The question is very detailed and scientifically well-informed, but fundamentally flawed. YA denier (which means not "stubborn," but stubbornly stupid) and "own thought process" are an irreconcilable contraction in terms. You can around in circles through thousands of peer-reviewed papers yet somone who wants to believe and copy-paste absurd fallacies from the flat earth society or holocaust hoax movement will remain utterly immune to your knowledge and reasoning.

"thus adding confidence to the previous 1997–1970 study." Says it all. They don't know but they are trying to prove AGW.

All you have to know about this subject is that in the last decade plus, the earth has been cooling while the CO2 level has risen.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut...

Notice: I stayed away from El Nino and used raw data, not James Hansen's corrupted data.

You say... Study 1 statement #1: "We find differences... "

The full study, which is your second link says this about co2. It is quoted in full.

"c. Key results in the observed difference spectra

We refer to Fig. 5, and consider the three difference spectra.

1) The CO2 band at 720 cm-1, though (edit, quoted text removed to save space)

They say that there is a "zero signature" 2003-1997, and speculate that this "must be due to changes in temperature that compensate for the increase in CO2". They conclude saying "This is somewhat contrary to the general (small) cooling of the stratosphere at tropical latitudes." This last comment is testable.

Here we see falling stratosphere temperature 1979 onwards.... (Edit I am in error in this statement, text shortened to save space)

There was NO CHANGE in co2 absorbtion from 1997 to 2003 despite increased co2 concentration.

You say... Study 2 statement #1: "Changing spectral ... "

this is what they say about ch4. This is from the same heading and again, it is quoted in full.

"4) The CH4 Q branch centered at 1304 cm-1 presents one of the most interesting results. The strong negative difference spectrum feature in 1997–1970 reported in Harries et al. (2001) is repeated here, and also the 2003–1970 signature here is strong and negative (though not as strong as for 1997–1970). However, the 2003–1997 result shows a clear positive feature in the difference spectrum. In our processing, this feature statistically was a very robust feature. The possible causes could only be a reduc- tion in atmospheric CH4 between 1997 and 2003, or a warming between these years of the atmospheric layers giving rise to the CH4 emission, or both."

They note "However, the 2003–1997 result shows a clear positive feature in the difference spectrum. In our processing, this feature statistically was a very robust feature.".

The warming didn't happen (see the link above), (edit i am in error here, edit: text shortenened to save space)

ch4 concentration 1997 to 2003 did not fall, it rose. See here.... http://www.climate4you.com/images/CH4%20...

The data is here. ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/ch4/GLOBALVI...

Neither of their reasons to reject the positive measurement are true. The observation that the absorbtion in the ch4 band DECREASED from 1997 to 2003 stands.(edit: my error re the warming)

You say... Study 2 statement #2: "The 2003–1997 difference... "

I have already shown that the assumption that the temperature rose in this part of the atmosphere is incorrect. (Edit: incorrect, text shortened)

You say... "The user seems... "

The explanation they gave for the lack of signal (short term variation) has been demonstrated to be incorrect.(edit: incorrect)

You say... Study 3 statement #1: "Changing spectral signatures in CH4..."

This from a completely different paper. The main focus of the paper is testing the hadgem1 gas model. It comments on differences between the observations and the model, not changes measured over time.

Edit following yours headed "daveH you are making up excuses again"

My answer has got too long. i have had to shorten my earlier text. i have removed where i was quoting in full from you, and shortened text where i was incorrect).

You are indeed correct, and I am mistaken regarding stratospheric .Your link to the full paper "Recent Stratospheric Temperature Observed from Satellite Measurements" makes it clear that there was stratospheric cooling up to 1996, then warming after 1996.

"The cooling trend before 1996 in the middle stratosphere is ?1.25 ± 0.04 K per decade. The warming trend since 1996 in the middle stratosphere is 0.32 ± 0.05 K per decade."

So you and the authors are correct. There was warming in the 1997 to 2003 period which accounts for the brightness changes at the co2 and methane frequency points discussed.

But if the 1997 to 2003 temperature rise is to be considered, then the 1970 to 1997 cooling must also be considered.

The cooling 1970 to 1997 would account for the brightness changes at the same co2 and ch4 points they highlight.

This makes it appear that the changes they have measured (as they suggest themselves) are actually caused by changes in stratospheric temperature.

See fig 4 in your liu and weng paper.

Edit.

You can't extrapolate this study to assume it is globally applicable. The study is cloud free, equatorial, ocean. The earth is not all equatorial, not all ocean, and not all cloud free.

You can't conclude that radiated loss to space continued after 1997.

You can't conclude a trend from 2 data points.

You don't know if these two years are representative.

You don't know if the differences in the temporal sample weighting by month influenced the outcome.

I think you will have it all about facts of global warming in terms of green house effects, CO2 distribution and, particularly the history of Global Warming. These information are true and correct and explained in full. Read it carefully and closely, you will satisfy will the explanation of global warming in terms of its history and with emphasis in CO2 distribution, green house effects, water and vapourization, the damaged effects of all pollutants.

http://ca.search.yahoo.com/search?p=The%...

You said direct experimental, its experimental not proven fact.

short time interval, huh 16 years is not short term.

Enough gobbledy-**** where are the results, it's just not happening.

NO

Again someone seems too stubborn to understand and is drawing conclusions and attempting to explain away recorded data through his own thought processes. And again it is from the same exact paper.

Study 1 statement #1: "We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes in atmospheric CH4 , CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate."

Study 2 statement #1: "Changing spectral signatures due to CH4, CO2, and H2O on decadal time scales are observed using the new AIRS data, thus adding confidence to the previous 1997–1970 study."

Study 2 statement #2: "The 2003–1997 difference spectrum shows only weak signals of greenhouse gas changes because of the short time interval...The difference spectrum shows how, on

short time scales, temperature changes can mask effects due to growth in greenhouse gases.."

The user seems to be drawing the conclusions that, due to the variability in the short time interval and it not showing the long term trend in some features, the entire study is false or the conclusions are wrong. Yet it specifically states why that short term variation is there.

Study 3 statement #1: "Changing spectral signatures in CH4, CO2, and H2O are observed, with the

difference signal in the CO2 matching well between observations and modelled spectra."

The user is going off about water vapour and seems to be attributing that to the warming. However we know that water vapour will act as a feedback to any other type of warming. It can not be a forcing. The increase in CO2, on the other hand, is not a feedback this time and is known not to be natural. the user seems to be disregarding the edge of the CO2 spectrum. Why do you think this is? And a final question: Given the recorded decrease in outbound radiation at CO2 absorption wavelengths given, how do you think the entire CO2 absorption spectrum would look like?