Not supported, because there’s no indication the author believes correspondence concerning “the last few years” is crucial in determining the success of a model. Rather, what the author finds important is correspondence with the “recent rise in atmospheric temperature,” which has occurred over “the last 100 years.”

There’s no evidence the author finds the simplicity of an explanation important. She doesn’t reject solar fluctuation on the basis of lack of simplicity, nor does she find the greenhouse theory persuasive because of simplicity.

The author doesn’t reject the solar fluctuation theory because of how little or how much it has been revised. Nor does she accept the greenhouse theory because of how little or how much it has been revised. So there’s no evidence the author finds the extent to which a model has been revised important.

The author doesn’t reject the solar fluctuation theory because of a lack of fit between warming mechanisms and those postulated by the solar fluctuation theory. She doesn’t say, for example, that solar energy isn’t something that is typically thought to change temperature. Nor does she accept the greenhouse theory on the basis of a close fit between its postulated mechanisms and those acknowledged to raise temperatures. She doesn’t say, for example, that the greenhouse theory is the best explanation because we know greenhouse gases merely because we know greenhouse gases can warm the atmosphere.

Supported, because the author finds it important that a model’s estimated changes correspond with the “recent rise in atmospheric temperature,” which has occurred over “the last 100 years.” Solar-fluctuation theory’s estimates don’t correspond, so the author finds it less plausible than the greenhouse gas theory. “Long-term match” fits the author’s concern for the last 100 years; “the last few years” from (A) doesn’t fit her concern for the last 100 years.