re: #7 studentpatriot
To even use the phrase “3% “enhancement of the Earth’s greenhouse effect”” without explaining what is really meant by the phrase is itself an indication that Spencer simply out to impress readers who don’t know much about the subject.
The Schmidt paper discusses, among other things, “Radiative Forcing”, which is the actual physics concept (not percentages!). As Schmidt points out that
[…] the term ‘radiative forcing’ has been used differently by different authors.
The important point that Spencer wants you to ignore, and why Spencer writes:
I claim what we should be interested in is the relative size of our enhancement of the greenhouse effect, rather than how much of the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is due to CO2. The latter question really proves nothing about how much effect adding MORE CO2 to the atmosphere will have.
is to change the conversation away from the “natural” climate changes in the past. Because, when one studies these past changes the obvious conclusion which has been reached (at least in regards to past several million years) is that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere does indeed bring about positive feedbacks that amplifies what just CO2 alone does via radiation.
But Spencer doesn’t want to delve into the topic of paleoclimatology because then Spencer wouldn’t have much of an argument.
That blog entry by Spencer really offers nothing new but it does intend to keep his supporters happy, but he does so by simply offering up red herrings (e.g. Venus).
Again, and you keep failing at grasping this (which is why you don’t understand Charles’ comment) - Spencer will write on his blog whatever he can and will, but not everything he writes on his blogs or guest editorials will pass muster with peer reviewed science papers.