Actually, a more honest "conclusion" would be "Natural Factors USED TO BE Dominant."
Natural factors used to produce cooling cycles in between the warm cycles, but for the last 100 years there have been no cooling cycles. Greenhouse gasses have fully offset the natural cooling cycles producing flat cycles between ever increasing warm cycles, when the natural warming combines with the warming from greenhouse gasses, with each new warm cycle beginning where the last warm cycle left off.
Yeah, not really.
Mr Caryl (the NoTrickZone house graphmaker) claims it is broadly accepted that CO2 provided no warming before WWII. That is patently false as CO2 has been warming the planet for millions of years. Without greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, our average temperature would be a good 50F colder than it is.
Obviously, the sun's irradiance levels have an effect on our temperature and over the long run temperature and TSI align quite well. Over the last 150 years, however - a span Mr Caryl did not seem to wish to examine in detail - the correlation between TSI and temperature has been quite poor. That is simply because greenhouse warming overcame TSI variations. TSI was dropping for much of the period over which Earth's temperatures were rising. The amount of warming provided by the CO2 in the atmosphere and the changes in TSI are both calculable from first order measurements. The changes in TSI were not of sufficient magnitude to cause the observed warming. The infrared radiation trapped by the greenhouse effect working with increased GHGs was.
This is one of biggest blunders of your climate science warriors.
You cannot reach a new thermal equilibrium of an object the size of the Earth instantaneously.. Just like you cannot turn the stove to HIGH and boil a gallon of water instantaneouly..
AND YET -- That was climate science in the 80s and 90s -- totally ignoring thermal inertia of the Earth and even CLAIMING that new thermal equilibria to a step change in forcing functions were "in the span of a year".. They were attacked viciously on this point in the early 2000s and several studies developed "thermal mass models" that had time constants to equilibrium of about 10 --> 50 years.. And essentiallly conceded that this was indeed part of the macroscope of the climate model..
So the VAST MAJORITY of Climate Science still considers that a forcing function has a very IMMEDIATE affect on surface temperatures and thus have served you and the other warmers very poorly..
NOW ----- with the MIRACULOUS DISCOVERY (about 40 yrs too late) that indeed the OCEANS are a VAST heat sink and storage element --- these cats are deep hurt.. Because the physics of a thin warming layer at the surface and TRANSPORT into 700meters deep to "hide there" doesn't HAPPEN in a short time span.. Because ---- as FlaCalTenn likes to point out --- STORAGE ELEMENTS mean that the system can CONTINUE TO RISE in temperature even if the forcing stays PUT at a constant step up in energy input..
Thus -- your observation about temperature "not tracking TSI" is about as childish an expectation as science has ever witnessed in my lifetime..
RIGHT NOW --- we are at a historically high solar Maximum for our era.. It PAUSED about 30 years ago.. BUT REMAINS at that high level..
And even with the 20 yr old 10 ---> 50 yr thermal time constants -- the temperature COULD STILL be rising. Just like the temperature of that pot of water on the stove.
You got Sesame Street from the Climate Scientists for 40 yrs --- but they are growing up slowly --- and this GIANT FIB that the Earths temperature chart has to look EXACTLY LIKE the input(s) --- is childish and laughable..
Look at the TSI vs Temperature relationship again.. Rising since the 1700s, matching nicely but not completely until the TSI PAUSED in the late 1980s.. And the temperature "OVERSHOOTING" for about 30 years before PAUSING itself..
That's how a big Thermal Mass like the Earth should roll.. Outside of Saturday Morning childrens' TV............
