re: #29 tiburon

right on. Couple this with the limited ability of CO2 to absorb radiative wavelengths and yur left with a warming signature that’s…undetectable.
Doesn’t matter, of course. Lindzen’s recent work, arguably the world’s greatest climate scientist, wherein he clearly proves via unassailable (in any relevant degree) ERBA data that as temperature goes up, the Earth ‘takes off it’s jacket’…well, it’s pretty well reduced CO2 to a ‘bit player’ in the world climate system.
The Hawking quote is…provocative, not informative.

That word “unassailable”, I do not think it means what you think it means. See, his (actually jointly Lindzen and Choi, “On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data” - call it LC for now) work using the ERBE satellite data has run into two separate challenges so far.

One of the two is a claim of a mathematical mistake. Put simply, LC shows graphs of current models giving negative slope results on feedback results, when they actually give positive (though much shallower) results. Since the conclusion is that the models are wrong and a negative feedback should be positive, this is an issue getting serious examination.

The second challenge comes from Dr. Roy Spencer who says (grossly simplifying) that his crunching of the ERBE numbers gives a completely different dataset than that of LC — in fact, numbers that contradict Lindzen and Choi’s results. This should be considered especially significant given Dr. Spencer is another active “anti-AGW” voice. When someone on your side says your numbers don’t show what you say they show, you have a problem.

In sum, I think claiming the work as “unassailable” is just a bit of an overstatement.