Replies

I will admit that I am 20 yrs removed from my peak, and that some of what they're exploring as a mechanism is simply beyond my ken.

Most of what I've seen thrown around has more to do with the balance being effected by the transmittance properties, and excited electrons being more predisposed to radiative transfer (electron shell theory), which as Southack was I think hinting at seems to produce a form of perpetual motion machine - it contradicts 2LTD (entropy). This is the (non-working) 'hockey stick' model.

If it's the opposite, and it's a case of 'global less cooling', well you can't have it both ways. The mechanism must also work in reverse, meaning that CO2 must also force radiatiation back towards space. The net radiative and convective balance MUST be back towards space (also pointed out by Southack). The earth's atmosphere is not a closed system - it is equilibriating with the sun and SPACE. (equilibrium, 2LTD, 3LTD)

Back to the OP - TY to Hostage for pointing out the base logic, that these effects cannot be proved in terms of, and seem to contravene accepted scientific law. So, until/unless PROVEN otherwise - the CO2 AGW hypothesis is not valid.

So then the possibility that more heat is being transferred into the clouds, and causing short-term heat latency? Sure. I'll say I no longer have the chops to do the equations involved. There are opinions by reputable scientists such as Richard Lindzen @ MIT that CO2 adds in some small part to the ability of the atmosphere to trap heat (though he believes it has been overstated). One must take into account that these effects are also being equilibriated over time BY SPACE. Either way, it is still an unsolvable equation that has yet to be quantified in scientific terms as a constant.

I will leave the thread with this one thought - Lindzen states that the sum of all climate feedbacks are likely negative - 2LTD and empirical evidence (both temps and accepted crude data from paleo record showing that both CO2 and temps have been higher in the past yet we are still here). There seem to be few instances indicating periods where a rise in CO2 preceded a rise in temperatures - making CO2 as the driver seem improbable.