I'm going to provide you with a few references which you can read or not read, at your discretion. To put it bluntly, you're wrong. But you won't ever believe me that you're wrong, and I doubt that you'll try to convince yourself otherwise, but you should.
Reducing uncertainty about carbon dioxide as a climate driver
Feedback Loops in Global Climate Change Point to a Very Hot 21st Century
Ocean Burps and Climate Change
Enhanced CO2 and Climate Change (PDF)
What Drives Climate? (Discover magazine, very digestible)
Take-away message from the last link:
" As researchers have learned to read the dramatic story of climate changes from fossils, rock deposits, and subtle chemical clues in ocean sediments, they have offered a host of explanations. The slow drifting of the continents can open and close straits and seas, altering the pattern of warm and cold ocean currents. Volcanoes can spew out clouds of ash, spreading a cooling sunshade over the planet. The sun itself has been fingered as a suspect in some episodes, including the one that drove the Norse from Greenland; though seemingly a reliable companion, over decades or centuries the sun may flicker and pulse like an old fluorescent tube. Over thousands of years Earth itself wobbles in space, changing the amount of energy it can intercept from the sun.
None of these forces, however, seems sufficient to account for long-term global climate shifts, and researchers have been grasping for an explanation. Curiously, in case after case, they see the hand of carbon dioxide, the same heat-trapping gas that may now be warming the globe. CO2 molecules behave like one-way mirrors for heat radiation from the sun; like greenhouse glass, they allow radiation to get through to Earth but absorb it before it can get out into space again. Long before engines and industry started spewing carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, researchers believe, Earth’s natural respiration was blowing the gas into the atmosphere and sucking it out in enormous, and sometimes sustained, gulps. During a recent global freeze, for example, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere is known to have been 30 percent lower than it is today."
I wish you well on your journey toward enlightenment.
And again, you haven't once referred to my point.
So, you don't listen to others, and bluntly claim to know absolutely for sure something that no one knows.
And you claim your theory as "enlightenment". Well, I'm fairly certain that 'enlightenment' would include an open mind that listens, analyzes and responds to evidence that contradicts your conclusions . . .
Maybe you've found a new type of enlightenment. One that can include a closed mind.
Do you think your refusal to even address my point pretty much explains why you might be easily fooled by these articles? You seem unwilling to consider context info they don't include. You don't listen to me, discuss with me or debate with me, instead simply posting a host of links that you liked. Then, when I insist on trying to discuss, you wave me off as unenlightened.
You are a true believer, that's for sure.
It is possible that Co2 causes global warming like silicone breast implants caused health issues. It didn't but the press, using science selectively and ignoring any context that proved them wrong, convinced the world of an untruth.
Those charts I'm posting are a big slam-dunk against your position. They *are* convincing to most folks. They show a large history of temp fluctuation that can not be related to Co2.
Ignore it, fine. But good luck with that.
Combining their estimates with standard climate model assumptions, they calculated how much these rising concentration levels caused global temperatures to climb, further increasing carbon dioxide and methane emissions, and so on.
"Standard Climate Model Assumptions". Again, one of the points I'm making that you ignored was, they can't even predict the temp next week, how can you assume the models are accurate???
While there are huge uncertainties in almost every aspect of this study, this research shows that we can "connect the dots" from a methane hydrate forcing to the observed global warming.
Yet, you're certain. This is the 'enlightened' viewpoint. As long as you don't ask any uncomfortable questions, I guess!
Which means, the models are still wrong. Incomplete, at best. Other variables still have a big effect.