Given up with finding any facts Rio?The article you posted by the unamed (what a surprise there) writer correctly summarised as follows;
Then showed the following references
Schiermeier, Q., 2005. Clear skies end global dimming. Nature, published on-line, May 5, 2005.
Wild, W., et al., 2005. From dimming to brightening: decadal changes in solar radiation at Earth¡¯s surface. Science, 308, 847-850.
Both of these articles quote global dimming in the title. Global dimming is man made, caused by airborne particles form Power stations , Internal combustion engines and fires. After the Acid rain issues of the 70's Power stations were either cleaned up, or in the case of many coal fired stations shut down (Thatcher almost completely closed the Coal mining industry in Britain). Cars in Europe and America and most of the developed workld were fitted with Catalytic Convertsrs and air quality improved, global duimming ended and there was as the reports say, a significant rise in solar radiation reaching the earth as a result.
1) The fact that man was able to clean up air quality in 2 decades is proof we effect climate.
2) That global dimming had been taking place means that the effects of global warming on the planet have been mitigated by global dimming, we would have clearly seen more warming had we not polluted the atmoshere with particulate emmissions.
The conclusions of the unamed writer were
"So, either the three independent papers just published in Science magazine are wrong, or the earth¡¯s sensitivity to changes in the greenhouse effect is exceedingly small."
He gets to this conclusion by ignoring all time periods except the 20 years where air quaslity is cleaned up. By ignoring the cause of the dimming, and it's reversal, and with a back of an envelope calulation. The latter you seem totally wiling to believe and stake the future of the planet on
Scripps institute of Oceanography at La Jolla in California were a little more thorough. Here is there conclusions on sea temperature rises, solar warming et al;
"'High confidence'
"This is perhaps the most compelling evidence yet that global warming is happening right now and it shows that we can successfully simulate its past and likely future evolution," said lead author Tim Barnett, of the climate research division at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California.
"If you take this data and combine it with a decade of earlier results, the debate about whether or not there is a global warming signal here and now is over at least for rational people."
Unless we know what we're dealing with, I think it's going to be pretty hard to fix it
Dr Tim Barnett, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
The team fed different scenarios into computer simulations to try to reproduce the observed rise in ocean temperatures over the last 40 years.
They used several scenarios to try to explain the oceanic observations, including natural climate variability, solar radiation and volcanic emissions, but all fell short.
"What absolutely nailed it was greenhouse warming," said Dr Barnett.
This model reproduced the observed temperature changes in the oceans with a statistical confidence of 95%, conclusive proof - say the researchers - that global warming is being caused by human activities.
For more see https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4275729.stm
95% confidence that human activity is responsible for sea warming. There is morecarbon stored in the sea than everywhere else (vegatation, air, oil and coal) put together. Mainly in the form of Hydrates. A 3c rise in sea temperatures is required to start a process of these bubbling methane into the atmoshere. Methane is a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. If this process starts, we won't be able to stop it, the world increases temperature very rapidly, this is the nightmare scenario, it's a major global killer.
Air temperatures at current rates are quite capable of hitting a 3+c rise this century. Deep sea should fortunantely take longer. How much is still a question of some uncertainty.
However not to worry, Rio knows best he wants us to trust this won't happen to an article (not a peer reviewed paper) by an author that did not even give his name?
You are a genious Rio, where would we be without you?