Your ideas are a reflection of a very incorrect model for global warming. The model used by Lacis, et al., one of Hansen's boys. If you do a search on google for "Which is the more important Greenhouse gas, CO2 or Water Vapor?" You will turn up page after page of articles, I suppose altogether hundreds of google pages, from internet blogs and the popular press parroting Lacis' ideas. Ideas that are completely at odds with observation and atmospheric physics. (Lacis is the source of the CO2 thermostat nonsense!) Up to now the models have not been able to correctly model clouds. Yet cloud formation at high altitude is a tremendously important negative feedback mechanism. Furthermore, the models completely neglect long term negative feedback from plants. The net feedback is clearly negative, and without that you can not have a stable climate system, as the Earth plainly does. Here is the correct science: http://www.c3headlines.com/natural-negativepositive-feedback/ From which comes: "The runaway global warming scenarios of the IPCC climate models are based exclusively on a hypothesized positive climate feedback - satellite data reveal a powerful negative cloud feedback instead Read here. The IPCC claims of a positive feedback mechanism that would cause runaway global warming, and a climate change tipping point, have never been validated as being climate science reality. Yet the IPCC's climate models all employ this phantom positive feedback, resulting in their infamous predictions of catastrophic climate events. Unfortunately for the IPCC, its "consensus" climate models are all wrong regarding positive feedbacks. Instead, the latest satellite empirical evidence points to a significant negative cloud feedback that is the likely cause of the lack of global warming over the last 15 years." There are a number of peer reviewed papers referenced which you should read if you are capable of understanding them. I have emphasized that the net feedback is negative, not positive, and explained many times that if the feedback net was positive none of us would be here on the Earth today! The following I've excerpted from the link above. "A paper published today in the Journal of Climate finds that relative humidity has been decreasing 0.5% per decade across North America during the 62 year period of observations from 1948-2010. Computer models of AGW show positive feedback from water vapor by incorrectly assuming that relative humidity remains constant with warming while specific humidity increases....."Over 1/4 billion hourly values of temperature and relative humidity observed at 309 stations located across North America during 1948-2010 were studied...The averages of these seasonal trends are 0.20 C/decade and 0.07 hPa/decade which correspond to a specific humidity increase of 0.04 g/kg per decade and a relative humidity reduction of 0.5%/decade."" [V. Isaac and W. A. van Wijngaarden 2012: Journal of Climate] "A new paper just published in Geophysical Research Letters by Roger Davies and Mathew Molloy of the University of Auckland finds that over the past decade the global average effective cloud height has declined and that “If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming.”...The average global cloud height is linked to the average global temperature—generally, the higher the average cloud height, the higher the average surface temperature, and vice versa...A point well-recognized by Davies and Molloy when they write “Changes in cloud properties in response to rising surface temperatures represent some of the strongest, yet least understood, feedback processes in the climate system.“..."If sustained, such a decrease would indicate a significant measure of negative cloud feedback to global warming, as lower cloud heights reduce the effective altitude of emission of radiation to space with a corresponding cooling effect on equilibrium surface temperature."...According to the calculations of Davies and Molloy, the negative climate forcing from a decrease in the average global cloud amount during the past 10 years has more than offset the positive forcing from an increase in greenhouse gases from human activities." [Roger Davies, Mathew Molloy 2012: Geophysical Research Letters] The science just is not there to support Hansen and his boys. Do not fall for their junk science.
OK, you seem confused. I suggest reading something about the actual science from authoritative sources rather than the Libertarian propaganda you have been fed. You would not be as confused. ...., it is clear that CO2 is the key atmospheric gas that exerts principal control (80% of the non-condensing GHG forcing) over the strength of the terrestrial greenhouse effect. Water vapor and clouds are fast-acting feedback effects, and as such, they are controlled by the radiative forcing supplied by the non-condensing GHGs. The bottom line is that atmospheric carbon dioxide acts as a thermostat in regulating the temperature of Earth. The rapid increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide due to human industrial activity is therefore setting the course for continued global warming. Because of the large heat capacity of the climate system, the global surface temperature does not respond instantaneously to the sharp upturn of the carbon dioxide thermostat, which at this moment stands at 386.80 ppm compared to the normal interglacial maximum level of 280 ppm. Since humans are responsible for changing the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide, they then also have control over the global temperature of the Earth. http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/lacis_01/
C3 Headlines? lol Thanks for showing us an example of the libertarian propaganda you have been deluded by. I understand now why you are confused. Unfortunately for the IPCC, its "consensus" climate models are all wrong regarding positive feedbacks. Instead, the latest satellite empirical evidence points to a significant negative cloud feedback that is the likely cause of the lack of global warming over the last 15 years." ^Wrong, there was no lack of warming over the last fifteen years so on this basic point this article is wrong. No need to read any further when something so basic is in error. Ahahahahahah C3 Headlines. You crack me up.
Here is more good reading for you: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/i...asure-of-negative-feedback-to-global-warming/
Those Lacis research briefs in no way qualify as peer reviewed primary literature. See the peer reviewed, primary research literature that the excerpts I posted link to. You are getting ideas from the common media. If you want to have a much better understanding you'll have to read the primary literature. There is no other way because by the time this stuff gets into the popular press its junk. By the way, you have commented on the difference between surface temperature measurement and atmospheric temperature measurement. There is a good discussion of this in some of the real science I provided links for. I am happy to discuss any of this primary literature with you, but I'll not argue junk science.
This illustrates how potentially dangerous religion is still today. Here is another example of dangers posed by religious zealots. http://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/documents/2014/html/SB/2600-2699/SB2681PS.htm
Just wait to people from non-Christian religions use this law in Mississippi to support acts in the name of their religion; for example female circumcision or honor killing by Muslims, or some of the drugs supported by native American religions as part of their rites. Mississippi basically just passed a law that states the government or other people can not halt an individual's rights to practice their religion. The definition of religion can be made to be very broad.
Futurecurrents has never posted reasonable peer reviewed primary scientific literature. He has only posted what amounts to AGW fan fiction.
Nitro, for me the most serious contradiction present in the arguments of those still holding to the Hansen AGW hypothesis is their assumption of positive feedback. I am a Ph.D. Scientist with many years of experience both carrying out and directing research, and have published many papers in the primary literature, including areas not unrelated to AGW studies. I read, many years ago now, Richard Lindzen's papers which were highly critical of Hansens Hypothesis, but for reasons entirely apart from Hansen's assumption of positive feedback . Then I did not take much further interest until the comments in this forum got me reading again some of the more recent primary literature. It is at this point that it hit home with me that, because of CO2's trace concentration and its relatively weak greenhouse gas properties, the only way such small nominal increases in concentration on the order of 100 molecules per million of air molecules could affect surface temperature in a measurable way would be for there to be positive feedback. I simply accepted, therefore, that Hansen's assumption of positive feedback must be correct. It wasn't until much later that, like a bolt out of the blue, it hit me that there is a huge contradiction in this assumption. (This must have been missed by nearly all of the other scientists as well, although eventually many came around to the idea that the observations are not consistent with the presence of positive feedback.) Here is where the contradiction arises. If a system, such as a climate system, has any degree of positive feedback, small finite changes in input will drive the output to its extreme, whereas negative feedback will result in the systems response to a small finite change in the input being cancelled to an extent proportional to the amount of feedback. In a climate system the response of the output to a change in the input could be very slow, but in geological time it would still occur in the twinkling of an eye, so to speak. If positive feedback in response to an increase in atmospheric CO2 had been present at any time in our geological past, and the Hansen hypothesis is correct, then surface temperature would have extinguished all life. (The carbon hydrogen bond breaks at ~ 250-75 deg C.) In a nutshell, what I am saying is that for our climate system to be stable, the feedback response to perturbations must be negative not positive. Either the assumptions for parameter values in the models are far off, so that response time to perturbations are far longer than expected, or the assumption of positive feedback is dead wrong. The present primary literature strongly suggests the latter. If I'm right, a reasonable question is how could this contradiction have been missed by so many? I can tell from your posts that you are either a mathematician, a physicist or at least have interest in those areas. If you have studied any aspects of electrical engineering, and in particular, operational amplifiers, I think you will have no problem following my argument. I would be very much interested in your comments.
LOL, you use C3 headlines and I use NASA and NOAA and you're accusing ME of using junk science? LOL Too funny.