered (summer temperatures, precipitation, and Δ14С) have similar

periodicities, however, they are not in phase (Table 1). This shift can be due to the reservoir effect in the 14С deposition in tree rings.

. . .

However, the phase shift caused by the reservoir effect in Δ14С (20 years) is insufficient to explain the phase shift for the temperature record of Maksimov and Grebenyuk (150 years) and the precipitation record from Tibet (100 years) (Table 1).

Only by using ad hoc manipulations can they show any correlation between the proxy series. And the final skeptical note was sounded when near the end of the paper they pasted in a chart of calcite variations from a Permian (250 M years ago) core purportedly showing a 200 year cycle when it clearly shows a 175 year cycle. This is the 'Kitchen Sink' approach to paper writing - throw in everything you can, relevant or not, and hope enough gets past the reviewers to get published. Poor science and not at all convincing.

Nice job avoiding the first part of my post where I addressed that observational evidence supports an amplifying solar mechanism.

I don't think anyone denies that a factor of the recent warming is the Greenhouse gas forcing, so your quote mining is meaningless.

They conclude that the climate sensitivity to the geomagnetic aa index is significant and real.

Your critique to the Raspopob et. Al paper is a joke. It is not reliable because it is a 175 year cycle and not a 200 year cycle? Are you kidding?

It is not reliable because they use proxy data to determine what solar activity was doing in the past? Are you kidding?

If you have a problem with their conclusions about the oceans having an equilibrium lag of around 7-8 years, go and submit a rebuttal to this paper, otherwise your personal complaints are meaningless and they have no substantiation.

[csnavywx]

The sun can cause stratospheric cooling, because solar storms deplete ozone. This is because during large solar proton storms asssociated with CMEs, the particles interact with the atmosphere to produce chemicals that deplete the stratospheric ozone layer, creating stratospheric cooling.

Source: Rodger 2008

During the great geomagnetic storm of 1989, there was a large amount of NOx produced in the stratosphere, and ozone depletion corresponded relatively well to the NOx produced during the solar geomagnetic storm.

Source: http://www.sotere.un...eldreversal.pdf

Winkler et. al 2007

“With decreasing magnetic field strength the impacts on the ozone are found to significantly increase especially in the Southern Hemisphere”

The quote from Winkler et. al 2007 suggests that the Earth's Magnetic Field also modulates the amount of solar protons in addition to the level of solar activity. If there is a profound impact being observed on ozone with the Earth's Magnetic Field decreasing, it indicates that the sun's protons have a major role to play in the depletion of ozone, and stratospheric cooling, since the Earth's magnetic field is modulating them, and a major impact is found between the intensity of the magnetic field and ozone depletion.

The AP Index correlates to the amount of NOx produced, and this relationship is quite strong. As shown above, NOx has a very nice correlation to ozone depletion, suggesting a solar mechanism for ozone depletion and stratospheric cooling, not anthropogenic.

Source: http://www.atmosp.ph...l/day3_Hood.pdf

http://www.scienceda...10802080620.htm

"Solar proton events help us test our models," Jackman said. "This is an instance where we have a huge natural variance. You have to first be able to separate the natural effects on ozone, before you can tease out human-kind's impacts."

http://www.nature.co...ll/449382a.html

The rapid photolysis of Cl₂O₂ is a key reaction in the chemical model of ozone destruction developed 20 years ago² (see graphic). If the rate is substantially lower than previously thought, then it would not be possible to create enough aggressive chlorine radicals to explain the observed ozone losses at high latitudes, says Rex. The extent of the discrepancy became apparent only when he incorporated the new photolysis rate into a chemical model of ozone depletion. The result was a shock: at least 60% of ozone destruction at the poles seems to be due to an unknown mechanism, Rex told a meeting of stratosphere researchers in Bremen, Germany, last week.

http://www.cosis.net...U05-A-07446.pdf

A large solar disturbance like a flare or a coronal mass ejection can result in emission of high-energy protons and other ions from the Sun. If these particles reach the Earth they set off a Solar Proton Event (SPE) during which the charged particles precipitate into the Earth’s atmosphere causing ionization in the middle atmosphere. The effect of the SPEs is confined to the polar cap regions, where the particles are guided by the magnetic field. Ion chemistry leads to increased production of odd nitrogen (NOx = N + NO + NO2) and odd hydrogen (HOx = H + OH + HO2) which participate in catalytic reaction cycles that decrease the amount of ozone in middle atmosphere. HOx gases have a short chemical lifetime but the NOx gases are mainly destroyed by photodissociation. Hence during winter, when little or no sunlight is available in the polar atmosphere, the effect of the NOx cycles can be long-lasting. We have used the nighttime observations of mesospheric and stratospheric O3 and NO2 made by the stellar occultation instrument GOMOS on board the European Space Agency’s Envisat satellite to monitor the increase of NO2 and depletion of ozone due to the SPEs of October-November 2003. The results show NO2 enhancement of several hundred per cent and tens of per cent ozone depletion in the stratopause region, an effect which lasts several months after the events.

It should also be noted that anthropogenic CFCs also play a major role in Ozone Depletion as well.

Ozone is a known cause of stratospheric cooling. When ozone declines (due to whatever source) less UVA/UVB rays are absorbed in the stratosphere, and therefore stratospheric cooling occurs.

And of course, if the stratospheric cooling were simply due to GHGs, we would not be observing a recent increase in stratospheric temperatures, propably in response to increasing ozone concentrations due to fewer concentrations of CFCs, and a quieter sun overall.

This is known as Arctic Amplification, and can be expected with any change in temperatures, regardless of cause, and regardless if the temperatures go up or down.

That is a blantently false statement.

In Figure 2 of Carslaw et. al 2002 it is shown that there is a long term decrease in GCRs over the 20th Century, which would correspond to a more active sun, as this would mean that there would be more solar wind to prevent GCRs from reaching Earth. It is also shown that in 1992, a record low in GCRs was recorded, indicating record high amounts of solar activity occured during the late-20th Century.

This figure from Dorman 2012 above combines the global temperature anomalies to the Cosmic Ray Flux (CRF) from 1937-1994. There is a very good correspondance between the two variables, suggesting that Cosmic Rays (modulated by solar activity) play a large and dominant role in current climate change.

How about the fact that in the late-20th Century, we experienced the least cumulative amount of GCRs during a solar cycle? (Ogurtsov et. al 2002) Does that mean that there has been no real trend in GCRs either?

"In short, while your argument is not impossible, it is very weak."

A ton of stuff to argue and/or debunk here. But since you've accused me of "running away", it appears to be time to level that argument.

The gist of your argument revolves around the following central point:

The sun modulates and causes the vast majority of the changes that we see (and have seen) at the surface and aloft, and is thus responsible for the vast majority of the warming seen at the surface.

This is a deceptively tricky argument to stand on. On the surface, it seems perfectly logical. The sun really can have an effect on stratospheric ozone and it can modulate the amount of GCRs reaching Earth. It can also vary in output ever so slightly. These are all true statements. So the question really boils down to: How big are those effects?

To the stratospheric temperature trend first:

I have an updated graph over the one you cited, since it was cut off at 2005. The result isn't a rise:

Appears to be a flatline (with temperatures that dropped for a few years after the time period of your linked paper, funny what small sample sizes will do). Remove the bumps from the two major volcanoes in 82 and 92 and you get a steady downward trend for 20+ years and then a recent flattening out. This isn't totally unexpected due to a decrease in anthropogenic CFC release probably thanks to the Montreal Protocol (actions really do have consequences, sometimes positive!). Stratospheric temperatures will likely begin to rise in the future, so long as we stick to the Protocol. However, greenhouse gases were shown to exhibit a downward influence on this process, so it will likely be slow. My overall point is: If we expect TSI to be a factor here the long-term trend shouldn't behave this way. Well, let's look at TSI then:

Errm.. hmm.., a longer time scale perhaps?

from: Wang 2005

Nope. A very small increase at best there over the period we are really concerned with. The rest of the comments on storms, an "unknown mechanism" for ozone depletion are a nebulous stretch or speculation at best. I have yet to really see any follow up on Max's work to that effect, and I haven't seen a single piece of credible research saying that unknown mechanism is the Sun.

On to GCRs!

Once again, that graph is pruned off way too early. 1995? Seriously?

The record low in 1992 clearly visible. However, I don't see any long term trend from 1950. Even if you wanted to extend back several hundred years before the divergence, it shows a maximum flux change on the order of 5% from the mean.

GCR theory was interesting, and it did have a time in the spotlight. It was buried under an avalanche of research, however, because it couldn't explain a vast number of observations to the contrary.

My time is limited, but there's a great page that includes some of these graphs and studies in them:

http://www.skeptical...ng-advanced.htm

GCRs are discussed about halfway down on a lengthy section.

Since I'm a Navy guy (and partial to the Naval Research Laboratory), here's an article from them:

http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/2011/nrl-collaborates-on-research-to-improve-understanding-of-climate-change

Their findings were that "The sun provides for no warming, and if anything, a slight cooling trend over the past 25 years".