New paper shows the 'simple basic physics' of greenhouse theory exaggerate global warming by a factor of 8 times

A new paper published in Environmental Research Letters shows that simple greenhouse effect calculations predicted a catastrophic 6.6C increase of global temperature over the past ~150 years due to the increase in CO2 from 280 ppm to 400 ppm today. Observations, however, show the temperature rise was only 0.8C, or ~8 times less than predicted by the so-called 'basic physics' of the greenhouse effect. According to the authors, 

"Such a [calculated] temperature rise is much larger than the observed increase of 0.8 C seen since industrialization. To explain this difference, feedback mechanisms and all the other complications of the climate need to be invoked. Some of these complications serve to reduce the temperature increase and some to decrease it. Presumably the mechanisms which decrease the rise have a greater effect than those which increase it so that the actual rise in temperature is smaller than that predicted by the simple [physics] model."

Thus, if the 'simple basic physics' of radiative forcing from CO2 are correct, this forcing is overwhelmed by net-negative feedbacks, contrary to the net positive feedback predictions of climate models [Lindzen & Choi 2010, and others]. Alternatively, the radiative forcing from CO2 may be greatly exaggerated. Either way, observations show that the net effect of increased CO2 levels is about 8 times less than predicted by the 'simple basic physics' of the anthropogenic global warming theory. 

The paper also purports to dismiss the role of the Sun in climate change by examining only one theory [Svensmark's], but fails to mention hundreds of peer-reviewed papers describing many other solar amplification mechanisms.

Full paper available here

Notes:

1. Excerpt on p. 3:

The conclusions of this simple reductionist model is that the increase of the CO2 from [280 ppm] to [400 ppm] gives 1z D 1:1 km for a scale height (above the tropopause) of 6.35 km. For a lapse rate of 6 K km-1 this gives a temperature rise of 6.6 C.

2. Andy Lacis, Gavin Schmidt, Chris Colose, James Hansen et al claim that CO2 comprises 20% of the alleged 33C greenhouse effect. 

Thus, that would imply CO2 was responsible for 6.44°C warming in 1850 [32.2*.2] and 6.6°C now [33*.2], a warming effect of 0.16°C after all feedbacks despite a 40% increase in CO2 levels. Therefore, climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 is 0.33C = ln(2)*[.16/ln(1.4)], 9 times less than claimed by the IPCC.

3. The IPCC formula also predicts that global temperatures should have increased 1.5C due to the increase of CO2 from 280 to 400 ppm [5.35*ln(400/280)*3/3.7=1.5C], almost twice as much as observations.

4. From a comment by Ron C:

Satellite measurements of Earth emission data show that the IR photons absorbed by CO2 molecules are not re-emitted before the energy gained is redistributed by collisions with other non-greenhouse gas molecules. We know this because the re-emission of radiation does not occur at a black body temperature of 288K and instead occurs at a black body temperature of about 210 to 220K characteristic of general air temperatures at altitudes from 10.5 km to 22 km.

This part of the atmosphere is called the tropopause, where the temperature does not vary much from an average of 217K. Any change in the effective radiating level in the tropopause will not lower the temperature, and not cause warming.

http://hidethedecline.eu/media/RoyGreenhouse/Gravity%20Rules%20the%20Greenhouse%20EffectV2_R.%20Clark_9.27.10.pdf