There are non atmospheric carbon sinks, which as you say absorb a percentage of emissions; however, their net effect is identical to a slightly larger atmosphere. You admit that increasing CO2 concentrations increase temperature and human emissions increase atmospheric CO2 concentrations yet you suggest that it's solar storms which have increased the temperature. Why, as a black body increasing earth temperature from incoming radiation is hard, it's temperature ^ 4 = e which takes a lot of energy for a small increase.
Modeling what the net effects are is a complex topic. Doing a proper cost benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions is hard. But, we could produce all the energy the US needs from wind and solar, we could even create hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 + water, saying that’s not an option is a false choice. The real question is how far should we change, at what cost and for what benefit. I don't know the answers to that question, but I suspect the optimum choice is less costly than what most might while still dramatically altering carbon emissions.
PS: The total carbon emissions from all cars driven in the US is about the same as produced from coal fires in China, if you focus on low cost solutions to the global problem there is a lot of low hanging fruit.
Retric you are right that it is a very complex analysis. Water vapor is also a greenhouse gas. Given the present composition of the atmosphere, the contribution to the total heating rate in the troposphere is around 5 percent from carbon dioxide and around 95 percent from water vapor. See for example http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd.... If we assume that temperatures rise, evaporation will rise with the result of reducing the solar insolation at surface. If we had the models we could predict the weather months ahead, which we can't.
I quote a more qualified person than me, Prof. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service (See http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html)
There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "
There are a lot of low cost solutions, starting from not falling prey to marketing and consumerism. I am all for a pro-environment world, but I learnt not to buy into the politics and the lobbies of the day.
Modeling what the net effects are is a complex topic. Doing a proper cost benefit analysis of reducing carbon emissions is hard. But, we could produce all the energy the US needs from wind and solar, we could even create hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2 + water, saying that’s not an option is a false choice. The real question is how far should we change, at what cost and for what benefit. I don't know the answers to that question, but I suspect the optimum choice is less costly than what most might while still dramatically altering carbon emissions.
PS: The total carbon emissions from all cars driven in the US is about the same as produced from coal fires in China, if you focus on low cost solutions to the global problem there is a lot of low hanging fruit.