There is alot over my head mathematically. However, the paper seems to be disproving that the greenhouse effect actually exists. That is a big red flag, in 1990 at the Mauna Loa Observatory wich measured carbon dioxide levels at 380 parts per million which is an increase from 315ppm in 1958 when tests were initiated. Also air bubbles trapped in Greenlands ice sheet indicate a ppm of 270 at preindustrial times.
nobody would argue that the "greenhouse effect" is fake
however, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, which, even in high concentrations doesnt trap or hold nearly as much heat as most others
in the past, greenhouse gasses have been MUCH MUCH higher (all without human influence) and Much Much lower (again, without human influence)
CO2 is not only produced in large quantities naturally (the "baseline" is enormous, dwarfing "anthropogenic" CO2) but it is also readily removed from the atmosphere by photosynthesis, absorption into the oceans and use by many critters to make their exo and endo skeletons
warming of the oceans releases large amounts of CO2, and since human produced CO2 is being blamed for the warming of the oceans, the CO2 released also becomes part of "Human Produced" CO2, which (allegedly) increases the warming.... and so on and so on and so on, in an endless circlejerk of assumptions.
the primary assumption that "Man Made CO2 causes Global Warming" remains unproved, and vague on "How Much" of the observed global warming is attributed to CO2, as well as "How Much" of that CO2 is really man made.
considering that we have been on a fairly steady global warming trend (real thing, not a slogan) since the retreat of the glaciers 11-12000 years ago, the warming is NOT all attributable to human influence.
the ASSUMPTION that fossil fuel consumption and the resultant release of CO2 could cause warming is logical, but it does not explain previous warming, or previous abnormally high CO2 levels during cold periods
even if we limit or observations to the Holocene Epoch (the current warm period, ~11000 yeas ago to present) there are still unexplained periods where it was much warmer, and much cooler than it is now, despite a dearth of human influence
as we see here:
~8000 years ago co2 levels spiked MUCH higher than they are now (regardless of the crudely doodled red line on the far left) and yet, 8000 years ago there was no industry to speak of, and the human population was likely just a few million total, in scattered small groups around the globe
as to the the crudely doodled inexplicably thick, deliberately bright red line on the far left:
it represents the "south pole air flask" measurements:
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-keel-flask/sio-keel-flaskspo.html
which are collected by guys riding snow cats and helicopters in an area with ZERO photosynthesis and ZERO sequestration of CO2, if they look a little deeper i bet they will discover that the south pole is also heavily polluted with engine oil, scope mouthwash, axe body spray and human flatus.
they are sampling in a bell jar, by entering the bell jar every two weeks, contaminating it with their equipment and their own persons, and acting surprised that the contamination seems to be increasing year after year.
i bet the snow and ice round the air flask isnt very clean either. is that a sign of global conatmination?
move a mile or two in any direction and i bet the snow looks pretty good.
sure, CO2 is increasing worldwide, but it has increased worldwide before, without human influence.
placing huge import on ONE measure which seems highly vulnerable to contamination, even to a lowly hillbilly farmboy sounds like a pretty poor way to make big decisions.
especially when that SINGLE data set is used to cover other data with a huge thick brightly coloured line, laid out in broad childlike strokes, which appear to move beyond the "present" and into the FUTURE!
this air flask can sample air that hasnt even been collected yet? ohh my. thats some gooood science!
