Some challenges for the denier forum here

[alan1]

You said that 90% of solar radiation enters the oceans, and now you want me to explain your statement/point? You already explained.

How do you know what the changes by the heat given off from the sun are? Last I looked, all the studies AGW people cite are ignoring the sun.

The article cites changes in the sun, the object that keeps this mudball we call earth warm, ignoring the sun as a factor is kind of foolish.

Climate scientists most assuredly do not ignore the sun.

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter08.pdf

I was going to post all this text, but it's just too long. You go to this link, scroll down to page 32 or 33, then read Section 8.4 on Solar Irradiance. Read it all. Then come back here and tell us climate scientists ignore the sun.

First of all, thank you for linking the article and not posting it. Had you posted it, a moderator would have removed it as the rules do state to link articles. However, snippits from linked articles are allowed.

I took the liberty of snipping this from page 8-34 (emphasis mine),

Cosmogenic isotope and sunspot data (Rigozo et al., 2001; Solanki and Krivova, 2004; Abreu et al., 2008) reveal that currently the Sun is in a grand activity maximum that began ~1920 (20th century grand maximum). However, SC 23 showed an activity decline not previously seen in the satellite era (McComas et al., 2008; Smith and Balogh, 2008; Russell et al., 2010). Most current estimations suggest that the forthcoming solar cycles will have lower TSI than those for the past 30 years (Abreu et al., 2008; Lockwood
et al., 2009; Rigozo et al., 2010; Russell et al., 2010). Also there are indications that the mean magnetic field in sunspots may be diminishing on decadal level. A linear expansion of the current trend may indicate that of the order of half the sunspot activity may disappear by about 2015 (Penn and Livingston, 2006). These studies only suggest that the Sun may have left the 20th century grand maximum and not that it is entering another grand minimum. But other works propose a grand minimum during the 21st century, estimating a RF within a range of -0.16 to 0.12 W m–2 between this future minimum and the present day TSI (Jones et al., 2012). However, much more evidence is needed and at present there is very low confidence concerning future solar forcing estimates.

Some interesting stuff, that clearly indicates to me that they are non-committal on the data.
Two other interesting things,
1. On the cover page it says this,

A report accepted by Working Group I of the IPCC but not approved in detail.

2. At the bottom of every page it says this,

Do Not Cite, Quote or Distribute

Evidently, they are reviewing some data as it concerns solar activity, but telling everybody to ignore it while doing the exact opposite with AGW. It's kind of like a magician that gets you to focus on what his left hand is doing while he creates the trick with his right hand.

 

[Abraham3]

Evidently you don't pay much attention to the IPCC's report composition process. AR5 has been getting released piecemeal for a couple of months now and every page says "do not cite, quote or distribute". Every section title page also reads "A report accepted by Working Group [X] of the IPCC but not approved in detail." And they won't say they're approved until they have assembled the entire thing. It is still a work in progress. I think it is supposed to be finalized in May. There's more info at IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Climate scientists may be uncertain about FUTURE solar forcing, but they are quite certain about PAST forcing and the conclusion in that report and every one preceding has been that it has had a trivial and insignificant effect on global warming.