Reply to comment

False: The (recent) rise in CO2 levels tracks with NO measure of the earth's temperature over the past 30 years, 70 years, 150 years, 500 years, 2100 years, nor any period before that.

The author's (deliberate) attempt to limit his analysis to only visible radiation, to only a carefully selected 20 year period, to only a period when global temperatures were asymtomically passing through a low point (no major changes in temps happened then!) make his conclusion invalid. Political even.

I could claim exactly the same by noting that - of the past 35 years, global temperatures have been statistically constant for the last nine years of that 35 - even slightly declining since Bush became President. He has solved Al Gore's global warming crisis! [Of course not. It never was a crisis in the first place.]

Global warming can ONLY be detected if you measure temperatures from 1972 through 1998: Pick a different time period, and you get different results through the years.

No change in temperatures tracks with CO2 at any period of earth's history - though CO2 changes have trailed (on average) 800 years BEHIND global temperature changes over the past 480,000 years.

However, over every one of those periods listed above, a combination of the sun's magnetic storm levels, the earth's net magnetic field variations, cloud cover, cosmic ray shielding, and solar flare histories track UNIFORMLY and CONSISTANTLY with net global temperatures. But every one of these significant solar/earth/climatic changes was (deliberately) ignored by the paper's author, and by the enthusiastic reception given these results by the pro-AGW community.

CO2 ranks at slightly less than 1% of the greenhouse gasses by ppm, and (since it is slightly more efficient than water vapor in re-reflecting infrared rays than water vapor) accounts for about 2-3% of the total greenhouse effect. Methane (1/4 the amount of CO2 and now stable/slightly declining) is even more effective than CO2.

The result? Doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does NOT substantially increase the total greenhouse gas effect. Your summary that greenhouse gasses account for 50 degrees of the current temperature is correct: AND, since cosmic rays affect cloud cover which accunts for net albedo, AND since solar flares affect cosmic ray shielding by changing the earth's electric fields around the poles, AND since cosmic ray collisions affect cloud particle formation, AND since the earth's magnetic field has decreased by 10% over the past 150 years, EVERY change in temperature over the past 150 is accounted for.

CO2 levels constantly ramp up through the whole period of interest. Temperatures do not. Do not "short term effects" (of CO2 on temperatures) if you, at the same time, can only show a 27 year period when both temperature and CO2 increase.

The slight 1/2 degree net rise as the earth's magnetic field slowly decreases from the 1880's, the spikes in the mid-30's and late-90's, the dip in the mid-70's, the steady flat spot from 2000-2007. Cloud formation cycles explain each change. We wait for solar flare cycle 24 to begin: the later it comes, the lower it is likely to be, and the lower the magnetic storm activity of the sun proves to be, the lower the next temperatures will be.

Computer programs predict various results. And get various amounts of funding as a result: the greater the effect, the more funding. (In notable contrast to computer programs and research which predict no effect, or reduced effects, or beneficial effects from today's increase of 1/2 of one degree.)

The ONLY way for AGW proponents to get their predictions to work is to greatly accelerate the effect of water vapor by artificially multiplying the effect of water vapor - as CO2 increases the amount and effectiveness of water vapor is increased many times: But these same programs uniformly (and deliberately) ignore/do not model/selectively neglect the effect of clouds on overall reflectivity. So invisible water molecules ARE exaggerated, but visible water molecules (clouds) are ignored. Why?

(Notice that the complimentary effect of Arctic ice/water areas IS carefully modelled - because that effect increases the effect of small temperature changes.)