The fact is, there has been global warming, but the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide is necessarily so minuscule as to be nearly undetectable. Here's why:

Carbon dioxide, considered the main vector for human-caused global warming, averages (over a year) some 0.038% of the atmosphere[1]- a trace gas. Water vapor varies from 0% to 4%[2], and should easily average 1% or more[3] near the Earth’s surface, where the greenhouse effect would be most important, and is about three times more effective[4] a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. So water vapor is at least 25 times more prevalent and three times more effective; that makes it at least 75 times more important to the greenhouse effect than carbon dioxide[5]. The TOTAL contribution of carbon dioxide to the greenhouse effect is therefore 0.013 or less. The total human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution has been estimated at about 25%[6]. So humans’ carbon dioxide greenhouse effect is a quarter of 0.013, works out to about 0.00325. Total warming of the Earth by the greenhouse effect is widely accepted as about 33 degrees Centigrade, raising average temperature to 59 degrees Fahrenheit. So the contribution of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is less than 0.2 degrees Fahrenheit, or under 0.1 degree Centigrade. Global warming over the last century is thought by many to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade.

But that's only the beginning. We've had global warming for more than 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today[7]. Whatever caused that, it was not human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint. Whatever the cause was, it melted the glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City[8] into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That's one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming - and I suppose we could presume we are, given this 10,000 year history - it seems highly likely that it is still the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming, rather than our piddling 0.00325 contribution to the greenhouse effect.

Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now[9], and the climate was clearly colder in the Little Ice Age in the 1600s than it is now[10]. So we are within the range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

The principal scientists arguing for human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[11], and now you can see why. They have proved they should not be trusted.

The idea that we should be spending hundreds of billions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with climate change and its effects in realistic ways. The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, and I predict that anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.

[1] Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition 
by Michael Pidwirny Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK "http://www.physicalgeograph..." http://www.physicalgeograph...

[2] ibid.

[3] HALOE v2.0 Upper Tropospheric Water Vapor Climatology Claudette Ojo, Hampton University; et al.. HYPERLINK "http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Con..." http://vsgc.odu.edu/src/Con.... See p. 4.The 0 - 4% range is widely accepted among most sources. This source is listed for its good discussion of the phenomena determining that range. An examination of a globe will show that tropical oceans (near high end of range) are far more extensive than the sum of the earth’s arctic and antarctic regions and tropical-zone deserts (all near the low end). Temperate zone oceans are far more extensive than temperate-zone desert. This author’s guess of an average of 2% or more seems plausible. I have used “1% or more” in an effort to err on the side of understatement.

[4 NIST Chemistry Webbook, Please compare the IR absorption spectra of water and carbon dioxide. ] HYPERLINK "http://webbook.nist.gov/" http://webbook.nist.gov/

[5] Three quarters of the atmosphere and virtually all water vapor are in the troposphere. Including all the atmosphere would change the ratios to about 20 times more prevalent and 60 times more effective. However, the greenhouse effect of high-altitude carbon dioxide on lower-altitude weather and the earth’s surface seems likely to be small if not nil.

[6] National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. HYPERLINK "http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa..." http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa.... The estimated 90ppm increase in carbon dioxide, 30% above the base of 280 ppm, to a recent reading of 370 ppm, equates to just under 25% of present concentration, the relevant factor in estimating present contribution to the greenhouse effect.

[7] Oak Ridge National Laboratory http://www.esd.ornl.gov/pro...

[8] New York Nature - The nature and natural history of the New York City region. Betsy McCully http://www.newyorknature.ne...

[9] Global Warming: A Geological Perspective John P. Bluemle HYPERLINK "https://www.dmr.nd.gov/ndgs..." http://www.azgs.az.gov/ariz... This article, published by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Agency, is drawn from a paper by the author in Environmental Geosciences, 1999, Volume 6, Number 2, pp. 63-75. Note particularly the chart on p.4.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009 HYPERLINK "http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C..." http://wikileaks.org/wiki/C....

See also HYPERLINK "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/..." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/... and

HYPERLINK "http://online.wsj.com/artic..." http://online.wsj.com/artic... and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK "http://www.nytimes.com/2009..." http://www.nytimes.com/2009.... Et al.

ADDENDUM

What initially troubled me was the aberrant behavior of the climate research unit at East Anglia University, which had been the main data source for AGW arguments. They initially refused (!) to reveal their algorithms and data on the grounds that they were proprietary(!!). They responded to critics with ad hominem attacks and efforts to block their publication in scientific journals. Now, as I am sure you know, this is not how one does honest science, in which you PUBLISH your data and methodology and invite critical comment to ferret out error or oversights. It took the now-famous Wikileaks "Climategate" to pry loose the data and expose their machinations. Yet despite the devastating blow these revelations should have to their credibility, the AGW "cause" has taken on a life of its own.

Fundamentally, the argument seems to rest on a logical fallacy, post hoc ergo propter hoc - after this, therefore because of this. We see a rise in temperature and a rise in (principally) carbon dioxide, and therefore conclude one must have caused the other. It does not necessarily follow at all. There can be other causes entirely behind both phenomena, and as you see above, almost certainly there are. Beyond that, I have encountered numerous assertions of fact that cannot add up given the physical properties of water vapor and carbon dioxide that go unchallenged. One-sided arguments proliferate and people arguing the other side are frequently denounced as being employed by business interests rather than rebutted on the merits.

In sum, I have not come lightly to the conclusion that the AGW argument as it applies to carbon dioxide is largely untrue and certainly does not account for more than a very small, nearly negligible part of the phenomena we are seeing. The implications of widespread assertions of and belief in such an untruth are staggering, and potentially enormously destructive. It is unwise indeed to let oneself be stampeded in this matter, and stampede is clearly what many have been and are trying to induce.

I can understand politicians behaving this way; a carbon tax or carbon trading regime would allow enormous revenues to fall into their hands. I can understand "Progressive" ideologues; it logically leads to enormous expansion of government power over industry, the economy, and the daily life of individuals, which they regard as a good thing. I understand the environmentalists; they want to shrink the size and impact on the environment of modern civilization. But responsible citizens need to put aside such considerations.

Earth is not a glasshouse, there is no greenhouse effect, no greenhouse gases. All that is fiction shaped as science.

All Earth is net releasing more energy to the space than it gets from Earth, because the Earth has a second heat source in its own core.

Near surface heat is lifted by heated air with humidity. where an air package can carry up to 4% water. CO2 is not much and it cannot rise as high as water. Water has a specif mass of 0.58kg/m3 where CO2 has 1.9kg/m3.

Hotter humid air can rise up to ca. 8km. Lss heated humid air will be stopped ad lower heights, even near surface, which is then called fog or mist.

The adiabatic rise of humid hot air results in condensation when the water reaches its dew point. By condensation the vapor releases its energy as heat radiation.

So where is the glasshouse?

Don't lose Your temper. Please answer with knowledge. If You don't have Your own knowledge but just believe in Climatism, than don't claim offering anything scientific. Accept that Climatism is a religion where You can believe or not, similar to Scientology, Christianity or others.

Surface or near surface there is no loss of energy, as the surface is the area where the sunlight energy is caught and transformed into heat. The surface and near surface air can only transform and emit the energy it gets from the sun. If it would lose more than it gets in sunlight, the surface would freeze. That is the energy balance.

The energy balance in the several heights of Troposphere is different, because of temperature, pressure and the kind of light waves absorbed, transferred and emitted. However at the end at every layer there is a balance. The surplus energy is generally transferred as heat rays to the upper layers.

At no layer there is a energy trap, where the heat could not escape to the next upper layer.

Therefore assuming a greenhouse effect at 6km like speculated by Arrhenius or at any other height withing the Troposphere (ca up to 11km) or Tropopause (ca. 12km - 20km) is totally absurd. It is just a speculation made in a time, where the knowledge about Atmosphere layers did not exist.

You guys need to take this conversation to Infowars, please.

Mother Jones is for reality-based conversation, only.

Thank you.

"Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit)."

earthobservatory.nasa.gov/F...

What a tool you are. This is not a peer review science forum, you are not a scientist- and as is evident from your post- you're not even slightly intellectual.

Go home, get sober, and try again tomorrow.

Yet another arrogant Ponzi CO2 finance bubble victim!

Believers in God will be duped with superstition.

Believers in science with fake sciene!

Think before You speak!

You using the word "think" is downright comical. Stop confusing yourself for someone that understands any of this- say, a scientist.

And please educate yourself on the enormous costs of fossil fuel energy, before you once again publically embarrass yourself here. No mention of climate change is even necessary, to make a powerful economic argument for the aggressive transition to renewable energy.

Now go suck on that perfectly safe and clean tailpipe.

once again an American republican rube knows better then 98% of the entire planets science and even knows better then computers or other instruments measuring the data from these scientists. Its all a big conspiracy. Sounds familiar? It's all republicans ever say when confronted with actual facts.

You don't get an opinion worth squat without doing the research. I have no problem dismissing anything you say as magical thinking. Wannabe.

You need to know the basics of Meteorology and Aviation. Without that You will never understand anything and become a believer and victim of Climatism propaganda.

the army acknowledges global climate disruption since they have to strategize around it and be held accountable. If you're claiming knowledge the military doesn't know, it paints you as a magical thinking wannabe.

This is settled. Maybe you should try gravity since it isn't. You'll just be ridiculed around here. Is that what you want?

Reason didn't put you in defense of climate disruption, GREED did.

You want justification for greed. There is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR GREED.

If You are naive enough to "believe" the "army", keep on. :-)

Tropospheric Solar Radiation & Water Management is made for more fracking, more oil, more gas, more money, more wars and more GREED!

BS

I could not have come up with a better example of pseudo-scientific psycho-babble, if I tried!

Well done!

It would have to be rational and lucid, to invite agreement or disagreement.... instead, you are deserving of laughter and that is all.

You may be a harmless nut but you're a nut nonetheless, Filbert...

Filbert. Heh.

Venus called: She said "get a fucking clue!"

Her words, not mine....

Thank You for confirming this point. The Geoengineering propaganda is creating an atmosphere of fear to push for global CO2 tax. Therefore I call it the biggest SCAM of mankind. It is a political agenda, designed like a religion and marketed like science.

I agree that molecules in the Atmosphere can absorb light waves and emit them as heat. This is the process how clouds are formed. H2O is doing the same and is much more abundant and distributed in the Troposphere than the heavy trace gas H2O.

Thee result of this heat emitting process is always the same. The infrared waves heat the next air package. The relatively hotter spots expand and rise higher. When the heated water condensates at the higher level, again heat waves are released etc. etc. up to the point where the heat is released to the Tropopause and Stratosphere and from there to the space.

So, I don't claim that the molecules cannot absorb energy. But they don't accumulate it to heat the Troposphere or the whole Earth. The Troposphere contains only 0.037% CO2, but up to 4% maximum of water. Why don't the followers of Climatism sect claim that water vapor is heating the Earth?

As the Earth is not covered like a glasshouse, a containment of convection is not possible. The surplus energy finds its way out.

Look at my analogies:

Would You claim that ...

blooming flowers create the rain?

sooth and ashes make the fire?

sweat heats the body?

centric waves throw the stone?

thermometer makes temperature?

the subsidies to Puerto Rico build the USA?

Or would You claim always the opposite?

So why are You claiming that CO2, as the smallest indicator of temperature variations on Earth can make global warming?

Thank You, You are delivering the SCAM to death judgement.

1. You are declaring the CO2 being a "dye".
2. You are claiming that CO2 is heating the Atmosphere!
3. You are claiming that H2O (water) is heating the Earth.
4. You claim a magic named "positive feedback", "amplifying" the heat effect!
5. You claim the air would warm the Ground (Earth).

When the truth is the opposite of lie, all Your claims are wrong and the truth is ...

1. CO2 is a natural component of Atmosphere and mainly lower Troposphere.

2. CO2 is able to absorb energy and carry it upwards and cool the surface and lower Troposphere, not visible for eyes.

3. H2O is able to absorb energ and carry it upwards and cool the surface and lower Troposphere, partly visible as clouds.

4. "Positive feedback" is a spin to fake the people. "Posititive feedback" is like claiming the subsidies for Puerto Rico were responsible for the boost of US economy - think about the other analogies delivered in the former comment.

5. The Moon, which has nearly no Atmosphere, the ground heats up to 130°C, where the Sun shines on. Without sunlight, the ground cools to ca. -230°C. In the dry deserts of Earth the near ground temperature can be ca. 45°C at day time and and under 0°C during night time. Having more water in air mitigates these extreme changes. The heat on the ground is carried upwards and and some energy is reflected back, when the humidity condensates.

Fraud doesn't work without lies and lies cannot withstand the facts!

Just for You, :-) I checked the content of the link.

1. "when the Earth's surface gets warmer, it loses heat faster, thereby reducing the increase in temperature": That has to be true, because the Earth cannot entrap the rising heat within its Atmosphere, as it is an open planetary system.

1.1. Mr. Happers measurement may not be wrong about the absorbtion and release property of CO2, however looking only on these properties of CO2 is generally a selective wrong prespective. CO2 is not the source of the Energy, it is indicating RESULT. So if there is more energy on the surface, than he should have looked for the source of this rising heat?

Main sources of energy are the hot core of the Earth (internal sun) and the Sun (external sun) sending us generously its light waves.

2. "Convective cooling" confirms the first point!

3. "water condenses into clouds, releasing the heat which it had absorbed at the surface": "This process is the most important way in which heat is removed from surface of the Earth. Warmer temperatures should increase the rate of evaporation, and thereby increase the rate at which heat is transported away from the surface." It confirms my statements! No overheating, but an inherent balance.

4. - 6. Also confirming my descriptions!

7. The rest is Ok, but look where the SPECULATION or let my say INTENTIONAL DERAILING begins: "AR5 estimates that this effect currently removes about 26% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere (Fig. 6.1), but that's a very rough estimate. " This statement is NOT based on EVIDENDENCE!

8. Here also first the truth: "Higher CO2 levels increase plant growth rates, which reduces atmospheric CO2 levels." and than comes the INTENTIONAL DERAILING by SPECULATION: "AR5 estimates that this effect currently removes about 29% of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere (Fig. 6.1), but that's a very rough estimate. "

Hotter Earth means more H20 and CO2 in the air, resulting in more plant growth! The best evidence for that are the coal reserves built in times of higher Atmospheric temperatures!!

9. TRUE: "CO2 / Coccolithophore feedback. Increased CO2 levels dramatically increase growth of calcifying coccolithophores, removing CO2 from the oceans. "

10. TRUE: "Increased Greenland ice melt fertilizes the ocean via iron in the runoff water, increasing absorption of CO2 by photosynthesis in the oceans. ↑"

11. TRUE: "Rock weathering feedback. Atmospheric CO2 dissolves in raindrops, forming weak carbonic acid, which causes chemical weathering of wollastonite and similar silicate rocks. That chemical process removes CO2 from the rainwater, and hence from the atmosphere, and the process accelerates at warmer temperatures and higher carbonic acid levels. Higher atmospheric CO2 accelerates this process two ways: it increases carbonic acid content in rainwater, slightly lowering the water's pH, and it also causes slightly warmer temperatures through global warming. "

12. TRUE: "Water Vapor Feedback. It is generally expected that warmer temperatures should increase the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, because warmer air holds more moisture. This effect is usually approximated in climate calculations by assuming stable relative humidity as temperatures change. Under that assumption, warmer temperatures cause greater amounts of water vapor in the atmosphere,"
SPECULATIVE SCAM: "since water vapor is a greenhouse gas, increased water vapor in the atmosphere should increase greenhouse warming: a positive feedback.
This is generally believed to be the most important positive climate feedback mechanism. Quantifying it is harder, though."

---------------------------------------------------------
"Positive amplifying feedbacks" - SPECULATIVE DERAILING SCAM TRASH, absolute nonsense!

1. SPECULATIVE SCAM TRASH: " The latest version of the U. of Chicago's online MODTRAN interface calculates that for a Tropical Atmosphere water vapor feedback should increase the warming effect of CO2 in the tropics by only about 8% to 9%. That's probably incorrect: most other sources give much higher estimates, generally between 60% and 100% (i.e., up to doubling). Here's a fairly in-depth discussion:"

These people don't deserve to be named scientists, they are scientific scam designers: "Note that some scientists use the term “water vapor feedback” in a broader sense than I'm using it, to encompass not only the direct greenhouse warming effect of atmosheric water vapor, but also water cycle (evaporative) cooling, and perhaps clouds. For example: ↑"

2. Ok, but unimportant: "Ice / Albedo Feedback. If warmer climate reduces ice and snow cover, reduced ice cover (on water) and snow cover (on land) will increase albedo (reflectivity), and thus reduce absorption of sunlight during daytime."

3. Outgasing H2O and a little bit of CO2: "CO2 / Water Temperature Feedback. The solubility of gases like CO2 in water decreases as the water gets warmer, so as the oceans warm they outgas CO2. The CO2, "

SPECULATIVE DERAILING SCAM: "in turn, works as a GHG to cause warming. This is a modest positive feedback mechanism. ↑"

4. SPECULATIVE DERAILING SCAM: "Permafrost / Methane Feedback. Theoretically, if the climate warms, it could melt some of the Arctic permafrost, causing the release of methane. Methane is a greenhouse gas, so this should increase warming, making it a positive feedback mechanism. However, thus far, this effect seems to be negligible. ↑"

The hysteria about Methane is spin to create a next "terrorist gas". The spin doctors of this scam must be the same cocaine addict, lazy, overpayed criminals, which also designed the "War On Terror", where they invented one "star terrorist" after another. As we a in a "star system" some of these criminals surely work for Hollywood in their civil life :-) :-)

The trash about CO2 finance bubble smells like Hollywood trash!!! Bad films, bad scam! :-)

The rest of the text can be ignored totally.

Come on Dave, keep on scientific data. I am not interested in political trash. I don't care about any presidential candidate. All are dumb puppets. Democracy exists only as a show financed by Oligarchs (rich powerful people).

It seems for me that You don't have any other scientific or pseudo-scientific arguments to defend the CO2 finance bubble scam.

Please don't ignore and don't distract from Tropospheric Solar Radiation & Water Management. It is an assault on the foundation of life on Earth! Damaging photosynthesis for flora and VitaminD process of fauna is a crime.

You and Your family is not protected against it! So wake up!

This does not fit in with the Dem. agenda, so you must be wrong and also silenced.

We prefer around here, that children be seen, not heard.

Ralph Snyder wrote, "human activity has increased CO2 by 40% over preindustrial levels and temperatures have increased by about 1C, which is about what is expected given an equilibrium sensitivity of 3C per CO2 doubling."

Not really.

That "about 1°C" warming is really more like 0.8°C since the mid-1800's (during the Little Ice Age), and you're assuming that all of the warming since the Little Ice Age was caused by human activity.

That is unlikely. Current temperatures are comparable to previous climate optimums, and nearly half of the warming predated the dramatic post-WWII increase in CO2. Both of those facts suggest that much of the warming -- perhaps half -- was natural, rather than anthropogenic (caused by humans).

That would put the anthropogenic warming at 0.4°C.

If you take the anthropogenic CO2 increase as about 40%, you must be assuming a baseline "pre-industrial" level of about 285 ppmv:

400 / 285 = 40.35%

That's probably about right.

But CO2 has a logarithmically diminishing warming effect, so a 40.35% increase in CO2 causes produces 48.9% of the warming effect of a 100% increase:

log(1.4035) / log(2) = 0.4890

That would imply a TCR (short term) climate sensitivity of 0.4°C / 0.489 = 0.82°C.

ECS (long term) sensitivity is generally estimated at about 1.5x TCR, so that would mean equilibrium climate sensitivity is 1.5 × 0.82°C = 1.23°C (not 3°C) per doubling of CO2.

However:

1. We've already seen 0.4°C of that 1.23°C, leaving just +0.84°C to go, for 570 ppmv CO2.

2. The anthropogenic pulse in CO2 will probably peak and begin declining before there's time for "equilibrium," so TCR is arguably a more realistic number for sensitivity calculations.

3. If solar activity declines into Dalton Minimum, or perhaps even Maunder Minimum, conditions, as now appears likely, that will have a cooling effect, quite possibly comparable in magnitude (but opposite in sign) to the warming effect of anthropogenic CO2.

http://www.sealevel.info/Su...

That SkS page is five years old, Ralph.

Not so, Ralph. Thermal inertia is accounted for by the distinction between TCR and ECS.

The effects of aerosols are harder to account for, particularly before the satellite era, but a 2014 paper by MIT's Ben Santor (with many co-authors, including NASA's Gavin Schmidt) did an interesting exercise. They tried to "subtract out" the effects of ENSO (El Niño / La Niña) and the Pinatubo (1991) and El Chichón (1982) volcanic aerosols, from measured (satellite) temperature data, to find the underlying temperature trends. Here's their paper:

http://dspace.mit.edu/handl...

This graph is from that paper:

http://www.sealevel.info/Sa...

Two things stand out:

1. The models run hot. The CMIP5 models (the black line) show a lot more warming than the satellites. The models show about 0.65°C warming over the 35-year period, and the satellites show about half that. And,

2. The "pause" is over two decades long. The measured warming is all in the first 14 years. Their 3rd graph (with corrections to compensate for both ENSO and volcanic forcings) shows no noticeable warming in the last 21 years.

Note, too, that although the Santor graph still shows an average of almost 0.1°C/decade of warming, that's partially because it starts in 1979. The late 1970s were the frigid end of an extended cooling period in the northern hemisphere. Here's a graph of U.S. temperatures, from a 1999 Hansen/NASA paper:

http://www.sealevel.info/fi...

The fact that when volcanic aerosols are accounted for the models run hot by about a factor of two is more evidence that the IPCC's estimates of climate sensitivity are high by about a factor of two, again suggesting that about half the warming since the mid-1800s was natural, rather than anthropogenic.

Most likely estimate is that MORE than "all the warming" since the mid-1800's is anthropogenic. The earth would be in a slow cooling phase right now if not for our influence. So: more than 1C attributable to AGW.

And BTW, your math is funky. You can't directly relate CHANGES in temperature to logs of CO2 concentration as you have done. You need to compare to ratios in Kelvins.

Patrick Shoemaker wrote, "Most likely estimate is that MORE than 'all the warming' since the mid-1800's is anthropogenic. The earth would be in a slow cooling phase right now if not for our influence."

You're thinking in terms of the wrong time scales, Patrick. The "right now" we're talking about (since CO2 was at 285 ppmv) is approximately the last 150 to 170 years. The last half of that period corresponds to the Modern Solar Maximum:
http://www.sealevel.info/Su...

So, over that time period we should have expected substantial natural warming, as the climate recovered from Dalton Minimum / Little Ice Age conditions.

When you say we should be in a slow cooling phase, you're thinking of Milankovitch cycles. But that's the wrong time scale. Milankovitch cycles are only significant forcings on time scales of at least a couple thousand years.

Patrick Shoemaker also wrote, "BTW, your math is funky. You can't directly relate CHANGES in temperature to logs of CO2 concentration as you have done. You need to compare to ratios in Kelvins."

That's a distinction without a practical difference, Patrick, because a change of 1°C is just 0.3% of 290°K.

And, anyhow, your argument isn't with me, it is with the definition of the term "climate sensitivity."

Solar irradiance as well as the Milankovitch cycles as drivers have trended toward cooling over the last 40 years. The temperature has not.

"That's a distinction without a practical difference, Patrick, because a change of 1°C is just 0.3% of 290°K": Yep. And think a little harder on that statement. Previously, you were relating temperature ANOMALIES to log[CO2]. As in total CO2. In a nonsensical way.

Patrick Shoemaker wrote, "Solar irradiance as well as the Milankovitch cycles as drivers have trended toward cooling over the last 40 years."

1. Forty years is the wrong timeframe. We were discussing the warming since 285 ppmv CO2, i.e., since the world started recovering from the Little Ice Age in the mid-1800s.

Over that timeframe, TSI (estimated from the sunspot cycle) was increasing, not decreasing, for most of the period, as the Sun transitioned from the Dalton Minimum to the Modern Maximum:
http://www.sealevel.info/Su...

2. You might be confused by the reduced estimate of TSI. But that represents a satellite instrument calibration change, not an actual reduction in TSI:
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr...
http://rabett.blogspot.com/...

3. The recent reduction in solar activity is much more recent that that. Less than a decade ago NASA was still predicting a big Solar Cycle 24:
http://science.nasa.gov/sci...
.

Patrick Shoemaker wrote, "Previously, you were relating temperature ANOMALIES to log[CO2]. As in total CO2. In a nonsensical way."

That is how climate sensitivity is defined, and it's not nonsensical. A doubling of CO2 is usually estimated to result in the equivalent of about 3.7 W/m^2 increase in insolation (though atmospheric physicist Wm Happer has found evidence that that is overestimated by about 40%). That, in turn, results in a nearly-proportional temperature increase.

Radiative heat loss is proportionate to the 4th power of the absolute (Kelvin) temperature. Convective and evaporative heat loss also increase with temperature, and, though the precise relations aren't identical, at these scales they are all approximately linear.

E.g., the increase in radiative heat loss going from 300K to 301K is just 1% greater than the increase in radiative heat loss going from 299K to 300K. For practical purposes, that's linear.

This is just plain wrong.

Blah blah blah

What a long load of bollocks. Where'd you cut and paste if from?