Atmospheric observations don't, and 1850 is an arbirtary baseline anyway, let alone 1980. The most common graphs I've seen refer to an average 1960-1990 baseline. This incorporates a cooler period (60s and 70s) and a slighly warmer period in the 1980s. The graph below is small but shows what I mean:
As for atmospheric observations, presumably you mean satellite measurements since 1979? I suggest getting updated on the subject: several reanalyses of this data are showing increasingly large warming trends.
We know even less about mesoscale solar weather patterns than we do about terrestrial systems. The Sun does not always burn with uniform intensity.
You should peruse this Web page:
The role of the Sun in 20th century climate change
What's the most prevalent greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, accounting for 70% of the total? Water vapor.
That's correct, but water vapor fluxes are dependent on climate. The most significant variable that affects Earth's radiative balance is atmospheric CO2 concentrations, followed by the lesser greenhouse gases.
We don't "know" jack about human induced global warming, or if it exists at all.
Because I have a scientific background, it's hard for me to challenge a viewpoint that has little regard for the value of scientific knowledge. Scientists know a lot about this subject, but they'd always like to know more and be more certain. Even so, they know enough to be reasonably certain about most of the major aspects of current climate change.
The most common graphs I've seen refer to an average 1960-1990 baseline. This incorporates a cooler period (60s and 70s) and a slighly warmer period in the 1980s. The graph below is small but shows what I mean: What a coincidence, your baseline coincides with the advent of weather satellites.
As for atmospheric observations, presumably you mean satellite measurements since 1979? I suggest getting updated on the subject: several reanalyses of this data are showing increasingly large warming trends.
Again, within a monumentally small data set.
You should peruse this Web page:
The role of the Sun in 20th century climate change
From your "Global Warming" page:
"Before 1979, there are no direct measures of solar irradiance."
"The figure shows that sunspot numbers rose in the first half of the 20th century, along with temperatures. The rise in solar activity in the early part of the century is though to be connected with an 80 year cycle of solar activity known as the Gleissman cycle. The temperature increase in the second half of the twentieth century does not seem to linked with sunspot numbers." Etc.
Hardly compelling.
Let's also note that all of the baselines on that page start at 1860. It's remarkable how the baselines you cite coincide with technological and methodological developments, yet only offer a small fraction of the Earth's climatological history.
That's correct, but water vapor fluxes are dependent on climate. The most significant variable that affects Earth's radiative balance is atmospheric CO2 concentrations, followed by the lesser greenhouse gases.
Interdependent, not dependent. Funny how the inadvertent dropping of a prefix can get a major variable tossed out.
Because I have a scientific background, it's hard for me to challenge a viewpoint that has little regard for the value of scientific knowledge. Scientists know a lot about this subject, but they'd always like to know more and be more certain. Even so, they know enough to be reasonably certain about most of the major aspects of current climate change.
I see your appeal to authority, and raise you an appeal to healthy skepticism:
Ambitious politicians have an affinity for crises, real or imagined, because getting on the advantageous side of a real or imagined crisis confers great leverage to a a crafty politician. Politicians who control pursestrings, therefore, are not necessarily disinclined to fund scientists who can deliver ready made crises to them.