This article does a very good job of looking at the effect of CO2 on various altitudes of the atmosphere and finds that CO2 does NOT warm the air. How can CO2 warm the surface and NOT warm other parts of the air column? Hmmm?
I first ran into this link at Tallblokes:
So back at the original article:
My only complaint would be that when discussing water vapor a graphic is presented that shows water vapor high in the tropics, low at the poles, and ocean surface temperatures matching it. It leaves the impression that the high water vapor causes the temperature distribution when in reality the high insolation levels at the equator and near zero at the poles causes the temperature distribution that then causes the water vapor distribution. There are feedbacks involved, though, so it isn’t quite wrong as presented, just incomplete.
The rest looks at several layers of the atmosphere and finds they do NOT change with CO2. Just how can the surface be heated by CO2 and the other layers NOT heated, eh? Interesting question…
Isolating the Impact of CO2 on Atmospheric Temperatures; Conclusion is CO2 has No Measurable Impact
[…]
In climate science, the main model being promoted is Temperature is a function of CO2, or Temp = f (CO2) or ΔT = ΔCO2 + b + e. Given this single variable model, there are obvious exogenous factors that could impact temperature that are unrelated to CO2. They are water vapor, the most potent and abundant greenhouse gas, the sun, the source of almost all incoming energy to the earth, and the Urban Heat Island Effect.With that understanding, any real scientist would seek to control for water vapor, the Urban Heat Island Effect, and the Sun. Let’s first take a look at water vapor. Water vapor in the lower troposphere is so potent and abundant that it makes CO2 irrelevant. Where water vapor is, heat is, regardless of how much CO2 is present.
That last sentence is correct, but to me implies water vapor causality as opposed to solar causality of both water vapor and temperatures. But maybe I’m over reacting to the order of water vapor and heat when it wasn’t really meant that way.
The real meat of the article is in the subsequent sections anyway. It is a very well done isolation of CO2 effect from all the clutter. I wish I’d thought of it. Bold by me.
The introductory image is often published as a measure of Global Temperatures, which it is, but the lower atmosphere is corrupted by the Urban Heat Island Effect, water vapor and variations in the sun and cloud cover. To isolate the impact of CO2 on atmospheric temperatures you have to use the temperature data of the higher layers of the atmosphere.
First, we will look at the Southern Hemisphere. The Southern Hemisphere is mostly water and largely void of the Urban Heat Island Effect, but there is plenty of water vapor and clouds in the lower atmosphere. Even so, the Mid-Troposphere and Tropopause show no material warming. The Mid-Troposphere shows a little more near-term warming, but both layers are within the range of the past 40 years. The spikes seen in the Mid-Troposphere Graph correspond with El Niños, so water vapor does have an impact on this data set. The rapid drop in temperatures post-peak proves the temperature spikes are unrelated to CO2 which remains effectively constant during the time period.
Just so clear.
The author then goes on to look at hemispheres and poles and more. Finding generally dead flat temperature series. How can “the planet” or “the atmosphere” be warming when most of it is not?
As the above graphics and discussion demonstrate, when care is given to selecting data sets that control for the exogenous factors of water vapor and the Urban Heat Island Effect, the isolated impact of CO2 on the atmosphere is nonexistent. The one factor we didn’t control for was the sun. We do however know that the atmosphere has become more transparent over the past 26 years, so some warming would have been expected. That warming, however, wouldn’t be due to CO2.
Climate alarmists simply choose corrupted data sets to make their alarmist case. That isn’t just bad science, that is deliberate and willful deceit. Not only do they choose the wrong data sets, they “adjust” them to make them fit their desired outcome. No amount of adjusting and cherrypicking data sets will be able to win the scientific debate in the long run. The physics of the CO2 molecule simply doesn’t support the alarmist’s claims, and eventually, reality and the truth will win. The alarmists won’t be able to continually “adjust” their way out of a scientifically indefensible position.
Lots of graphs in the article. Hit the link to get it all in context.
Musings from the Chiefio 
Indeed. Absorbers are emitters and emitters are absorbers. IR is *light*, not *heat*. Heat is internal kinetic energy and only kinetic energy. Heat is not total energy. You can convert heat to light and you can convert light to heat; but the only way to heat something is to increase its internal kinetic energy.
Also seemingly forgotten is that even at night, there is always some incoming light, even if small in amount; and even if the relative power is low, stars do emit IR and longer wavelengths. If they didn’t, you couldn’t do IR or longer wave astronomy.
Plus, extrapolating from lab conditions to the open atmosphere is something not to be done lightly without a proper error analysis and propagation. Labs and bottles have solid walls. Atmospheres don’t.
Dunno if you saw this piece on Scotlands (recent) highest temperature ever , it was induced by an Ice Cream Van ….which left its engine running. The weather station is in a car park in Motherwell. :)
The Met Office has removed this anomaly from the official record since.
Ice Cream Van – Is that like the Van Allen Belt of Global warming?