I am not changing the subject at all. You can do your same calculation for the x and y components of a sine curve and it will look great in the middle 2/3s of the amplitude and then it fails miserably when it reaches peaks. You are trying to model a complex dynamic system that has feedback with a simple logarithmic equation. It does not work that way. I can send you my 1000 page book on the feedback control of dynamic systems if you would like to read that.
"In the stratosphere, the contribution is about 80 percent from carbon dioxide and about 20 percent from water vapor." -- assuming these 1994 numbers are correct, so what?
Why? Because there is no natural absorption? There is. CO2 sinks include the oceans, which are acidifying.
Well since water vapor is the dominant component of the greenhouse effect and it creates its own positive feedback then it would not be possible for temperatures to decrease at tripping points as found in the historical data unless some other mechanism is involved. How does the IPCC handle this problem?
Well you're asking at what point, long after humans have died in the millions, will the cycle eventually terminate. Although water vapor increases with temperature, it doesn't increase out of proportion to its warming. That is, the warming that it brings does not wildly increase water vapor concentrations so much that the increase would have a compounding effect. Water vapor increases somewhat with temperature, but not disporportionately.
This is so ludicrous, that I cannot believe you are not embarra Without an atmosphere, we would be like the moon. Extremely close to absolute zero even a foot off the ground. Many Deserts (including Antarctica) have almost no water vapor day or night, and you cannot say they are even within 33 degrees C (or even far more than that) of abs zero
The graph of historical temperatures appears much too cyclical to just be explained by this. Why do the spikes to +2 degrees only occur when the temperature was previously at the -7 to -8 range? Why does the temperature immediately spike down once it hits the +2 to +3 range? Clearly this isn't being governed by CO2. Look at the spike 130,000 years ago. CO2 levels are almost level while the temperature begins to drop rapidly. How do you explain this? And my biggest question is why can't we expect the temperature in the future to spike back down once it hits the +2 to +3 range?
You can tell this about the globe from only three cycles, and even then from the antarctic? Please. In the antarctic? Okay, please explain why. Well it wouldn't matter if it did, because a +2 change in global temperatures would doom millions.