**********************************EXCERPT******************************************
John Day says:
The first sentence of the paper’s conclusion is a stunning refutation of the AGW “theory”:
“The main conclusion one arrives at the analysis is that CO2 has not a causal relation with global warming and it is not powerful enough to cause the historical changes in temperature that were observed.”
In hindsight, it should have been obvious from observation of the atmosphere of Mars, almost pure CO2, about 30 times more abundant (per unit surface area) than on Earth, and yet Mars’ black-body temp and mean surface temp are virtually the same: 210K. The atmospheric warming effect of CO2 is thus shown to be neglible.
It is water, in all its physical states, that warms and regulates our climate, sustaining life as we know it on Earth.
Thank you very much for this excellent post.
********************************EXCERPT***********************************************
R. Gates says:
Interesting paper. certainly worthy of a second read, but a few thoughts off the top.
First, in the conclusion he remarks:
“However, a permanent in- crease in water vapor in the atmosphere due to an in- crease in insolation, evapotranspiration and mainly temperature change in ocean water…”
Of course he makes throughout the paper that it is a warming earth that is causing the increase in water vapor, and everyone of course knows that water vapor is a more potent GH gas than CO2, but his conclusion is quite empty in regards to what could be causing that longer term warming that is causing the increase in water vapor. Solar insolation has not increased during the period in question and temperature change in the oceans offers no long term answer either as that heat must ultimately come from an increase in solar insolation (or increased GH gas activity). In short, his reasoning seems a bit circular as he acknowledges the warming but finds no source other than water vapor, which his says is being increased from the warming. So what is the source of the warming?
Second, he seems to be looking for monthly or seasonal warming signatures from the fluctuations in CO2, yet no GCM has ever indicated that such signatures would be found but rather, it is the long-term increase in CO2 since around 1750 (up 40% since that time) that would eventually become the dominant signal upon which other natural cycles would ride. His insistence that various shorter term CO2 fluctuations should be seen in the temperature data is unsupported by any climate model.
Finally, it is interesting that he does acknowledge the general increase in water vapor and warming of the oceans over time, without even mentioning the fact that these have both long been cited as one of the effects of general AGW. The even stronger positive-feedback induced GH warming caused by increased water vapor was one of the effects cited many decades ago as stemming from the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1750′s. Why does the author choose not to reference this possibility?
All in all an interesting paper but suspicious in its circular reasoning, appeal to the lack of effects of CO2 that no GCM’s have ever predicted would exist, and lack of acknowledgment of basic feedback processes long predicted as existing between increased CO2 and increasing water vapor.
*********************************EXCERPT********************************************
RockyRoad says:
chemman says:
January 1, 2011 at 10:32 am
But will the politicians, regulators and “climate scientists” actually listen and change their ways. They seem to be stuck on stupid regarding CO2
Actually, it shows the politicians, regulators, and climsci people just don’t want to work hard enough to wrap their brains around anything more difficult than CO2 as the culprit. They don’t want to target water (the real scoundrel) because in their totalitarian mindset, it would mean West Coast inhabitants would have to drain their swimming pools and let their grass die (albeit in full view of the Pacific)! Of course, such actions would have the same negligible impact as curtailing CO2 emissions, but the thought of swimming in empty pools or playing golf on dead fairways was just too personal–they had to target something that was a no-brainer, taxable, and in line with their Fabian Socialist doctrine of curtailing capitalism and revoking individual freedoms.
In other words, being stupid is easy and popular.
**********************************EXCERPT******************************************
Brian H says:
JD;
Not sure if I saw it right, but the comparison for Mars showed the BB temp actually 0.1° WARMER than the measured: 10.1 vs 10.0.
Wouldn’t that be a kicker: CO2 causes cooling when nothing interferes with it!
Thanks Ernest.