I read this article several days ago at “Watts Up With That.”
I’m interested to hear your comments.
“Almost 30 years after Hansen’s 1988 “alarm” on global warming, a claim of confirmation on CO2 forcing”
“First direct observation of carbon dioxide’s increasing greenhouse effect at the Earth’s surface.”
“Berkeley Lab researchers link rising CO2 levels from fossil fuels to an upward trend in radiative forcing at two locations.”
From the article at WUWT: “measured atmospheric carbon dioxide’s increasing capacity to absorb thermal radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface over an eleven-year period at two locations in North America. They attributed this upward trend to rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions.”
Or 11 years of increasing water vapor, i.e. a long term weather cycle. Of course I’m sure they have some way of ruling it out, and that probably involves a bogus climate model, but I don’t have time right now to read further.
ok- first off the supposed back radiation will amount to .2 Watts in a decade- which is first of all laughable- is this a constant? A variable figure? is it .2 one day, and .002 another? Do trade winds & such concentrate incoming back radiation? Are there areas where there is NO increase per square meter? Are there other factors which cancel this out? so many questions so little time
second, use your ‘find’ tool in ie and type in ‘.2’ and read the users comemnts in the comments section of that site you listed- Here’s an excerpt of one:
[[Trend? Just how do the researchers define trend?
Offhand, the eyeball effect shows an approximate max to max difference of .2 watts.
Again, was there any attempt to directly measure the effect of .2 watts back radiation on temperature? If not, why not!?]]
Also in the article :
[[Gregory calculated from test “radiosonde data from 1960 to date” using scientific method: “Climate sensitivity at doubled CO2 concentration was calculated to be 0.26C…..As global warming may be caused by factors unrelated to greenhouse gases”]]
They are using correlation to infer causation- just like in my cigarette example ie: soemoen clear across a parking lot smokes a cigg, ciggs cause cancer, I get cancer later in klife, therefore that person’s cigarette o nthat particular day one year ‘must be the ‘cause’ of my cancer”
From the article’s coments section
[[The average radiative forcings go down in 2002 from 0.033586957 in 2001 to 0.026244275 a drop of 0.007342682.
It also dropped in 2009 from 0.220432314 in 2008 to 0.213569405 a drop of 0.006862909.
So how does that happen with continuously increasing CO2 when everything else has supposedly been accounted for.]]
[[This teeny tiny amount of forcing only has the GROSS potential of increasing global temps by 1.2C, and once NEGATIVE feedbacks are accounted for, the NET amount of CO2 forcing is perhaps around 0.05~0.6C by 2100, which is almost an order of magnitude LESS than the stupid CAGW hypothesis projects.]]
You should go through the comments section- there’s a ton of folks far smarter on this issue than I am- As one person pointed out, they mention forcing I nthe article, but omit the fact that there is
Also do a keyword search for ‘forcing’ for some very insightful information into this controversial hypothesis-