Finally, we note that the claim made by "greenhouse critics" in the popular press, that global warming is a "benign" nighttime phenomenon, is incorrect. The temperature changes, as we have shown, represent the combination of an overall warming and a damping of the diurnal cycle. We can safely predict that on the long run the effect of the diurnal damping on maximum temperatures will be small,
However, quantum mechanics isn't the logical conclusion to jump to when it comes to a diurnal temperature. Quantum mechanics isn't affected by day and night, nor the intensity of incoming radiation. The main conclusion that I see the paper come to is that there is an something unknown (circa 1995) that is forcing cooling. Furthermore:
So the diurnal fluctuations could be partially responsible for the famous 'pause' we're having, but the paper specifically explains that this doesn't mean that global warming doesn't happen, there is just a lag introduced in the climate system.almost all of the damping caused by a climate forcing occurs immediately with the introduction of the forcing, while the mean temperature rise is delayed by the thermal inertia of the climate system. Thus the unrealized warming for greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere will appear almost equally in daily maximum and daily minimum temperatures.
The closest the paper comes to the anti-AGW camp is to suggest:
Which we already know! We know that it's a complex system and that there are parts of it unknown to us. That doesn't mean that the whole theory is wrong. We don't fully understand the mechanics of gravity, that doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist. We can measure the effects of gravity without intimately knowing the inner workings. Likewise here.Thus the impact of policies related to fossil fuel use on the net climate forcing can be assessed reliably only with quantitative understanding of the aerosol and cloud forcings, as well as the greenhouse gas forcing. Comparison of the greenhouse gas and aerosol/cloud forcings is further complicated by the very different spatial distributions of these forcings, which implies that the 2, can not cause a simple cancellation