This is a tale of two takes on a single paper in Nature journal (Feb 25th 2015) and the press release can be read at http://phys.org/print344084581.html … where scientists using 'incredibly precise' spectroscopic instruments in Oklahoma and Alaska have 'observed' an increase in co2 and the greenhouse effect on the surface of the Earth for the first time – but what did they really see? We know there has been an increase in co2 (all those Chinese coal fired power stations) but where did the extra heat at the surface come from?
They claim to have measured atmospheric co2 increasing in cohorts with thermal radiation being emitted from the Earth's surface over an 11 year period, 2000-2010. Thye link between incoming energy from the Sun and outgoing heat from the Earth is well established and the results confirm theoretical predictions (the consensus theory of the greenhouse effect). Other instruments were at the same time analysing clouds and water vapour. It was the combination of these three things that enabled scientists to isolate the signals attributed solely to co2 (and so on).
At http://wattsupwiththat.com … the story got over inflated with a lot of commenters who are what is known as lukewarm warmers. They don't deny co2 a role in warming the planet – but think it is highly exaggerated.
At http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2015/02/26/new-result-shows-co2-has-almos… … which is feet on the ground and exactly the opposite view of the researchers. Tall Bloke saw the story at www.dailymail.co.uk and decided to have a closer look at the full article. He claims to nail the unspoken discovery. The amplication theory says increasing co2 will cause an increase in water vapour and that will raise temperature – not the co2 by itself. The authors appear to be saying the co2 does the job by itself – which is not how the greenhouse warming theory works. They didn't note any amplication in water vapour. The data from clouds and water vapour was actually downwards rather than upwards – which is a bit of a problem he says. This by itself implies more sunlight was reaching the surface of the Earth so more heat was being re-radiated away from the surface – which is basically what they found. Hence, more heat was coming in and more heat was striking the Earth and bouncing back up into the atmosphere and ultimately into space. It seems co2 might not be involved at all – other than the fact it is increasing at the moment. Read the piece – and the comments.
At http://jennifermarohasy.com/2015/02/donald-and-davids-relevance-to-clima… … the Donald in question is the Australian cricket hero Donald Bradman.. It refere to an article in The Australian (which is pay locked) and concerns tampering with BoM temperature data (adjusting historical temperatures downwards in order to create a higher temperature swing at present). Hot stuff. Is it true?