http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/increasing-atmospheric-co2-manmade%E2%80%A6or-natural/
I think you may find this interesting, and it will answer many of your questions without me typing a lot.
I believe we are still at the questions: Does CO2 force temperature change, temperature increase push CO2 out of solution (especially in the oceans), and thus make CO2 an indicator of temperature change rather than a forcing agent, or does man-produced and naturally released CO2 affect the temperature.
If so, how much, or are there other factors involved? (Is anthropogenic CO2 of negligible effect?)
Before that can be decided, note that the temperature measurements since the industrial revolution occur in areas where there is industrialization and urban growth. It is well enough documented that poorly sited, or changes in the siting of measuring equipment can cause changes in temperature readings which are not necessarily reflected in the climate, but are actually an artifact of that development--especially paving, HVAC exhaust, jet aircraft exhaust plumes, and the like. It has been stated that a significant portion of us temperature measuring stations are in locations which compromise the validity of that data, and in almost every case, in a way which would cause those stations to record higher temperatures than would be accurate outside of the microclimate caused by the development.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2010/02/26/climate-data-compromised-by-heat-sources.html
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/08/13/weather-station-closures-flaws-in-temperature-record.html
and then, there are other risks....
http://money.cnn.com/2014/11/12/technology/security/weather-system-hacked/index.html
But beneath it all there is a hysteria level stirred by the MSM we don't trust, fostered on university campuses which have become hotbeds of lunacy and catered to by a class of politicians who do things like: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/16/new-york-announces-nuclear-shutdown-to-fight-climate-change/
It is time to take a deep breath and determine if there is really a change in global temperature (which requires accurate measurements), is so is it one which is unprecedented, if so, what should the target (optimum) temperature be, and whether we are having a meaningful effect on that system which has operated with virtually (or actually) no human input in the past.
If the four answers aren't all "yes", let nature take its course, and continue to develop the technology which will permit us to deal with any problems, rather than abandon that capability in a fit of hubris only to die off because we threw away the means to survive.
Thanks. Nothing to add to that brilliant post.
Except that I have identified another strategery (sic) of Suppressed's mendacity. He waited until the coast is clear (the people who are disgusted with his endless preoccupation with rescripting what are to him, impressive (meaningless) charts and graphs which have absolutely nothing to do with the other far more cogent, important points he has ignored so rudely. He is like someone who wants to take a leak on a public street who waited until nobody is walking by, then whips it out and sprays away, hoping that he will get away with it.
Nobody is impressed with phony charts and graphs. That sort of thing is in the same family of devices to convince the credulous, uninformed masses by trying to confuse them with excessive, tangential, utterly unimportant minutiae. Some people believe that if they can't understand something, it MUST be smart.
I am of the opposite view. When I see something posted that is abstruse, confusing overly-complicated/ technical (which most posters would not be able to follow), I assume that someone is rescripting something they have gotten from somewhere else (I have seen those graphs/charts and heard these same silly points raised on every AGW fanatic website which they point to ooing and ahhing like the manapes in 2001:A Space Odyssey set all a twitter by the Great Monolith. OOOOO LOOK! A graph with different colors! It must be REAL SMART AND SCIENCY!!
Two words Bull Sh**! Take it somewhere else, Suppressed. Nobody here is buying it and I refuse to be lured into your endless demands to talk about only what YOU want to talk about. Your rudeness and mendacious attempt to distract, divert and denigrate opposing viewpoints (you said I didn't understand carbon-related radiative forcing, remember? That was an insult you never apologised for) has exhausted my own and everyone else's patience.
Like Jack Nicholson said in "Hoffa", "You're wearin' me out!!"
So buzz off. You are talking to yourself. And don't bother whining that we don't understand the endless BS, we do. We just aren't buying it.
And neither is the U.S. government. Not anymore. The whole notion of Carbon-related radiative forcing is dead. And long, ,long overdue for a coffin.
No more responses to Suppressed from me on this thread, either directly or indirectly. I don't want an apology any more for his insults. I just want him to confront his own detachment from reality. That's what I really want. Not for me, for him. End the madness. For your own sake. Otherwise people are going to start thinking that you are senile or something because failing to respond simply to direct questions, in easy-to-understand terms, is grossly abnormal.