You may have forgot about addressing the basic point already made. From the variability of cloud and no cloud, comes the variable positive and variable negative feedback effects. It is a single molecule of CO2 which has a half life around 5-10 years, not the effect of atmospheric CO2, which once put in the atmosphere carries its effects for hundreds of years. Pump more and more in decade after decade and there is no proper reason to assume those effects will not last longer and longer. Certainly man made CO2 contribution can be measured and it is. Natural sourcing and sinking balances have nothing to do with it. The measurement of carbon isotopes over the last 150 years gives a clear picture of human CO2 contributions. You must surely know that. You may deny it but I'm sure you know it. There is no new or "special" science about atmospheric movements in the vertical direction. Clouds develop from that convection. Whether developing comparatively fast or slow, they are having an almost insignificant effect when compared against those effects found from natural and artificial CO2 emissions. As already pointed out, cloud tends to balance between negative cooling and positive warming feedback. All the (scientific) evidence there is does however point towards an overall positive feedback balance not a negative one . Introducing stuff already known then emphasizing elements of it to dramatize some so called new findings which aren't new and don't find support in basic scientific fact, is agenda driven rhetoric not science . Funnily enough, I am not interested to know that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere decreases its effects, because then you are saying the science you just agreed with, is not the science you just agreed with! The saturation argument is too old and too ridiculous and has been debunked so many times, it is quite frankly too absurd for you to trawl it up yet again. Perhaps your infatuation with Salby is simply skewing your own better judgement.
No one working today uses the Bern Model with the possible exception of the IPCC and Hansen's protege. the Bern Model was based on a wild guess. Today we know what the half life is.
Stu I made a mistake , you seemed quite knowledgeable, but I now realize your science acumen is quite limited. If you'll spend the time , it takes a few hours plus some time to think, to view Salby's and Shaviv's Youtube presentations you will have a better idea of why so many first rate scientists are now questioning the validity of the Hansen Hypothesis. There are several of Salby's starting with Hamburg four years ago. Also the Miskolczi papers are either brilliant or wrong, its not known which yet, but they represent an entirely different approach. But I can't recommend those papers to you because the level of specialized physics knowledge required is substantial. As far as Salby, who is retired at least for the moment, and Shaviv go, these are two of the most respected physicists in their respected fields. Salby is atmospheric physics and Shaviv is astrophysics. James Hansen was an administrator, he was highly competent and well trained, but he got caught up in politics and obviously relied a bit to much on younger less experienced folks working in his lab. Miskolczi worked at GISS, but left when the Directors tried to suppress publication of his paper. He has followup papers published since. Your response above was the clue for me. I didn't say exactly what you claim I said, in fact I said something different but your interpretation of what I actually did say was the clue to me that we are not communicating well.
Piezoe said..... "An estimate for the amount of anthropomorphic CO2 in the air at any time is around 30% of total but we can't observe it directly " Wrong again. Yes we can. It's called isotopic analysis. And it's completely clear that the 40% increase in the atmosphere is due to man. There is no question about it. Libertarian think tanks that get millions from fossil fuel interests do question it. Not honestly of course.
Yes, we know that you would like to censure me and the facts. That is the opinions of the experts. Do you think that is important? And did you ever think that new eyes could be here? If it bothers you, put me on ignore.