Regarding link given at by ARRELL at Current Events thread- which getting unwieldy. Link is:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0802/0802.4324v1.pdf

Couple things to note regarding table:
"TABLE I: Relevant parameters for the planets. See http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/ "

It indicate Mars doesn't have greenhouse affect. Which I believe is incorrect. Ref:
"The atmosphere of Mars is also predominantly carbon dioxide, but Mars does not have a significant Greenhouse condition because the atmosphere is so thin that it cannot absorb much of the infrared energy which is emitted by the surface. The surface pressure on Mars is about 100 times less than it is on Earth, which is itself about 90 times less than it is on Venus. It is estimated that the Greenhouse effect on Mars warms the atmosphere at the surface by less than 10 degrees Fahrenheit."
http://nova.stanford.edu/projects/mod-x/id-green.html

"Mars' thin atmosphere produces a greenhouse effect but it is only enough to raise the surface temperature by 5 degrees (K); much less than what we see on Venus and Earth."
http://www.nineplanets.org/mars.html

And:
"The team's results, published in this week's issue of the journal Nature, show that the decrease in Mars's reflectivity has caused a warming of 1.17 degree Fahrenheit (0.65 degree Celsius) between 1975 and 1995."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/04/070404-mars-warming.html

Now, 5 K is more of temperature increase than Earth due to Earth's CO2 levels.

Mars is much smaller than Earth but has something around as much CO2 in total, but it comparison in terms of infrared window, Mars has much more greenhouse effect from it's CO2 than from Earth's CO2.

If one were really interested in greenhouse gases and CO2 in particular it seems to me that Mars is where one should look and focus on as far checking out any model to do with CO2. Because it's got a lot of CO2, and mostly CO2 so other factor are less likely to interfere. Not only that but believe one changing levels of CO2 due climate/weather changes.

So, that part of paper is wrong. But how is possible to overlook this. It's like a elephant hunter not knowing what continent elephants are on.

Next point of interest is on same chart. It shows the Moon with -17 K difference. Why is that?
Before you explain about it rotation difference, remember this:

"So no matter the rotation rate, no matter the surface heat capacity, the average temperature of the planet in this rotating example, with only radiative energy flows and no absorbing layer in the atmosphere, is always less than the effective radiating temperature. For very slow rotation or low heat capacity it can be significantly less; for parameters in the other direction it can come as close as 1% (i.e. up to 252 K on a planet like Earth)."

Now you could say the Moon has "very slow rotation". But it rotates every 29 days, is that what is meant by very slow. What if Earth had 708.7 hour day? What is slow, more than 100 hour day?
The moon rotates quite fast compared to Mercury or Venus.

Now, leaving out large exposed rocks, the Moon has a what could called a low surface heat capacity, but if leave out Earth oceans, Earth too has a pretty low surface heat capacity.

Add some atmosphere to the Moon and what do you get- other unimaginable dust storms? Well does the dust add to the "greenhouse affect" or as say above adds more than the "effective radiating temperature"?
There is no shortage dust in the atmosphere on Earth is that counted? If Earth was such that it made Mars' storms seem like clear air, do we only then count how much dust is making it more than the "effective radiating"?

Getting back to the Moon say there some wind and this wind piled the dust up somewhere and left large areas of bare rock, would this effect be somewhere around as much of difference as whatever temperature decrease is due to slow rotation?

Now, as I said in another thread:
http://www.habitablezone.com/space/messages/505699.html

The Moon probably adds some heat to Earth's atmosphere due to it's radiation. Now, the Earth on average is much older than the Moon lit side, but it still radiating heat. But probably more significant is the light reflected from Earth. According to the numbers on same chart of first referenced article Earth has albedo of 0.306 [it should noted this number is different than other numbers I have seen, e.g.

"For example, the albedo of the Earth is 0.39 (Kaufmann) and this affects the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. "
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/phyopt/albedo.html

EARTH — Albedo: 0.367
According to http://open-encyclopedia.com/Earth

Wiki:
The average albedo of the Earth is about 30%"

Maybe .30 without counting clouds. But as far reflected sunlight from this should be amount energy heating the Moon, but the Moon on average the -17 below where it should be.