[gonational]

I’m afraid your comment completely ignores the only point I made in my comment...

TSI stands for total solar irradiance. This is the EMR spectrum I’m referring to. If you continue to read the report from the IPCC, you will notice there is no mention of energetic particle precipitation (EPP), or any particle forcing of any kind.

So yes, the IPCC report is extraordinarily thorough and exactly perfect in everything that it purports to be; unfortunately it completely leaves out the largest part of the equation. Please see my analogy above.

[supercow12]

It indeed doesn't mention EPP.

Is there any proof that EPP is significant?

What about the other parts of the report?

For example:

>"It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010. This assessment is supported by robust evidence from multiple studies using different methods. In particular, the temperature trend attributable to all anthropogenic forcings combined can be more closely constrained in multi-signal detection and attribution analyses. "

In order for climate change to be primarily driven by EPP or particle forcing instead of anthroprogenic forcing, it would have to be the case that either:

A. Somehow, anthroprogenic forcing is much less than the multiple avenues of evidence show. Here:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt...

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/07/WGI_AR5.Chap...

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_TS_FI...

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt...

or

B. There is something unknown that offsets the impact of anthroprogenic forcing, but would not have offset the impact of particle forcing in the absence of anthroprogenic forcing.

In the absence of evidence, it is a big claim to make that either of these things are the case.

[gonational]

There is no direct evidence of specific amounts of temperature rise that can somehow magically be attributed to human activities (e.g., we are able to measure all energy values of every single thing on earth and then determine what causes what exactly, etc.). Nobody even claims that this is the case; certainly not the IPCC.

The conclusion (temperature-changing effects of human activities) is derived specifically from taking the local maxima of warming we’ve seen in this very short window, subtracting the known non-human factors (of which the sun is one... hence the importance of the missing data), and then attributing the rest to human activities.

In other words, your statements, pertaining how we can deduce that their conclusions are correct, save for A or B (above), are the most quintessential example of “begging the question”.

Another important bit that I didn’t even mention in my original comment is that, not only does looking at TSI ignore other particle forcing qualities of solar phenomenon, such as flares and sunspots, But it also ignores the fact that, during such events, solar irradiance is measurably decreased. This means that the assumed human factor needed to justify the perceived temperature increase in the models is actually raised in such cases. This means that when using the models to predict the temperature on the earth, the models will actually predict that human activities that cause warming increase during solar events.