Correlation is NOT causation. And you are totally innumerate.<quoted text>
False. Constant is a relative term. One can be standing still in terms of cm of movement and yet find random swings in your movement on the nanometer scale. But you ARE 'standing still'.<quoted text>
The problem with
"And in any case, the cooling effect is only ever temporary. When the Sun's activity returns to normal, the greenhouse gases won't have gone away."
is the contention that there is a 'normal' for solar output and that the distance from our sun is stable. Neither is correct.
This analogy applies here. The sun is a VERY stable star and the graph proves it. The scale of the chart shows that these minor variances in the solar constant run from 1365.1 to 1366.7 which is only a total variance of 1.6 watts/m*m or .11%. Blowing up the scale to make it SEEM like a lot is dishonest. And a change of such small magnitude will have an effect of LESS than 0.2C based on forcing so there is no logic to the idea that the two are truly related. so there IS a normal 'mean' for solar output of about 1366 w/m*m and the solar constant IS 'constant' in terms of it's effect on global temperatures.
You will never make a convincing case with such false connections. And the graphs is not a very good 'correlation'. Any rising signal will look a lot like any other rising signal, but that is not a 'correlation'. It is just a problem with human perceptions. The R value of the CET to the temperature is NOT very good.