New paper on mathematical analysis of GHG

My 2 cents worth- The paper was stating that changes in the rate of CO2 increase affect temperature, not absolute changes in CO2.
My guess is that the temperature increases that are being detected are due to changes in economic activity, and the UHI bias
in recording temperatures:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/gdptemp.html
There theoretically SHOULD be an increase in temperatures with
any increases in CO2, but since the feedback is logarithmic, and supposing there’s a negative feedback from clouds and water vapor, the fraction of the temperature increase caused by changes in CO2 level could easily be below the threshhold of measurability.

Steve Mosher, in this thread you exhibit a disturbing lack of understanding of what is being tested here. Your point of view appears to be “CO2 levels in the atmosphere affect global temperature as a given resulting from basic Physics”. Thus you reject a paper which attempts to test that as a hypothesis because it isn’t a hypothesis but a given truth. In this you’re acting just like Tamino, who’s main reaction appears to be sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting “lalalalala I can’t HEAR YOU” at the top of his voice, egged on by the witless f*wits who inhabit his site.
Surely, if such a cause and effect relationship exists, then appropriate tests must show it. B&R use certain sets of data to demonstrate that using what appear to be the best techniques currently known, that no such relationship exists. You then deny the paper validity because that cannot be so, which is entirely unscientific. Surely, the appropriate scientific response is to examine what was done. B&R use NASA/GISS as a temperature record, is that a valid record, I for one would suspect that it may contain serious overstatements of actual temperature rises, could that be a cause of problems ? The CO2 measures seem less controversial, so leave them, what about the methods and statistics. My knowledge of time series is limited (as it is apparently for almost everyone commenting including yourself), but from such reading as is available, B&R’s treatment as far as I can tell is indeed in line with currently accepted best practice, at least from a majority of those working in the field. The tests are also repeatable, VS’s work would appear to confirm their work neatly.
In experimental physics, if such a relationship was to be tested and such results came out, one can re-run the experiments a number of times (or at least, usually one can), but if the data consistently rejects your theory, it hardly seems reasonable behaviour to reject the data in favour of the theory. Here we have tests on an unrepeatable data series, although we can try other versions of the data. Assume the data and methods are correct, isn’t the prime learning we get that we don’t understand the behaviour as the atmosphere as well as you are apparently claiming.
You are claiming that you know the behaviour of the atmosphere so well that it must be true that increased CO2 generates additional heat. I instead assert that what you think you know you don’t, what you have in fact is a theory that additional CO2 should cause increased temperatures if the feedbacks are clearly understood and don’t interfere. I suggest that you don’t in fact know enough about feedbacks or the atmosphere, and that this paper suggests (only suggests and subject to verification) that your theory is wrong. That doesn’t mean that CO2 can’t increase the temperature and that it doesn’t in a laboratory situation, but it may mean that in the real world it doesn’t.
My first thought would be that maybe the way that the temperature records have been bodged (deliberately or otherwise) leads to the incorrect derivation of temperature as l(1), perhaps the real record is l(2), and there is a relationship.
B&R’s paper has some very useful features, amongst which is that many of the important postulates are easily tested, Temperature, as used is clearly l(1), the tests are appropriately used, therefore the result is difficult to simply laugh off. Claiming that the results are “unphysical” is simply doing the “lalalala I can’t hear you” trick. The results are perfectly acceptable, as long as you accept that you (and we, generally) don’t actually know the climate as well as we would like to think.

I know that I am very late to the party, but I’ve just written up a blogpost on the B&R paper:
http://stochastictrend.blogspot.com/2010/04/polynomial-cointegration-and-global.html