I think I can trust you Bob not to censor any contributors, no matter how offensive their views on this subject.

Yes, Barry, you have me well-pegged; I abhor all forms of censorship and attempts at suppression of ideas ... no matter how noxious ... I even pledge to be kind to dumbasses *chuckle*

dumbass = a person who looks-up the word "dumbass" in a dictionary; example of usage:

"If you don't know what a dumbass is, you're really a f***ing dumbass!"

source: The Urban Dictionary

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=dumbass

Ales: "My first contribution would be to oppose the notion of natural to human contribution ..."

Bob: I have edited the original question (and my comments) to try and make it clearer (and slightly less objectionable and biased).

Guillermo,

Thank you for the article (published 2011) you cited, wherein it is stated:

"A climate model based on the “global energy balance” has provided new evidence for human-induced climate change, according to its creators. Using this simple model, researchers in Switzerland conclude that it is extremely likely (>95% probability) that at least 74% of the observed warming since 1950 has been caused by human activity. [emphasis added by Skiles]

Previously, climate scientists have used a technique called “optimal fingerprinting” to pinpoint the causes of global warming. This involves using complex models to simulate the climate response to different “forcings”. These include greenhouse gases, aerosols [emphasis added by Skiles] and ozone, as well as natural factors such as solar and volcanic variability. The relative contribution of each forcing is then assessed by a statistical comparison of the model outputs to the real-life warming pattern."

How do you think the claimed 74% of the 2011 report you cited should be adjusted if the newest findings concerning the effects of aerosols (suggesting their impact on climate may be double what was previously thought) were integrated (see this recent article), viz:

Article Aerosol-driven droplet concentrations dominate coverage and ...

Ales: "Aerosols are causing increased heating through us making an effort to emit less (smoke filtering)."

Bob: Are you saying that the filters or "scrubbers" (e.g., on HC burning electric-generating plants) are likely to be increasing global warming more, than if no scrubber (filter) was used? If so, is this expected to be more a "local" or regional effect (i.e., North America), not-so-much global?

Ales,

Then if the alarmists are serious about undertaking an (affordable / immediately-doable / practical) geo-engineering project to slow global warming, then the most efficacious / efficient / cheapest / fastest thing that could be done is to immediately remove all the scrubbers/filters from all generating plants along the eastern seaboard of North America (thus gaining significant benefits of reduced anthropogenic-forcing with little cost, and not increasing pollutants over occupied areas ... since prevailing winds will sweep the "smokestack" particulates "out to sea")?

Ales: "We'll see what time brings ..."

Bob: I hope the first effect the new discovery regarding aerosols may have is to break the fixation / hysteria / demonization the alarmists have toward CO2 ... and their idea that we can somehow "weather" (

Decrease in radiative forcing by organic aerosol nucleation, climate, and land use change

"Abstract

Organic nucleation is an important source of atmospheric aerosol number concentration, especially in pristine continental regions and during the preindustrial period. Here, we improve on previous simulations that overestimate boundary layer nucleation in the tropics and add changes to climate and land use to evaluate climate forcing. Our model includes both pure organic nucleation and heteromolecular nucleation of sulfuric acid and organics and reproduces the profile of aerosol number concentration measured in the Amazon. Organic nucleation decreases the sum of the total aerosol direct and indirect radiative forcing by 12.5%. The addition of climate and land use change decreases the direct radiative forcing (−0.38 W m−2) by 6.3% and the indirect radiative forcing (−1.68 W m−2) by 3.5% due to the size distribution and number concentration change of secondary organic aerosol and sulfate.

Overall, the total radiative forcing associated with anthropogenic aerosols is decreased by 16%."

Nature 24 Jan 2019:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08407-7