Warming from CO2 is simple:
Until you add the effects of water vapor. That is highly nonlinear, and can't be solved with equations or models with oversimplified weather.
The Bush White House didn't know that global warming theory is based on some of the same equations originally developed in 1921 which a group of Hungarian scientists have shown to be completely wrong
No and no. The warming from CO2 is real and is shown in the equation plotted above, but the feedback cannot be modeled with equations. However, water vapor feedback doesn't appear to follow the alarmist models (no big rise in UTWV seen).
That’s a nice-looking graph but it’s based on highly questionable assumptions. The basic equations underlying global warming theory are in dispute and new equations have been developed that fit the climate history record much more accurately. Current global warming theory doesn’t match the climate history and did not predict the lack of warming in the last ten years.
Take a look at this:
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wrong/article10973.htm
From this article:
“Runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” Miskolczi states. Just as the theory of relativity sets an upper limit on velocity, his theory sets an upper limit on the greenhouse effect, a limit which prevents it from warming the Earth more than a certain amount.
How did modern researchers make such a mistake? They relied upon equations derived over 80 years ago, equations which left off one term from the final solution.
Miskolczi’s story reads like a book. Looking at a series of differential equations for the greenhouse effect, he noticed the solution — originally done in 1922 by Arthur Milne, but still used by climate researchers today — ignored boundary conditions by assuming an “infinitely thick” atmosphere. Similar assumptions are common when solving differential equations; they simplify the calculations and often result in a result that still very closely matches reality. But not always.
So Miskolczi re-derived the solution, this time using the proper boundary conditions for an atmosphere that is not infinite. His result included a new term, which acts as a negative feedback to counter the positive forcing. At low levels, the new term means a small difference ... but as greenhouse gases rise, the negative feedback predominates, forcing values back down.
NASA refused to release the results. Miskolczi believes their motivation is simple. “Money”, he tells DailyTech. Research that contradicts the view of an impending crisis jeopardizes funding, not only for his own atmosphere-monitoring project, but all climate-change research. Currently, funding for climate research tops $5 billion per year.
Miskolczi resigned in protest, stating in his resignation letter, “Unfortunately my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results.”
His theory was eventually published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal in his home country of Hungary.
The conclusions are supported by research published in the Journal of Geophysical Research last year from Steven Schwartz of Brookhaven National Labs, who gave statistical evidence that the Earth’s response to carbon dioxide was grossly overstated. It also helps to explain why current global climate models continually predict more warming than actually measured.
The equations also answer thorny problems raised by current theory, which doesn’t explain why “runaway” greenhouse warming hasn’t happened in the Earth’s past. The new theory predicts that greenhouse gas increases should result in small, but very rapid temperature spikes, followed by much longer, slower periods of cooling — exactly what the paleoclimatic record demonstrates.
BTW, there's nothing "simple" about climate science. It's extremely complex with hundreds of assumptions and variables built into it, which is the main reason why the IPCC's climate model is totally useless and riddled with errors.
It's very telling the way NASA suppressed Miskolczi's research. NASA chose to suppress his research because Miskolczi makes a strong case for an alternative climate model that contradicts the theory NASA is heavily invested in. The EPA also suppressed one of its own analysts who wrote a report concluding that any global warming in the climate history is not caused by human activity or CO2. Why do government agencies insist on suppressing alternative viewpoints held by qualified scientists? It's because the current climate models and global warming theory owned by NASA and EPA are filled with errors and false assumptions and did not predict the historical climate record.