>>"you dont even seem to understand what i am saying jn"
I understand that you are dodging my simple request even though I agreed to help you out with your questions. How rude.
>>"it was right in front of you:"
Here's the actual paragraph from the report:
"Hence within our assumptions, the effect of varying solar activity, either by direct solar irradiance or by varying cosmic ray rates, must be less than 0.07?C since 1956 i.e. less than 14% of the observed global warming."
As a non-scientist the conclusion indicates to me that varying solar activity accounted for less than 14% of global warming SINCE 1956 - ie. this includes many years when temperatures were correlated. These two are now negatively correlated - temperatures are still rising in spite of solar activity being at a low.
Please explain to us non-scientists how you conclude that this in any way indicates that solar activity is responsible for the recent [30 year] uptrend in temperatures given declining solar activity through this whole period.
Hey, if you think it's just too complicated for us to understand - what do you propose was the cause of the other 86% of warming, given that is correlates so closely to co2 levels?
