Parrot..I expressed concern about CO2 proponents ignoring contra evidence a page of so back. I also posted this referencehttp://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V10/N24/EDIT.jsp
Which concerns aerosol optical thickness(AOL) and its affect on solar brilliance plus the observation that it has contributed to a period of greater radiation fluxes over the past 14 years. Its authors feel it has a much greater effect on climate warming.then CO2.
Then you post this?
and thisIn order to change Earth's temperature you need to do one thing and one thing only: cause a change in Earth's radiation balance; that is, change the ratio of incoming to outgoing energy. There are three primary ways to do this: Change the amount of solar radiation that reaches the planet's surface (by changes in solar irradiance or by changes in Earth's orbit around the sun), change the albedo (reflectivity) of the planet (by, say, adding large amounts of aerosols to the atmosphere), or change the greenhouse effect. Thus, you can see that carbon dioxide is just one of many different factors controlling Earth's temperature
Are you ignoring a 2007 study to make your point? It addresses a phenomenon that directly affects the first two elements which you say change the earths radiation balance(greater solar irradiation fluxes) If so you are doing just what I have wondered about? Ignoring recent contra evidence of the cause for warming? What is this mindset that refuses to believe any contra evidence and sticks to the shakey anthropogenic cause?However, the current change is not being caused by most of the above factors. The current change is being caused, almost entirely, by the last: changes in Earth's greenhouse effect. Thus, while carbon dioxide may not be the only factor affecting Earth's temperature, it is by far the most important factor affecting the current temperature change.