It's also worth noting that you're comparing actual measurements of global mean temperature with local temperature in Antarctica from sampled ice cores. I would not consider that an apple-to-apple comparison and I'd expect the latter to have much more variation.

Yes, that is what I am saying.

All of that data is based on ice cores.

Here is more from NOAA:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/home.html

RichC/240Joe/DieselAddict, as I said before it would be a waste of everyone's time because there is no way anyone can change your mind.

Thanks for the link which I have found informative. I have yet to find any contradiction to what I said. Instead I found this:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/what.html

Water vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas. It accounts for more than double the warming effect of CO2.

CO2 has been rising and falling in conjunction with global temperature long before Humans were around.

http://jeffreyellis.org/images/climate_chart.jpg

No dispute there. Water vapor has been more or less constant though while CO2 has been going up significantly since the industrial revolution. In fact IIRC CO2 is now higher than it has been in the last 600,000 years or so.

Hmm.

For the last time, yes it is widely accepted in the scientific community that increased CO2 is responsible for the recent warming, but of course that's not the only thing that has driven climate change over the course of Earth's history. I don't know how to explain that any more clearly for you to comprehend this simple fact.

Think of CO2 as your car's windows. If you let your car sit in the sun, the sun's radiation is not the only factor that determines the temperature inside your car. If you close all your windows it will obviously be hotter inside than if you leave them open. That's the same effect that increased CO2 has on Earth.

While this chart shows increasing temperatures over the last 35 years (excluding the last 7 years). It's no different from the rise in temperatures in the early 1800's and the far larger increase in the early 1700's.

I wonder if they had any carbon offset programs back then?

No, but they did begin to put emissions devices on their mules.

Wrong. The rise in temps in the early 1800's and early 1700's can easily be explained by increased solar radiation, as is shown in one of the graphs I already posted, and here it is again.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/ima..._1611-2001.png

The same cannot be said of the rise in temps in the 2nd half of the 20th century. Increased CO2 is the only explanation.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/tsi_vs_temp.gif

But it doesn't explain it. CO2 only accounts for about 3.8% of greenhouse gasses and humans are responsible for about 3.4% of all CO2 emitted into the atmosphere annually.

CO2 absorbs energy in a narrow bandwidth and absorbs it logarithmically and at some point, adding more won't change anything.

If the pre-industrial age CO2 density was 280 ppm, the first half of it's heating effect was caused by 20 ppm. The second half by 260 ppm. Most writing say this accounts for a 1.5 deg C rise in average temperatures. At this rate we would need a density of 9000 ppm to double the heating effect, to add another 1.5 deg C.

I don't think we'll get there.

CO2 is the greenhouse gas increasing the most in concentration so even if its total percentage is relatively low, it matters. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation, the type that's reflected off the Earth's surface. That's why we're seeing the most warming at the surface, whereas the stratosphere is actually cooling. These observations fit the man-made global warming theory perfectly. I don't believe there's a point where adding more CO2 won't change anything, at least this point is not anywhere near the current concentration.

I don't know where you're pulling the numbers from in your last paragraph. From what I've read the average temp in this century is projected to rise up to 10F (if we do nothing) and 9000 ppm CO2 is definitely NOT required for that. 10F may not sound like much, but keep in mind this is the average temp which historically changes very slowly so this is a huge jump and the most worrying aspect is the temperature extremes that come along with such a drastic change in the average.

We never got to a point where adding such a small amount of CO2 changed anything.