Dan, there are a lot of errors and misconceptions in your description of 'the greenhouse effect'. The 'blanket' explanation is a fairy story made up to satisfy the gullible. If you study a textbook on the greenhouse effect written by one of the faithful, the way it is supposed to work is completely different to your summary.
In brief the exchange of radiation between atmosphere and surface is supposed to increase as the atmosphere becomes optically thicker, and this theoretically raises the 'effective altitude of emission' of energy to space. It is supposed that because the atmosphere at the increased height is colder, the surface has to warm in order to get the colder atmosphere at the new emission height to warm up and emit radiation to space fast enough for the Earth's new energy budget to be in balance.
There are several problems with this theory.
For one thing, for the theory to be true, the gap between the 'effective altitude of emission and the surface would have to be a vacuum for the physics to work. In fact it's full of air, in which convection processes dominate over radiation processes. To try to get around this problem, the theorists have attempted to create 'coupled models' which account for this. But in the model radiation and convection aren't actually 'coupled' in any real computational sense. It's a kludge.
For another thing, when the Sun went quiet in 2005, our satellites started gaining altitude because there was less drag on them from the atmosphere. NASA says this is because the outer part of the atmosphere the satellites are flying in shrank by around 30%. It is not known what effect this shrinking had on the layers of the atmosphere below. It looks like a strong possibility that the Sun's activity changes have a much bigger effect on the temperature of the notional 'effective altitude of emission' than co2 does.
To try to get a handle on this we are trying to measure the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere. But the sensitivity of our instruments isn't good enough to measure this closer than around 5W/m^2. This error range is three times larger than the theoretical signal from increased co2.
The optical thickness of the atmosphere is an expression of it's albedo, the degree to which the atmosphere reflects sunlight back into space rather than allowing it through to the surface. But changes in albedo are more affected by changes in cloud amount than by changes in co2, and we don't have sufficiently accurate indices of cloud amount.
It may be that albedo is a function of other factors which determine surface temperature anyway, since cloud amount is affected by temperature, pressure and humidity. A strong clue that this possibility may be true is given by the planet Venus when compared to Earth. When you take into account the difference in distance from the Sun, it turns out that the temperature at a given pressure in the atmosphere is the same on both planets, leading to an identical lapse rate (the rate at which temperature changes with altitude) over most of the height of the two atmospheres. This is so despite the fact that Venus' atmosphere is 93 times heavier and nearly all co2 whereas in Earth's atmosphere, there is hardly any co2 (0.039%). This fact strongly indicates that it is atmospheric mass per unit area of surface, rather than atmospheric composition which is the primary determinant of surface temperature (288K on earth 735K on Venus).
I'd take your bleating about membership more seriously if you were moaning at the non-members on your side of the climate debate too. The more you try to bully me about it while not being even handed, the less likely I am to renew my membership.