How is it that this could have been discussed as many times as it has been but you still seem to have no grasp whatsoever on the position of mainstream science with regards to Koch and Angstrom. The only errors Koch made were caused by his relatively crude instrumentation. The error of the whole thing - the point which mainstream science beginning with Hurlbert have refuted, was ANGSTROM's interpretation of Koch's results. If atmospheric CO2 behaved as Angstrom thought it did, the surface of the Earth would be close to the temperature of the surface of the sun. All of the heat radiated by the Earth's surface would be trapped in the first few meters while more and more solar radiation poured in. Does that sound like the reality with which you're familiar?
And, I know this is an old question, but if you want to take the common denier interpretation of Angstrom - that the greenhouse effect wrt CO2 is saturated and that adding more has had no effect, please explain what HAS caused the warming of the last 150 years?
And, I know this is an old question, but if you want to take the common denier interpretation of Angstrom - that the greenhouse effect wrt CO2 is saturated and that adding more has had no effect, please explain what HAS caused the warming of the last 150 years?