The statement and article is true. The other thing is that Republican's are simply stupid. Scientists are not.
Perhaps I am showing my ignorance here, but when did the republican party ever NOT defend profits over public health and environmental good?
Woodcock is very outspoken, but he did avoid absurdity by using the adjective "significant". The data now indicates he is right. CO2 is apparently not a very effective greenhouse gas. It looks as though it is only a matter of time before those who prematurely bought into the Hansen hypothesis will be thoroughly discredited. I want to point out to everyone that the measures reported for CO2, as for all the other non-condensing gases in the air, are always for the concentration in dry air. Considering the variability of water vapor concentration and its generally far greater concentration than CO2, other than at the poles in the dead of winter of course, CO2 must surely be a very minor greenhouse gas. The data suggests Woodcock is right and any net greenhouse effect of CO2 is indeed negligible. It will be a very long time before man is capable of accurately modeling a large, complex chaotic system such as the Earth's atmosphere!
Likewise I would point out to you that the measures reported for CO2 along with other gases are not always for the concentration in dry air. You are mistaken. It is wet air measurement that gives concentrations not dry air measurement. The reason for measuring in dry air is that it gives the true quantity of gases in the atmosphere, whereas wet air measurement only gives concentrations. There is little significant difference between the two, except dry measurement gives true quantity. Dry returns 372 parts per million, wet air 360.8 parts per mil. Compared to 280 ppm pre industrial, the difference is in any event, academic. You seem to have bought into the usual sort of misdirection of fact, common to climate denial. Start out with a fundamentally bogus claim designed only to sound remotely plausible, as if there is some point to it other than to cause false controversy to gain some limelight. " This is not the way science works. If you tell me that you have a theory there is a teapot in orbit between the earth and the moon, it's not up to me to prove it does not exist, its up to you to provide the reproducible scientific evidence for your theory." Prof. Woodcock The prof may have done some good work in other areas but in this instance he very much needs to take heed of his own statement and practice what he preaches. Along with Salby, Woodcock is already thoroughly discredited in this and will not be able to bring any scientific evidence to what he says. Unless of course either of them can provide some reproducible scientific evidence against the reproducible scientific evidence already present which holds contrary to their ridiculous assertions. Ah, the beauty of science.
Stu, thanks for helping me out here with your response to him about this Woodcock thing. I'm curious what you think is pie's deal. It just doesn't make sense. He is obviously intelligent and is liberal/progressive on all other topics and I generally agree with what he writes in those areas, but when it comes to AGW he totally jumps the track. I don't get it. And as much as it may sound crazy I have a strong suspicion that he is working for an organization. It's the perfect cover. Look like a liberal but deny AGW anyhow. Gives him more credibility. It's like he himself is Salby or Woodcock or one of those guys. Calling it the "Hansen Hypothesis"?. The only one who uses that term are the deniers, intent on personalizing and diminishing ghg theory. That's one of the tactics they use. If one googles it the only reference is to an article on WUWT.
No he's simply wrong. And he does not avoid absurdity by using the adjective "significant". An increase by 40% over two hundred years is certainly significant. One can look at this chart and see the significance. And GHG theory, which you refer to as the "Hansen Hypothesis", so you can ad hom it, is still fully intact and valid. As long as CO2 remains a GHG the theory is correct and this increase in CO2 far from having a "negligible" effect, is having a very large effect. So pie, which organization are you working for? Heritage Foundation?
You don't realize it, but you have just contradicted yourself. You have unwittingly produced a nonsense statement, to wit: "The reason for measuring in dry air is that it gives the true quantity of gases in the atmosphere, whereas wet air measurement only gives concentrations". (Actually, both measurements, wet and dry, give "true quantity", and both give concentration.) And you're wrong on top of that. Measurements of the non-condensing gases are invariably reported as the concentration in dry air, because the concentration in moist air varies depending on humidity. The pre-industrial concentration of 280 ppm is also a measure in dry air, I might add. When you say 361 ppm CO2 in wet air, without also reporting the concentration of water vapor, you have reported a useless figure! As a scientist, I would ask: "How wet? What is the humidity?". The important point is that over most of the Earth's surface, an exception being the poles in winter, the concentration of water in air, on a mass basis, is approximately two orders (100-fold) greater than the concentration of CO2. The weight percent of water in air varies from about 1 to 4 %, whereas that of CO2 varies much less and is typically around 0.04%. (With only one significant figure, and without any error estimate, we must assume a 25-100% error in these numbers.) Usually, ppm is computed on a mass basis. Based on mass (CO2 is heavier than the other main air components, argon comes close) there has been a ~36% increase in CO2. This seems large. Woodcock has converted masses into numbers of molecules. It is the number of molecules per volume, rather than their mass, that is photophysically important. In dry air, over the period from the late Nineteenth Century to today, we are experiencing an increase of approximately 120 molecules of CO2 per million molecules of total air components (mostly O2, Ar, and N2). In wet air, the increase is less than 120 per million (less than12 molecules per hundred thousand). It makes no difference. There are not enough additional molecules of CO2 now, compared to the pre-industrial age, to make any difference in the Earth's temperature by direct effect. (An indirect effect might be possible via CO2's effect on plant growth, but that should be correspondingly weak as well.) Changes in the Earths surface temperature remain well within historical variation. There is to date no evidence, by direct measurement, showing any measurable increase in the Earth's temperature due to this small number of additional CO2 molecules relative to the total number. A prudent and scientifically minded person would not expect there to be. The Earth's surface temperature, as it has since the Earth was formed, continues to vary due to causes other than CO2 concentration. It is an interesting observation, to me at least, that the climate alarmism we are experiencing is due to extrapolation from models well into the future and the subsequent politicization, profiteering and media propensity to selectively report and exaggerate for the sake of audience share and advertising revenue; yet none of the models have been shown to be reliable! Perhaps another factor playing into our concerns is our modern recognition that we must be good stewards of our environment. If we are told that our burning of fossil fuels is threatening to alter our climate and bring on a disaster, we are naturally going to rally behind measures that are purported to be needed to head off a pending disaster. In any case, it would not be a bad idea to work on practical ways to reduce our use of fossil fuels. This business reminds me somewhat of the "polywater" fiasco, but in the latter case the error was exposed well before hysteria over the possible polymerization of the oceans could set in among the public.
"There is to date no evidence, by direct measurement, showing any measurable increase in the Earth's temperature due to this small number of additional CO2 molecules relative to the total number. A prudent and scientifically minded person would not expect there to be. The Earth's surface temperature, as it has since the Earth was formed, continues to vary due to causes other than CO2 concentration." So which organization are you working for pie? What you just said is complete bullshit. You are absurdly wrong and the talk of dry vs wet CO2 measurement is just pure obfuscation and a red herring. The earth's temperature has mostly been controlled by CO2 levels. This is basic climate science 101. You are a liar. Interesting that you bring up up the profit motive thing. What was the profits of Exxon et al. last year? Maybe we should start calling you Murray. Another fraud.
From the foregoing, it is clear that CO2 is the key atmospheric gas that exerts principal control (80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing) over the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds are fast-acting feedback effects, and as such, they are controlled by the radiative forcing supplied by the non-condensing GHGs. The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/