Jim D | May 4, 2012 at 1:02 am |
Willis, the actual conundrum was that it has warmed less, not more, than expected from the changing GHG forcing, which is where aerosols come in. It became clear that their effect modified that of GHGs which have been known since Arrhenius. In your distorted view CO2 was invoked in retrospect to explain the warming when it was not unexpected (see Hansen 1981).
I have no idea what any of that means, Jim. Warmed less than who expected? Who are “they” in “their effect modified”? What kind of modifications? What “effect … of GHGs … known since Arrhenius” is being “modified”? What view of my own is “distorted”, and how? How can CO2 be “invoked in retrospect”? What does Hansen 1981 have to do with all of the above?
In short, I can’t make sense of a single sentence. Sorry to say it, Jim, but from my side of the screen every line of that is unintelligible.
w.