Yet again you conflate your statements - you said you had not seen any tabulated information about the sources of anthropogenic sulphur generation - I showed you such a table, and you seem completely unable to admit that yes, such information exists.
does it include estimates - sure. does it allow for unidentified sources sure - but, nonetheless you have still been shown such a table.
Wanting it to be moer accurate is an admirable goal - one which I think is probably not achievable to the extent you sem to want (it includes no estimates and no assumptions) - but by all means advocate for more research into atmospheric aerosols - i agree with you that it needs to be doen.
I just get irritated when you constantly change your "story" - it sems to me you are out to do anything you can not to admit I answered any given question of yours, or filled a gap you identified in your knowledge!
Edited to add:
Here's the IPCC's stocktake on
anthropogenic GHG generation - another place you could find the information you had not seen.
Another thing that irritates me is you lack of critical thinking - I get the impression you simply dismiss "estimates" as if they make data meaningless or something like that. however unless you know the nature of the estimates and the size of the potential errors they may involve you do not have a basis for being dismissive.
For example if you make an estimate as to the amount of GHG from "unknown sources" as being 5% of the total then that involves a great deal less uncertainty than an estimate of 50% of the total. If you aer serious about tacking down uncertainty then you need to be investigating how large or small these estimates actually are.