Peer-reviewed paper: Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes?

Perhaps I missed a discussion or two here on YA when this paper first came out, but it appears to be peer-reviewed in a scientific journal, questioning CO2 as a driver of warming.





This doesn't say the planet isn't warming, doesn't say that anthropogenic factors are not involved (black soot, etc). However if its foundations are solid it does imply that the current approaches to control CO2 (to address climate change) may be premature and misguided.





Comments? Have there been reactions by leading scientists (active in and familiar with climate/CO2 science, not paid propagandists who happen to have an ancient scientific degree) discussing the merits and shortcomings of this paper?





http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownlo鈥?/a>


Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes


Paulo Cesar Soares


International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, 1, 102-112


doi:10.4236/ijg.2010.13014 Published Online November 2010 (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ijg)





Conclusions


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. The main argument is the absence of immediate correlation between CO2 changes preceding temperature either for global or local changes. The greenhouse effect of the CO2 is very small compared to the water vapor because the absorbing ef- fect is already realized with its historical values. So, the reduction of the outcoming long wave radiation window is not a consequence of current enrichment or even of a possible double ratio of CO2. The absence of correlation between temperature changes and the immense and variable volume of CO2 waste by fuel burning is ex- plained by the weak power of additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to reduce the outcoming window of long wave radiation. This effect is well performed by atmosphere humidity due to known|||The paper seems to form its conclusions off of comparisons of monthly or annual CO2 rise, and coincident temperature rise. In other words, they're forming conclusions off of data heavily influenced by short-term noise, e.g. ENSO effects, which is extremely sketchy to me.



The long-term correlation between CO2 and temperature is much stronger. Year-to-year variability reflects several variables that more or less cancel out over decades.



I think I remember reading an analysis of these conclusions, I'll try to find it for you.

MarkR did an SkS article on it:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/soares-c鈥?/a>



(Your post did not finish.)|||Confirms the long held position of skeptics. That alarmist need to get people concerned in order to gain power or political clout or money. This is the chicken little approach.|||I see AMP already referenced Mark's article on the paper.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/SoaresCo鈥?/a>





To be blunt, the paper is junk. It was written by a retired professor and researcher, and published in a very sketchy journal. The publisher (Scientific Research Publishing [SCIRP]) is known for re-publishing papers which were published in other journals long ago, without notifying the authors. And it's now published two new highly-flawed "skeptic" studies (the other by Douglass and Knox cherrypicking short-term ocean heat content data to claim the oceans are no longer warming).|||Good article, concerning the etiology of the current small increase in average global temperature. This paper correctly suggests that the conclusion that CO2 is a main driver of global average temperature increase is not a valid scientific method. This of course discounts the ideas that humans burning fossil fuel have caused the current climate change. Politically, the far left is dependent upon this "paradigm" so that they can further their political agenda of increasing taxes on energy production, in order to fund more social programs, which they hope will of course ensure their re-election in perpetuity. This paper undercuts that basic tenant of their political movement, of course.


Simply stated, easy to understand, and apparently correct.