Thanks to a reader who just email me a link to this very relevant paper: http://tinyurl.com/p3jed53
Cooling of Atmosphere Due to CO2 Emission
G. V. CHILINGAR,L. F. KHILYUK,and O. G. SOROKHTIN2

Tin foil hat time again....The UN coming to take your children....

So begins the new Sophistry Parade of John Nicol and Jennifer Marohasy.

Things must be serious at 'DenierWorld Central' to be dusting off John Nicol again. Don't you have some calving to do on your farm John? Some grand kids to hang out with?

Marohasy's NON-PEER REVIEWED Energy Sources aka Taylor & Francis Ltd. 'ARTICLE' is NOT a "paper":

"According to our estimates, convection accounts for 67%, water vapor condensation in troposphere accounts for 25%, and radiation accounts for about 8% of the total heat transfer from the Earth’s surface to troposphere."

Something I and climate scientists didn't already know.

re "The present-day average surface temperature Ts  288 K and effective temperature Te  255 K."

Kinda interesting point could be - the TROPOSPHERE is not the earth's surface nor it's Temperature. Who knew? Climate scientists knew.

re "Global Atmospheric Cooling due to Increase in CO2 Content" pg 7.

Here they speak of the Atmosphere, they do not speak of the land/oceans surface temperature when humans , animals and vegetation lives.

Climate Science has said for DECADES that the GHG effect theoretically should lead to decreasing temps in the Upper ATMOSHERE

(which btw is part of the "atmosphere" referred to in the paper, ref'ed by our Jennifer *supposedly* a PhD biology (science) graduate.)

Knock me down with a feather if the satellites launched to measure and calculate such "temps" subsequently showed high atmospheric cooling exactly where it was "predicted" to happen.

Now if an emeritus Professor of Geology and a PhD of Biology cannot notice such flaws and intentional "DoubleSpeak" or "NewSpeak" in science papers, nor work this stuff out without assistance, nor help those lesser than they are learn something TRUE, then what chance do us poor humble citizens have of working it out by ourselves?

A next to nothing chance. I believe what John Howard and Tony Abbott believes ... whew, now I can go back to bed.

A sophism is a specious argument for displaying ingenuity in reasoning or for deceiving someone.

A sophist is a person who reasons with clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments.

Is it not true that there is sufficient low frequency radiation which CO2 can absorb, incoming from the sun to saturate the absorbance capacity of all the CO2 in the upper atmosphere?

This being the case, that CO2 has actually reduced the radiation reaching the surface, & reradiated at least half of it back into space, causing some minor cooling.

If the absorbance capacity of the CO2 is mostly saturated by the sun generated radiation, it can then have little capacity to absorb any outgoing radiation from the earths surface.

The way I see it, the CO2 has little capacity to do much at all other than intercept & effectively reflect some incoming radiation.

I wish someone who still has the capacity to do the math on this would do so. Heavy math at my age generates headaches.

Ah so, more Co2, cooler earth, Yes? Solar thermal furnace in waning (cooling) phase since the mid seventies, (NASA) cooler earth, yes?

So there is nothing to concern us here, not the melting of the formerly permanently frozen tundra, nor the ongoing disappearance of glacial ice the world over? Nor the rapid melting of the Iceland ice sheet, the disappearance of alaskan summer sea ice for the very first time in living memory?

All figments of overworked imaginations that simply can't happen because Co2 cools the planet and more of it results in a cooler planet, yes? Is that the assertion?

Not record breaking hottest year on record followed by more of the same! Other than overworked fevered imaginations, what are the answers to the aforementioned phenomena? Martins hiding on the dark side of the moon beaming martin microwaves (phaser guns) for their secret hiding places perhaps?

We have the (nuclear) science to extract Co2 from seawater and turn it into jet fuel? Meaning a nuclear powered aircraft carrier can make her aircraft fuel on the fly from abundant Co2 extracted directly from seawater? So it can't be all bad!? [Except perhaps for the fossil fuel industry that scuttlebbut suggests supplies your research grants?]

Suggest you see Professor Robert Hargraves (from Harvard?) on u tube in his cheaper than coal (3 cents per kilowatt hour) thorium lecture!
Have a nice day
Alan B.

Ah it must be that time of the year again,they have let the climate denial nutters out again,still to your right wing blog they are much more gullible over there