Jeremy, it's a little hard to judge how genuine your question is, but I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt. You would have to temporarily put aside your closed-minded opinion that peer-reviewed literature is always so credible. You might start with the Climategate criticism at the foot of my home page.

You would have to look closely at the curved trends in the plots at top and bottom of that home page, and note the correspondence in recent years, even though these were produced independently, one of them by no less than Trenberth himself. Then you would have to admit that since 1979 (when accurate NASA satellite data started) there really is no indication that the true trend (being approximately sinusoidal) must result in a projection of future warming.

Secondly, you would have to have sufficient physics to realise that Prof Nahle, as well as Knox and Douglass and several others are in fact right. If you can, with your knowledge of physics, accurately debunk any of their physics then tell me about it. Likewise, if you or anyone can be specific about actual errors in the physics which you call "rubbish" then I am prepared to look into it.

Thirdly you would have to really live and breathe this stuff as I have for quite some time now to come to grips with how and why carbon dioxide cannot possibly cause long-term significant warming. You would have to acknowledge the fact that, since its formation, the Earth has cooled down but only to temperatures at the surface which are determined by the temperature plot from the core right out to space or, if you wish, by the insulating effect of the atmosphere. It has not been a case of the sun warming everything from absolute zero. Solar heat from the day is lost fairly quickly in the night, but only down to a base level determined by the very stable underground temperatures. Ask yourself, why doesn't it keep cooling at a similar rate at night, especially when the sun is not slowing the cooling? Why does it come back to almost exactly the same mean temperatures found on corresponding dates the year before? Just look at NASA sea surface plots since 2003 for example.

Now, rather than generalisations about how you think anything which is contrary to consensus opinion in the "peer-reviewed" literature is wrong, that term embracing both true science and pseudo-science, I would indeed be very interested to read any sound arguments from accepted physics which you believe debunk any particular point I have made. But please read at least the four pages on the above site first.

You need to understand the history of that physics which you say "was worked out 80-100 years ago." It is the very physics referred to in Section 2.2 at http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net which you brushed aside as "rubbish" but which is in fact correct because the original "physics" was not even in line with new theories that were already put forward at the time. It was certainly not in line with what Fourier said about heat transfer.

Yet this fault-ridden "physics" is in fact the very basis of the supposed greenhouse effect and has simply been assumed correct by climatologists who are not really experts in the field at all. Not only was this "physics" debunked by Prof Wood in 1909, but it is also totally at variance with modern-day (peer-reviewed) theory. I'm surprised that you can't see that.

Regarding trends, I have referred to Dr Roy Spencer's trend based on all available satellite data from 1979 up to and including October 2011. (I was not just referring to October itself.) This polynomial (Excel) trend has now passed its maximum. Take a closer look ...
http://climate-change-theory.com/latest.jpg

You might also look at the downward trend in sea levels since 2007 ...
http://www.real-science.com/sea-level-falling-2-5-mmyear-2007

Note that there is a propensity for sea levels to rise anyway, even when temperatures are falling. This is the case because there are still land ice glaciers which will continue to melt and raise sea levels while ever temperatures are anything above freezing point. We are still coming out of the last ice age after all, so more ice will melt than will be reformed. Hence, when sea levels do actually fall, the contraction due to cooling is exceeding the effect of this melting ice. So the cooling is very real.

By the way, though, I do not accept the weak NASA argument that all the extra water has ended up on land in Australia and elsewhere, due to heavy rains. We do have rivers to take away the flood waters, and our (previously) flooded land surface is a very small proportion of the total surface of the oceans. Other land areas have had offsetting droughts anyway. So, sorry NASA, but your argument doesn't wear.

Finally, I would add that the trend shown since 1979 on Spencer's site has absolutely no correlation with the fairly linear ever-increasing trend in carbon dioxide levels. As Trenberth himself said, the fact that they can't explain this is a travesty. And the trend has become distinctly downward since he said that, making IPCC projections now look a real joke.

I wonder if the NASA sea surface measurements have really suffered a technical fault, or whether perhaps they were just too cool to publish. Look at the fall in recent months at 14000 feet http://climate-change-theory.com/14000.jpg for example. You can't just blame this on ENSO because ENSO is a result of changing climate, not the cause - see http://climatechange1.wordpress.com/2011/01/17/earths-changing-atmosphere/

So the link between carbon dioxide levels is not established empirically in the temperature data and the theory on which it was based is not in line with modern physics. Heat is transferred in all media - solid, liquid or gas - by a combination of kinetic energy transfer in molecular collisions, as well as some "internal" radiation. It is not all about radiative transfer theory alone, and in fact radiation plays only a small part when there is close equilibrium established by physical diffusion, such as at the surface/atmosphere interface.

Nobody, "lay" or otherwise is "required" to do anything. Does having a degree in Physics and studying it for 40 odd years qualify me as "lay" or otherwise?

The reasons why those arguments are wrong has been on this page of my original site for months http://earth-climate.com/CaseAgainst.html