There is no measured solar cycle influence on the global average temperature since the late 1600s, during the Maunder Minimum period of low solar energy. The Maunder Minimum was determined by the solar energy proxy of Sunspot counts.
Incoming solar energy and the global average temperature are both easily measured with satellites since 1979. A solar effect on the climate would be noticed every 11 years, if large enough to be measured.
The sun IS one climate variable, but we have no evidence of any meaningful change in solar energy in over 300 years.
Warming of the oceans, from any cause, does increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere -- a change in the ocean - troposphere CO2 balance. The change has a lag of hundreds of years, per Vostok, Amtarctica ice core reconstructions, with temperature changes leading CO2 changes. That's a symptom of natural climate change.
But humans burning fossil fuels also increases the atmospheric CO2 concentration, which should have a small effect on Earth's ability to cool itself. That's the primary man made cause of climate change since the 1800s.
Adding pollution (not CO2) to the atmosphere, from burning fossil fuels with no modern pollution controls, blocks some sunlight. That's another main man made cause of climate change (global cooling) . We've reduced Global air pollution has been significantly reduced in the past 25 years, except over large Asian cities. So that change should offset some "warming" caused by CO2.
The claim that air pollution offset ALL global warming caused by rising CO2 in the 1940 to 1975 period, was always nonsense. Because that global cooling trend reversed to global warming in 1975, in spite of the fact that air pollution levels remained high for 20+ more years! So that excuse for global cooling in the 1940 to 1975 period, while CO2 levels rose, rather than the expected global warming, was baloney.
Air pollution did not suddenly fall out of the sky in 1975, causing global cooling to end, and allowing a global warming trend to begin in 1975.
So the government bureaucrat scientists just "adjusted away" that 1940 to 1975 cooling trend, and now it "never existed". In 1975, NCAR hd reported a cooling trend of almost -0.6 degrees C. of the global average temperature, between the high month. and low month. WITHIN the 1940 to 1975 period (not from 1/1940 to 12/1975). So we know government bureaucrat historical climate data are quite "flexible".
Another man made "cause" of global warming is "adjustments" to historical raw temperature data -- "cooling the past". That may account for up to half of the claimed warming trend since 1880. And 1880 itself is only based on sparse measurements, almost entirely in the Northern Hemisphere, with a lot of wild guesses for areas with no measurements (most of the planet).
In addition, pre-1958 CO2 levels are merely guessed from ice core reconstructions -- they are not real time measurements.
But never mind all the haphazard, adjusted, and wild guessed temperature history. Because predictions of rapid, dangerous global warming in the future are NOT based on climate history.
The predictions call for global warming 2x to 3x FASTER than actually happened in the cogf an eventual global warming crisis began in late 1950s science papers. Scientists at the time had "uncertainty", which became extinct in the 1980s. And they didn't predict doom in 10 to 20 years. Nor did they run to the mass media to get scary predictions published.
There was still global cooling reported from 1940 through 1975, so that was not a good time for a coming global crisis prediction to be believed. A few scientists got coming global cooling predictions published in 1974 ... but the cooling trend ended in 1975, so they were wrong not long after the ink dried on the news reports.
The final lesson of climate science:
-- Inaccurate historical climate data before 1979, and
-- Climate predictions unrelated to any historical climate
Of course that's my conclusion based on 25 years of climate science and energy reading. But I'm a libertarian, so what do I know?
If you ask a true genius, in his own mind -- a leftist with a science degree -- you will get a different conclusion:
-- We need to spend tens of trillions of dollars to "transition" a reliable electric grid, powered mainly by fossil fuels, into a less reliable electric grid, powered mainly by "renewables". As fast as possible. There is no detailed plan, but we're just going to do it anyway! This is obviously over my head, since I took science courses in college, with scary names like"thermodynamics", which obviously ruined my ability for green dreaming.