Sorry, longview but you are, yet again, mischaracterizing the conclusion of a study. Nowhere in the study do they claim that diurnal and seasonal asymmetry is the primary effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. What they do show is that the warming trend of minimum temps is greater than the warming trend of max temps but they are both increasing. And the difference between the two is significantly less than the warming trend of both of them. What this study is really looking at is why we see these differences. From the conclusion:
And here you are mischaracterizing yet another study. Arrhenius is just saying what Tyndail believed at the time and nowhere that I can find does he support or confirm Tyndail's theory.
http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrhenius1896_tcm18-173546.pdf
Actually, what the data shows is that CO2 is increasing both minimum and maximum temperatures. And if the feedbacks continue to increase like most serious scientists believe then climate change could become catastrophic. I know... you think that either the known feedbacks are suddenly going to stop getting worse or that some mysterious negative feedback is going to come out of no-where and limit AGW to levels that are no big deal. You go ahead and believe as you like but I and most scientists chose to believe otherwise.
No mischaracterization, The Davy study was looking at diurnal asymmetry within the observed warming.
if the observed warming is mostly from the added CO2, then the CO2 is what is causing the asymmetrical warming.
Arrhenius opened his paper with why Tyndail was not concerned with CO2, it's effects were mostly lessening
the diurnal and seasonal temperature range, by increasing the minimum temperatures.
While the data shows increases in both T-Min, and T-Max, the increases in T-Min are roughly 3 times greater
than increases in T-Max, This is best evidenced by Davy fig-1
Davy, points out that the conclusion of Karl, et al 1993 was,
DTR is significantly reduced largely because of strong increase in
Tmin in wintertime (December through May) and in high latitudes
As to the feedbacks, There are feedbacks, but the size and even the sign are in question.
The empirical support for the aggregate of the many types of feedbacks, is that they are minimal, and possibly slightly positive.
Consider that IF the ECS from 2XCO2 were 3 C, that would mean that the magic sky amplifier,
took all input warming, and amplified it by, 3C/1.1C=2.72 times, then output of that amplified response
itself would then be amplified by another 2.72 times, and so on , and so on, with each cycle limited by the
ECS latency time. The problem with that concept is that The .6C of warming from the bottom of the little ice age,
would have seen roughly 2 cycles, so lets play it out.
1850, the little ice age is over, it has warmed .6C since the low end, over the next 70 years the climate amplifier will
reach roughly 70% of equilibrium, so (.6 X 2.72)X .7=1.14 C.
1920 to 1990, another cycle and completion of the first cycle,
(1.14 X 2.72)X.7=2.17C +.48 C(from the first cycle)=2.65C.
Now since we have only warmed roughly 1.1 C since 1850, and roughly .64C of that is attributed to added CO2,
then the amplified feedback must be lower than that which would cause an ECS of 3 C.
