I am not sure why this is important. For people keeping up, I don't think this is the real debate. I believe that most people here would agree with the following.
1) CO2 levels are going up due to man's emmisions.
2) CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
3) It is getting warmer.
Like I expressed before, providing more supporting evidence for 1 doesn't really change the debate. Either does providing more supporting evidence for 2 or 3 by themselves. When you talked earlier about the mounting evidence, you are talking about studies that support each of these statements independently. But again, that is not the debate. These things are pretty much agreed on except maybe in magnitude.
The real debate is whether 1 or 2 have anything to do with 3. That is the issue. I asked earlier for you to help me find studies that address this - the causal relationship. This is the issue at hand.
Specifically, it is very important to the AGW doomsday argument that there be positive feedbacks in nature that will increase the warming predicted by added CO2. Climate sensitivity is a HUGE question. That is what needs to be studied.
The best way to study feedbacks is to actually attempt to measure them. To do this, a good way might be to directly measure LW+SW emmisions in relationship to actual temperature change and compare the data to the feedbacks used in climate models. We have flown some expensive satellites for just this purpose - to measure fluxes. There are a few scientists actually looking at observed fluxes in relationship to temperature change.
It seems logical that these results would be important to the argument - no?
For example - the respected climate scientist, Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, has publishing recent work that shows an opposing view on feedbacks based on satellite observations.
This is a biography of the man
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Lindzen
This is a presentation he gave regarding, among other things, his publication in Geophysical Research Letters. Start reading at page 35 if you want to skip what you would probably consider denier hype.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress. ... lk-pdf.pdf
This is the actual article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and ... L-2009.pdf
You might also want to visit the blog of Dr. Roy Spencer, who is doing similar work and reaching similar conclusions. Actually, he blogs about Lindzen's work and his conclusions are quite revealing about the candor of the man who has been otherwised demonized by AGW people. He is also studying fluxes using CERES satellite data that shows similar results.
Here is his blog,
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Without nailing down feedbacks and understanding them better, this argument moves no further. We can piss on each other as long as we want. This is about cause and feedbacks. Continuing to site papers or data that say it is getting warmer doesn't accomplish much (especially since it isn't - most recently). Continuing to site papers or data that say that CO2 is going up doesn't do much.
Actually showing cause and figuring out feedbacks is the issue at hand. Don't you agree?
Regards