>indicates that solar forcing has a much lower impact on rising temperatures than increased greenhouse gases. Could be. But I would argue that sites like SkS,

>indicates that solar forcing has a much lower impact on rising temperatures than increased greenhouse gases. Could be. But I would argue that sites like SkS, which are fairly partisan in their views like to look only at TSI and ignore other solar factors. The Sun effects us in many unexpected ways. See for example here: http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/ http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08... And here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054022;jsessionid=F87A9539A4F89BEF6AA70596DC97E24D.c1 http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/10/5/054... The last link (looking at the UV part of the spectrum) could explain the warming of the Atlantic we have been experiencing, See this graph of the AMO (yes, not the same as the NOA outlined in the paper - but related) and NH temperatures: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1960/mean:30/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1960/mean:30/plot/hadcrut3nh/from:1960/mean:30 http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo/from:1960/mean:30/... The AMO does seems to be "externally forced" I.e. not related to CO2, but probably/possibly some solar related mechanism. http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/full/ncomms4323.html http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140225/ncomms4323/full/nco... The whole thing is damn complicated. Different parts of the spectrum impact on different parts of atmospheric chemistry (e.g. ozone), and inter-relate with components like earth and solar magnetic fields, particles, GCRs, etc. Science is never settled (as SkS would have us believe) it's still in progress.