I addressed all of these in our discussion. Feel free to go back and review them if you like. I'll sum it up, though.
I don't have a problem with the CO2 readings. The man who started it (Keeling) was not driven by an agenda other than his own concerns, at least that's been my interpretation of what I've read of his work. I believe his son continues it.
I stated that when the climatologists didn't want the opinions of world class meteorologists, they made a huge mistake. Many of these were masters of meteorological trends, which are ways to read the atmosphere.
I've stated that as one who actually collected vertical atmospheric data that most likely has been used in the models, that the data itself had huge potential for error and was sparse at best until a few decades ago (atmospheric temp readings, lapse rates, etc.), and numerous land stations don't paint the entire picture, far from it. I could give countless reasons, but won't waste my time. For the record, I also recorded surface obs here in the states, which included temp, humidity, pressure, wind, and wx. Those were recorded hourly, 24/7 and more often during weather events. I also performed quality control of that data for a time. The surface warming for the last 150 years sounds cyclical to me. Didn't we have a cold cycle into the 1800âs? Warming is what happens when cold periods end.
You yourself stated the next major ice cycle is less roughly 1000 years out. Didn't the geological studies of ice ages prior indicate peak heating and atmospheric gasses before each? How was the geological data from prior times verified by upper air readings (it wasn't) other than estimations and extrapolations from atmoshperic fallout that appears in the geological record? Again, how was this data used in the models?
So in a nutshell, is there trapping? Quite likely. Is the result causing warming? Possibly. Are other issues causing warming, such as solar and orbital cycles? Possibly.
I summarized that for me to be completely on board, I need to see many more years of highly accurate data, both through the layers of the atmosphere, and the ocean, not just huge extrapolations through the time of sparse data to the beginning of more accurate data, though extrapolation will always be necessary in this type of science.
I've said repeatedly in this thread and others, I don't dispute warming. I simply question whether we have enough evidence to blame man solely. In my opinion, we don't.
Peace out.