The Livermore study is a flawed as the rest.
About 10-15C of the total 287 comes from Solar inasolation, About half comes from decay heat. The variable rest comes from gravity changes which forces angular momentum which results in spin & friction heat.
THe variations are caused by the planets. There is the Earth & Moon roughly one year cycle. There are 3 and 8 year cycles from Venus, 12 year cycles from Jupiter and 60 year cycles from the Jupiter/Saturn resonance orbit. There are also 935 year and 54000 year cycles from Jupiter's eccentricity which causes Earth's eccentricity.
It all depends where you are on which cycle what kind of change you get.
ON the 54000 year cycle we are coming out of the last ice age.
On the 935 year cycle we are coming out oof the Viking warming to the Little Ice age bottom & now warming, soon to turn down for the next bottom in 935/2 years.
On the 60 year cycle we topped in 1880, 1940 & 1998, heading for a bottom in 2028 or so.
ON the 12 year cycle we topped in 1998, and 2010, now turning colder hence the cold 2011 Northern winter.
The FLAW in the Livermore/US satellite data is that it does NOT measure gravity or mag field or potential energy variations. all of which can be converted to friction heat readily. See the paper "Gravity causes Climate Change" at ww.scribd.com

PS Note that there is NO contribution from Greenhouse Gases. ie CO2 or Water Vapor. That is because in order for the Greenhouse effect to work, you MUST add an energy photon. GHGs can NOT create warming by themselves. Just measuring the energy accounts for any greenhouse effect. The GHE is like friction it is a mechanism for getting energy to heat or temperature. More GHGs does not make more heat UNLESS you add more energy photons. Why alse would all the ocean water GHG still exist & not just self incinerate the world? All that H20 & CO2 is just sitting there as excess waiting for more energy photons.

John Dodds' comment above is a real classic example of how the climate science deniers operate. They throw out a whole bunch of nonsense at a rate it takes ages for rational people to debunk.

His comments appear to link the Earth's temperature record with "cycles" of far away planets, which have nothing to do with it. His aim is to suggest that we're seeing natural climate variability. That is nonsense. Long term fluctuations in climate are correlated with subtle changes in the Earth's orbit eccentricity and it's tilt away from the axis of rotation (look up Milankovitch cycles). The existence of these cycles do not, however, allow us to ignore the effects of GHGs mankind has put into the atmosphere.

These act like a blanket, trapping solar radiation in the form of heat energy, which warms surface temperatures dramatically (and sea temperatures more slowly, because water has a higher heat capacity). Additionally, extra CO2 dissolves in ocean waters, causing acidification which is devastating coral reefs and other important parts of the ecosystem - a consequence of carbon emissions that is often overlooked.

Once the Earth heats up, there are feedback mechanisms that help the warming get worse and worse. For example, warming causes Arctic sea ice to melt (2011 saw the 2nd lowest levels of arctic sea ice on record). When that happens, we lose ice that reflects some of the solar energy for us. Instead, that goes straight into water, warming it further. The more we warm up, the less protection we have from futher warming.

What John says above tries to give the impression that climate change is natural, that we're beginning to cool, and says some crazy things about planets and the influence of GHGs. These are old canards mixed in with some weird crankery. Don't fall for this.

For a good list of climate science denier "arguments" that have long ago been debunked (but which, unfortunately, it is still common to hear repeated), see here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?f=taxonomy

Dodds has a fairly extensive and well-thought-out hypothesis. I can't speak to the science of it, but I can say that he put an awful lot of work into it. Unfortunately, he doesn't appear to have any actual credentials. I feel for him. It's not easy having a big brain and no degree to back it up, but that's how the world works. I haven't found any peer reviews or scientific rebuttal of his work, but until those things appear it would be foolhardy to give this hypothesis much credence. For one thing it appears to lack any sort of objectivity. Another consideration is that the planet is warming at an alarming rate and we have record amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. Regardless of the actual mechanism or relationship, both of those things are a problem.

For what it's worth, Dodds, I salute your effort and I hope you make some money off of it, but I really hope nobody sees this as an excuse to continue ignoring a tremendously important issue.

Ben Santer, of Climate Gate infamy and contributor to all four assessment reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization that shared the bogus 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore, has as the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) climate team’s lead researcher generated a new publication in the Journal of Geophysical Research. This pro-anthropogenic global warming climate research effort at LLNL attempts with this new publishment a deftly crafted scientific research effort conjoined with a hazily veiled ideological statistical component to slowly validate a central planning hegemony over U.S. and world-wide production processes. If you control CO2, then you control most energy output and thus the means of production in the world economies by exploiting fraudulent logic to tax all carbon emitting industries from the local to the international level via the UN’s IPCC.
The central madness is that man-made global warming activists at the UN’s IPCC are in extreme dismay over how to cope with the earth’s lack of warming since 1998, especially so after NASA and the U.S. Solar Observatory publically revealed several months ago to expect moderate global cooling for the next thirty years owing to a quiet period on the sun with concurrent cooling of the mammoth Pacific Ocean heat mass. Enter IPCC’s and LLNL’s Ben Santer announcing that the climate computers had always correctly predicted non-warming lulls like the current one, stating that “tropospheric temperature records must be at least 17 years long to discriminate between internal climate noise and the signal of human caused changes.” What sorcerer’s magic dwells in 17 years instead of 15 other than providing two additional years of “grace” prior to admissions that computer models are less than adequate? Will further self-justifying statistical minutia be offered then?
But the IPCC conjured up another rabbit in the hat; on November 18th came the proclamation that the real danger to humanity was not “warming” per se, but “extreme weather.” Thus the IPCC endeavors to marginalize NASA’s report and instead rely on the tired old politically correct media to irrationally propagandize every weather “disaster” in the world permitting CO2 emissions to be inexorably condemned to justify unconscionable green taxes at a time of extreme world-wide financial trepidations.
In concert with the IPCC, media alarmists are hysterically forecasting ice-free Arctic horror stories complete with starving polar bears, conveniently ignoring the fact that the earth possesses two poles while contemptuously indifferent to the reality that the Antarctic has been accumulating ice for the last 40 years. Concerning the Arctic, the first global warming during our current Holocene Epoch, the time between 8500 and 10,000 years ago was the warmest earth has been since the end of the last Ice Age about 19,000 years ago, as confirmed by the Norwegian research team of Dr. Lysa and Eiliv Larsen of the Geological Survey of Norway. This Norwegian team confirmed evidence of an ice-free Arctic during the aforementioned Holocene Epoch time interval. So much for hype on polar bear extinctions; if the Arctic was ice-free why did the polar bears fail to vanish given that they are not migratory?
If you are going to vanquish the global economy to the stone age through cap and trade regulation, with employment of inefficient and expensive renewables over abundant, relatively economical and efficient energy sources like shale oil and gas, you at least owe it to the taxpayers to establish your policies on rational, transparent and rigorous non-ideological science opposed to the sustained and specious scientific facilitations of snake-oil politicized rubbish perpetrated by Ben Santer and the charlatans at the UN’s IPCC.