This new-found total net warming from mid-tropospheric soot (August
2007, direct field data) was formerly blamed on CO2 (based on observed
temperature anomalies):

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf

Have we seen a downward revision in the figures for CO2 by the same
margin? We're looking at mid-tropospheric soot's effects being 2/3rds
of that of CO2's, making for a 37/53 mix.

So is CO2 as scary as we were told, or does this new data bring extant
CO2 warming closer in line with CO2's canonical logarithmic warming
line?

--Shane

wrote:
This new-found total net warming from mid-tropospheric soot (August
2007, direct field data) was formerly blamed on CO2 (based on observed
temperature anomalies):

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20071018110734.pdf

Have we seen a downward revision in the figures for CO2 by the same
margin? We're looking at mid-tropospheric soot's effects being 2/3rds
of that of CO2's, making for a 37/53 mix.

I haven't seen much evidence that direct subtraction from the current
forcing is appropriate. The articles seem to be mixed on that point.


So is CO2 as scary as we were told, or does this new data bring extant
CO2 warming closer in line with CO2's canonical logarithmic warming
line?

No matter what other forcings are found, CO2's role in AGW isn't going
away anytime soon. However, this looks like an excellent reason to halt
dirty combustion methods ASAP.

I guess another question I have is, what is this 'canonical' line we keep
hearing about and how is it relevant? I think pretty much everyone
understands CO2's warming is logarithmic, but without solid evidence of a Y
scalar that would limit its action in a meaningful way, it seems to be a
point of dubious relevance.

It's quite possible for a log curve to rise almost linearly in a certain Y
range. It just has to be tall enough.