Actually refute?
How about this. Satellites that measure the infrared spectra have been orbitting the planet for decades. Decades of laboratory measurements produced experimental results for what we should expect to find. In 2001, Nature published a paper which compared the measurements by the NASA IRIS satellite, and the Japanese IMG satellite. Over the 26 year period available at the time, they found a drop in the outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands where those laboratory experiments had informed us we should expect to see them. The results were consistent. Empirical evidence.
Those results have been confirmed, and strengthened by using more data from other instruments:
http://www.eumetsat.int/Home/Main/P...nts/document/pdf_conf_p50_s9_01_harries_v.pdf
On top of that, we have also measured an increasing trend in the infrared radiation returning to Earth:
Global atmospheric downward longwave radiation over land surface under all-sky conditions from 1973 to 2008
and:
P1.7 Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate (2006 - Annual2006_18climatevari)
where they note:
Consider it actually refuted.
Well I've looked at your links and while they seem convincing, I decline to purchase the report(s) and examine the data and methodology. That's beyond the scope of my abilities or time and I'll leave that to those who can best analyze the findings, such as Steve McIntyre et al.
However, even without going to that extent, with my deficient abilities, I find a couple serious problems with their (and your) conclusions.
1. Where is the warming?
Let me illustrate.
The original AGW hypothesis was that dangerous (and unprecidented) global warming was caused by human emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Sceptics pointed out that the warming should then be minimal at the end of the little ice age and grow slowly, but exponentially as emissions increased, but such was not the case. Most of the warming occured before the middle of the 20th century, disproving the hypothesis. Recently alarmists have acknowledged that fact and changed their story. Now, they claim, warming up to the middle of the last century was mostly natural, but the increased solar activity could not account for the warming since then and only human emissions could. Your links claim to have found evidence of that warming. But my question is, what warming?
It happens that someone (the aformentioned Steve McIntyre I believe) noticed an error in NASA's data and advised them of it and NASA subsequently corrected it. Also it happens that NASA's adjustements tend to skew temperatures the way they want them which is considerably warmer than raw data suggests http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/28/nasa-giss-adjustments-galore-rewriting-climate-history/ .
Also it's well known that land surface recording station data is severely corrupted. As a result of these facts, it appears that recent temperatures are at best, just slightly warmer than the 1930's and the "detected human influence" would seem to be rather ineffectual and there hardly would seem to be cause for alarm.
But let's ignore all that and assume that it isn't real. There's still a problem. For the first 25 years since the middle of the last century, the time when human emissions is supposed to have taken over as the major cause of the warming, it was cooling! And for the last 10+ years it has also been cooling! These papers claim to have found evidence of human cause of climate change when 35 of the last 60 years have been cooling. Are they (and you) suggesting that humans only emitted greenhouse gasses for the 25 years that warming actually happened? Some (you included) have suggested that the current slight cooling is the result of natural climate variations (reduced solar activity) overwhelming the human warming. Well I and many others will concede that the current cooling is due to reduced solar activity, in fact we've been claiming that all along. But for you it presents a problem; you say that increased solar activity was not enough to account for the warming from 1975 to 1998, yet the claim is that removing that insufficient influence will cause enough cooling to more than counteract the effect of human emissions That defies logic. If it's insufficient to cause the warming, then removing it would have little, if any noticeable effect, certainly it wouldn't result in cooling. If it isn't enough to cause warming, the lack of it isn't enough to cause cooling. You can't have it both ways, which leaves you with unexplained cooling that contradicts the conclusions of those studies.
2. Where's the atmospheric signal?
It's well known that if warming is due to increased atmospheric CO2, the troposphere over the tropics will be warming at 3 times the rate of surface warming, yet 25 years of measurements haven't found it. Once again, those conclusions contradict observations.
So with their conclusions completely at odds with observed reality, you expect me to accept them?:roll:
Refuted? Not hardly.
