(06-19-2019, 09:42 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote:

(06-19-2019, 09:21 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: This is wrong in so many ways. CO2 absorbs and re-releases IR photons, it doesn't absorb heat. Roughly half of those are directed downward. The absorption of those adds to the temperature of the surface. The atmosphere is warmed by contact with the surface, not by CO2 absorption. The temperature effect of CO2 on the planet is logarithmic, not linear, because the effect decreases as the CO2 absorption bands are filled.

And if you read my post, I said that there was more water vapor. More water vapor in the atmosphere results in more clouds. Or maybe you think that clouds mostly form over deserts?  Note also that water vapor absorption bands overlap those of CO2, so the effect of more water vapor is partially negated. 

An A/C manual? Really? As if what effects interior air in a closed room is applicable in any way.

There is actual evidence of negative feedback in the tropics, where it has been measured that clouds form earlier on warm days. But like I said Climastrologists need positive feedback to create scary scenarios that justify the billions in annual funding. Without research funding a scientist will not keep a job, and scientists are not some special breed of humans. They have families to feed and mortgages to pay just like everyone else. Note that you were the one who brought up funding, so you'll have to live with the real world truths about funding and scientists.

C'mon man, you're arguing with the Arbiter of All Knowledge. We've done this dance a dozen times now on Global Warming; you can't win an argument when their position changes by the minute.