manmade activity is probably a significant cause of global warming

you sun activity study essentially boils down to "we go through cycles of warming due to the sun. we've been going through a high peak". i never contested that. my sun study that i cited specifies how much warming could be attributed to the sun, less than a third. if we assume both studies are accurate, my study delves into the specifics more to the detriment of your theory that it's all attributed to sun activity. the correlation with yoru solar irradiance graph pretty much amounts to this too.... we have just proof that the sun is causing warming. 'Temperature has not been increasing for 1000s of years, only since 1850, as seen in this graph' that temperature is increasing in that graph since 1850 supports my point more because that's around when the industrial revolution started. granted, we also see a natural cooling and might deduce that it's all part of a warming cycle. but, the only cycles i see are sun cycles, and i've already addressed all that. also, it has been increasing for thousands of years on whole (it also goes agaisnt concensus of both sides of the debate to claim it's not been increasing for all that time)... your graph only goes back to one thousand AD. the graphs i will cite show further back. here are the graphs that show that we've been increasing in temperature in recent years, particularly during industrial periods.... http://en.wikipedia.org... those graphs clearly show expoenitial growth in very recent years. that article describes the classic hockey stick controversy, that is often even mentioned in debates about this issue at this site. antiMMGW folks say "correlation doesn't imply causation" etc etc... but it does provide proof of warming, espeically in recent years. the question is whether it's man made or not..... and if we can effectively rule out all else, and that we have much CO2 in atmosphere, which causes warming... MMGW makes sense. this graph clearly shows Co2 growing expoentially since the industrial revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org... it started at 275 and shot to 375. that's like a third increase, not insignificant. as to your graph about percentage of co2, this graph is commonly accepted in academic debates.... your graph's source seems suspicious. that also applies to your co2 v. temp graph going back millions of years. in addition, for that graph, my graph focuses in on the most recent years in addition to eons back in time, to show exponeitial increases. -also, your graph that goes back to 1979 just shows a dip in recent years, ten years, not enough to establisb that we're no longer warming. if we have hockey stick in carbon dioxide, and in temperature, and can rule other other things, and know that Co2 and temp are correlated.... it's an obvious situation. -as to the graph back to 1905, we see a trend going up. if we zoomed out and looked at the Co2 levels in a larger persepctive with temperature... the overall correlation would be better establisehd. as to your other graphs. you showed temperature since 1995 to now... that's not enough to establish a firm trend. it might have decreased some but overall increased as the other graphs seem to indicate. al gore's movie an inconvenient truth showed us increasing the the number of record temperatures we've met. i can cite this if you insist from a better source, but the graphs i've shown is proof enough. as to ice thickness. even if some ice has formed... overall, ice is decreasing substantially, as this graph indicates. http://en.wikipedia.org... the fact that con has contested the northern caps melting next to nothing is just antoher example of him contesting well established information. (we having him contesting the thousands of years of warming, the hockey stick graphs, co2 v temp corerlation, now this,,,,, he pretty much is contesting everything) http://www.scientificamerican.com... that there might be ice forming somewhere just shows that ice sometimes forms. it also at best shows that there's variablity.... but that's what global warming supposes, more ariablity. that's why we ahve more extreme warming and cooling in various areas, with an overall increase in temp. con questions well established information, cites less established data, and doesn't prove anything else that the warming could be. i've shown warming and CO2 going up together exponeitlaly since the industrial revolution. the facts speak for themselves.