‘…no interest in exploring it.’
The problem is that so much of the stuff you offer just makes the same claim without any real evidence and twists the perspective on the data to suit the argument. For example, you said -
‘In the early and mid part of the 20th century the output was nearly the same because there hadn’t been a large change in greenhouse gas to that point. In this time period the input was the main driver. Later in the 20th century there was a rapid and drastic change in heat output which drove warming.’
Its interesting to me how you can at first say that the heat inputs were roughly the same in the two periods (although you’ve seen my summing of sunspots that indicate the later was more, but probably only marginally), go on to agree that, in the earlier time period, that amount of heat input was the main driver of warming and then simply ignore the effect of the same (or a little more) heat input later. I think you need to sit with this a while.
Now, when you compare the temp increase of those two periods, you find that the earlier one is about 0.10 C/decade versus approx. 0.15 C/decade later. If you simply give credit to the same amount of heat input having the same warming, then you reduce the presumed impact from the increasing CO2 ghg effect to about 1/3 of what has been assessed when giving essentially no credit to the sun.
Of course, this means that there was more warming later, than earlier, and very likely attributable to the increasing CO2. Even so, it would appear that solar heat input was still responsible for the majority of the warming at the beginning and the end of the century, and is still the stronger climate driver today.