This should probably be on the NQ forum, as one paper, posted by a guy on junkscience.com, should not be considered real science until someone (as the site points out has yet to be done) "checks the numbers."

With information gleaned "from wikipedia, the free encyclopedia," and "after a few infrared measurements on summer nights," this guy produced an impressive paper to explain his new insight into atmospheric chemistry. It's an impressive journey, for an Electrical/Computer Engineer, Richard Petschauer, whom "had trouble understanding how a rise of carbon dioxide ... could have such an overly large influence on the Earth’s future temperature as some predict" and so, "decided to read and learn about this... resulting in his own computer simulations... [to finally become] doubtful about a harmful future temperature rise due to increased carbon dioxide levels." RP (p.11-12)

Originally Posted By: from Petschauer, R.
(...my emphases below: "what??") http://www.junkscience.com/jan08/Global_Warming_Not_From_CO2.pdf
"Data shows that present concentrations of CO2, a strong absorber, are already well above the saturation value at its principal wavelength, so increases in it have a relative small affect. These new calculations are based on atmospheric models of the energy absorption bandwidths of greenhouse gases coupled with Max Planck’s equations relating to infrared wavelength distributions."
"Based on this new information, recommendations are made regarding future U.S. energy policy.
While it does appear that the recent years show a warming trend, the role of CO2 in this is very small, and perhaps beneficial in moderating winter temperatures in colder climates."
-RP (p.1)


I'd like to see just one review of this idea by a physical chemist or an atmospheric scientist. Even a spectroscopist should be able to ask some revealing questions. Reviews by NGW folks (or AGWs) just don't count, scientifically.
"New calculations show..." is Petschauer's own editorializing; and should not be read with the sense of "it can be shown that," but rather with the sense that "maybe something new is shown here (& can anyone verify this?)."

It'll be interesting to see if this "insight" gets legs; but even if true, it doesn't undo what is currently happening around us in the world. Even if CO2 won't cause any more problems (yea, right!), it's already causing too much problem!

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.