In a recent post, I did the following pencil and paper exercise
to show that ~1% variation exists if the <300nm part of the
solar spectrum is examined.  This might be enough to prove
a solar connection.

The only part of the solar spectrum to have significant variation
in intensity is the UV, X-Ray range (i.e., wavelength<300nm). This
portion of the spectrum accounts for only 8-9% of the total energy
content of insolation.  http://squ1.org/wiki/Solar_Radiation

What I realized is that less than .05 percent of that solar UV,
X-Ray radiation impinging on the earth’s disk is reflected back
into space.  The rest (99.95%) is totally absorbed by the earth.

On average, 30% of the remaining 91-92% with wavelength >= 300nm
is reflected right back into space.  The detailed shape is vaguely
parabolic with the wavelength and amplitude of the peak varying
depending on the surface (e.g. cloud, ice, ocean, desert, forest).
But a 30% figure is widely accepted as an average.

This leaves 70% of 92% =.7 * .92 = .644 = 64.4% of the total
insolation with wavelength >= 300nm that is actually absorbed and
contributes to global heating.

That 8-9% represented by UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) accounts
for ~12% of the insolation heating the earth.

The remaining 91-92% varies by only 0.1%.  Lean (2000) gives a
slightly higher historical variation of about 0.3% but let us stick
with the conservative 0.1% number.

Now consider that the UV, X-Ray (wavelength < 300nm) radiation varies
across a solar cycle (in lock step) by about 8%.  Below is a sample:
  200 nm, 8%
  220-260 nm, 5%
  >=300 nm, 0.1%

Shorter wavelengths are absorbed in the earth’s upper atmosphere and
see even larger variations:
  120 nm, 50%
  140-200 nm, 10-15%

So I conclude that  ~12% of the sun’s energy heating the earth is
being pumped directly by the solar cycle.

8% * 12% = 0.96% which is still larger than the 0.1% variation that
gets kicked around.

Fixed water vapor content with increased temperature means a lower
relative humidity.  Therefore, most global climate models predicate a
stable relative humidity with an escalating rise in water vapor
content.  It is this rise in water vapor, known as the tipping point,
which is supposed to lead to runaway global warming.  (Cubasch et al,
2001).

1. The climate models assume a semi-infinite atmosphere where none of
   LWR (long wave radiation, i.e. IR) is re-radiated out
   into space.  This is simply wrong.  The earth has a semi-
transparent
   atmosphere.  See Miskolczi (2007) for the detailed proof.
2. "The small fraction of ~5% of water molecules above 500hpa
altitude
   produce about 50% [of] the total greenhouse effect of the
atmosphere".
   See slide 7,
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Science/ResearcherResources/MeetingArchi...
3. CO2 plays only a minor role in that it is claimed to kick-off a
   positive feedback cycle leading to escalating amounts of water
   vapor in the atmosphere.  Water vapor is *the* greenhouse gas.

The problem that the AGW people need to face is that data from
the Aqua satellite is showing that the atmosphere is drier by just
the right amount to counter the effects of increased CO2.  That is,
the atmosphere has a negative feedback cycle under increased CO2.
Miskolczi (2007) predicted this negative feedback using the
conservation
of energy principle + the energy minimum principle.

See http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStor...
and
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/Documents/Papers/
for the Aqua data.

--Mike Jr