....The direct effect of CO2 is well-established physics, based on laboratory results, and known for over a century....
.....Feedbacks are due to the ways the Earth reacts to the direct warming effect of the CO2......
There are elements of truth in the arguments advanced by David Evans. The direct warming effects of CO2 are only part of the picture but that part is agreed upon by even skeptical scientists. (Apparently not by denier non-scientists though.) That climate scientists agree that the amplification is ablut three is true. It might be true that some skeptics agree that the amplification should be 0.5 instead of 3.
So which is right? 3 or 0.5 or something else?
Regarding what supposed to be presented in Evans' Figure 3, comparing the predictions of a climate model in 1988 and some satellite measurements, another view is presented here: http://www.realclima...88-projections/
Also "Climate model results summarized by the IPCC in their third assessment show overall good agreement with the satellite temperature record... at : http://en.wikipedia....re_measurements
Near as I can tell, the satellite data presented by Evans isn't equivalent to what the climate models do, is a sort of apples-oranges comparison.
And so on.
Evans has advanced the main arguments shown in the Arbormans post before, with some additional material that near as I can tell doesn't make it any more relevant than before.
One really telling bit that Evans wrote is:
"On the other hand, the rise in air temperature has been greater than the skeptics say could be due to CO2. The skeptic’s excuse is that the rise is mainly due to other forces – and they point out that the world has been in a fairly steady warming trend of 0.5°C per century since 1680 (with alternating ~30 year periods of warming and mild cooling) where as the vast bulk of all human CO2 emissions have been after 1945."
So Evans wrote that "other forces" have caused much of the warming that has been experienced so far.
What other forces?
What other forces?
Again, what other forces? Something magical? Wishful thinking? Prayer?
The very thing that Evans denies is my guess, the feedbacks, mainly water vapor.
Oh yes, "fairly steady warming...since 1680"?
Essentially all the warming after we started using fossil fuels extensively.
Previous discussion of Evans' arguments here: http://www.skeptical...-goes-cold.html
On David Evans: http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans