Tell me that you don't know what you are talking about without telling me you don't know what you are talking about.
That is a BS graph, and is merely NASA recycling flawed IPCC modelling of variations in solar flux, and certainly not independently determined .
The reason that IPCC assessment is under criticism because the TSI variation used in its modelling (0.19W/m^2) is only a fraction of the median variance of 1.77 W/m^2 , and is even well below the lowest level of the range of estimates made (0.49 W/m^2 to 4.64W/m^2), and correlates poorly with what has been benchmark TSI data, namely H1993 Solar, complied by widely cited astrophysicists [*]:
[Source: Geen L & Soon, W. Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science (HUN-REN EPSS), H-9400 Sopron, Hungary Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences, Salem, Massachusetts, 01970, USA. https://doi.org/10.53234/scc202501/07 ] https://scienceofclimatechange.org/wp-content/uploads/SCC-Vol-5.1-Green_and_Soon-Model-Forecasts.pdf
Instead of the Garbage-In; Garbage-Out arising from the institutional imperatives that define the work of a partisan organisation such as the IPCC, sensible people take their cues on what solar flux has been doing over time from the peer-reviewed work of actual astrophysicists, which show a totally different picture to the IPCC's "work", namely that across past solar cycles, TSI is assessed to have been relatively constant between the Maunder minimum (which ended in early 1700s) and the start of the 20th century, but has increased both in amplitude as well as average since around the early 1900s:
[*] Douglas V. Hoyt, Kenneth H. Schatten, Journal of Geophysical Research - Space Physics. Vol 98,
A Discussion of Plausible Solar Irradiance Variations between 1700-1992 https://doi.org/10.1029/93JA01944
