[ QUOTE ]
Actually it's rather poorly put. The stove analogy in particular is stupid. A more accurate analogy is removing the pot completely from the stove, and then expecting it to keep heating up.
[/ QUOTE ]
Your analogy modification is completely retarded. Less output from the sun = no energy input at all to the pot system?
[ QUOTE ]
It's not like the sun's intensity gradually wanes over time - the incoming radiation travels very fast and when it's less, there's no "residue" around left to transfer heat. It just doesn't work like that.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ignoring any possibilities of the oceans acting as heat reservoirs, can you not see that even if solar output drops from recent highs that it can still increase global temperatures? Everything to do with radiative heat equilibriums and nothing to do with "residues".
[ QUOTE ]
ZERO studies published in any journals that throw doubt on this interpretation.
[/ QUOTE ]
Scafetta, N., and B. J. West, 2006. Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900-2000 global surface warming. Geophysical Research Letters, doi: 1029/2005GL025539.
Although in the study the solar input doesn't contribute to the majority of the warming, it concludes it may affect up 45–50% of the 1900–2000 global warming, and 25–35% of the 1980–2000 global warming which is rather significant. I've seen other studies, mostly in Russian physics journals, by solar scientists claiming solar significance to global warming. Yet there are other studies with everything from land development to cosmic rays that other scientists claim are major contributers that don't make it into the IPCC report. Most of this confidence that CO2 attribution have been from climate models. Did you see this study in the IPCC report?
http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html
I am going to take a wild guess and say no.
You are being completely naive or purposely obtuse about how science works. Notice the wars between String Theorists and Quantum Loop advocates. Scientists are not above ego and the vast majority have vested interest in their own personal theories. Too bad the UN IPCC with their literature filtering distorts so it causes a relatively sharp guy like you from seeing the whole picture.
By the way, I do think CO2 is the most plausible candidate for the cause of warming, but the confidence level of the attribution is ridiculously high. They get their probability distribution and error bars from convoluting the various climate models. Very nice science there. The best part about the whole thing is that can a probability distribution of a one-time event be falsified? Very convenient it can't.