okie, parado I suspect is a little testy because he has posted, at least three times over the course of these discussions, the IPCC's assessment and quantification of natural and anthropogenic contributions to global warming. Your side seems to have roughly the attention span, and retention span, of a mosquito, tho, and the figures just don't seem to stick in your collective mind(s).
Here is a link to the latest IPCC Summary for Policymakers.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
It's a pdf file, so I can't do you a picture of the graphic on page 4. It exists elesewhere not as a pdf, but I'm tired of doing this, just as I suspect Parados is if people are too pigheaded to find it for themselves, so I'll just summarize the data:
total anthropogenic contribution to global warming in terms of increased watts per square meter (i.e. referencing to solar output):
CO2: 1.66 w/m^2
other anthropogenic gases (methane, nitrous oxide, etc.): 0.98 w/m^2
solar variation: 0.12 w/m^2 (likely to be scaled down, since the last solar minimum just ended shows that solar output has decreased over the time frame we've had accurate satellite measurement of it since the llate 70s, while global temperature has increased over the same time frame).
total anthropogenic contribution to global warming: 1.66 w/m^2
If you look at the diagram, you will notice that there are also anthropogenic effects that counteract some of the warming effects, like landuse causing albedo changes, and aerosol effects, which is why CO2 causes more of an effect by itself than the total anthropogenic effect, since there are offsetting anthropogenic effects. But if you do the math, that works out to over 90% of the change in temp being due to anthropogenic, as opposed to natural, causes
I'm not sure why georgeob thinks the IPCC is being equivocal. They consider ALL the effects on climate change and say with steadily increasing statistical certainty that it is happening and is due mainly to anthropogenic causes.
