According to your second link we can track solar activity:
> Evidence of variations in solar activity on millennial timescales can be found in the records of cosmogenic radionuclides in such long-lived natural features as ice cores from large ice sheets, tree rings and ocean sediments. Using careful statistical analysis it is now possible to identify decadal and centennial signals of solar variability in climate data.
7% sounds low yes, but 30% is absolutely not a "small" factor. I'd think the direct effect of solar activity would be much easier to measure even on a micro level than CO2. A decade back a graph was popular where temperature and solar activity correlated almost 1:1.
I'm not trying to argue for emissions, I'd prefer no cars, fresh air and banned plastics. But an honest debate where I'm not a conspiracy nut for asking completely valid questions is not much to ask for (not directed at you just the general discourse).
If it really is serious then don't tell me we need to keep the economy going, that we have a demographic problem or try to sell me emission rights. We do or we don't, the next iphone or the next generation, that's the solution I expect to the level of threat they're telling me it is. Meanwhile they fly in private jets from summit to summit.
I'm not even trying to keep my way of living I'm already a hermit with a broken screen on my 4 year old phone, and rarely eat red meat. What they say and what they do doesn't seem to match.
And yes, lowest emissions is the guy with a mattress on the floor and xbox who doesn't go anywhere but nobody's ready for that talk yet.
why do you work from the assumption that it's not? a trivial search turned up this article from 2011 which says that models already do include approximations of solar activity even at that time.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/grantham-i...
obviously it is something that is constantly being improved, like everything else in the model. but there aren't good direct historical proxies for solar output - you can't take a "core sample" and go back 1000 years of solar activity, so the datasets really only go back 60 or 70 years there, and even rough measurements of sunspot activity/etc will only probably go back less than 200 years. but over the last 15 years this is something that's been actively studied and addressed and they're trying to incorporate more detailed modeling.
https://eos.org/science-updates/better-data-for-modeling-the...
again, this only affects between 7-30% of the total picture, according to most studies. so it's not like this is where global warming is coming from. contributing factor? sure, a small one.
but like, I don't know why everyone works from the assumption that they thought of one thing that all the scientists forgot about completely. One clever trick to explain global warming, climate scientists hate him.
which is why stuff like this is not really constructive or helpful. like if you don't know, why are you so sure about what is being incorporated or not? why isn't the question "how is this being incorporated"? Because it probably is.
> I don't know. But I'm not taking anyones word for it, help me understand or move on. Don't tell me what to think.