I'm not making mistakes. I'm fully cognizant of the equilibrium, radiation balance, etc. I consider those as negative feedbacks--losses that rise with temperature--in full force. Without those it runs away, as you just stated.
Bill has often posited doomsday runaway warming feeding on itself, ending life on earth. It's silly.
That is just one of the negative feedbacks to which I've referred, explicitly mentioned as a loss that increases with temperature. That's a negative feedback. Trees gobbling more CO2 than expected as--a result of increased temperature--is another. Just discovered, it can't have been in the models heretofore.
But you're assuming this in isolation. It's true in and of itself, but there are myriad mitigating (and aggravating) phenomena yet to be even explored.
To wit we have the trees behaving in a previously unknown way, in fact opposite to what was thought. Another could be clouds, or myriad others.
We don't know what we don't know, yet the climastrological predictions assume we *do*. But, those self-same models have not predicted and did not predict current temps. They were wrong.
The ultimate backstop is, though, that once upon a time all this carbon was in the air, and the Earth thrived. So it's NOT a disaster.
Oh FFS, AGW posits ~3w/m^2 added farcing[sic] due to anthropogenic factors, that this accumulates, and warms the planet. Can we not say that without getting into the particulars of the alleged magical factors and processes?
That's just one example of where AGW could do some good. Washington D.C. was originally a swamp anyhow, and it pretty much is again.
Oh that's silly. And it's silly to call climate simulation 'science.' Where's the testable hypothesis? The models? That's a giant pile of computerized supposition--the source code's on the web.
Good, we've got nothing to worry about then.
I've done no such thing--why on earth would I waste time on such a boring, useless pursuit? The hysterics are obsessed with it, I don't give a fig.
One of the modelers *himself* told me that cloud uncertainty by itself overwhelmed the alleged anthropogenic fraction, and this after I'd figured it out myself.
Now that's a reasonable, clear assertion. Refreshing. I don't agree, because the many features of a living earth make the fact it's surrounded by vacuum not the point--what matters is how a living planet responds in a hundred different ways, including flora, fauna, albedo, human-kind, agriculture, human behavior (except Bill Sloman, who just uses more), etc. What matters is how the planet modulates its absorption, reflection, and re-radiation, extremely complex processes.
Sorry to say it isn't progress, I've held that view right along. I'm simply being rigorous--many claims are being made that aren't supported by the evidence, and in many cases are contradicted.
When I looked at the source code for one of the models it was, frankly, somewhat of a joke. You've chastised me for oversimplification in discussion, but my license taken can't hold a candle to the models themselves.
I think the ancient history precludes a catastrophe. I certainly believe we're warming, and that CO2 contributes minutely. Other human activities offset or augment (e.g. cities, agriculture, carbon soot on snow, air-borne particulates, dust). We don't know Nature's many responses, and IIRC the models assume static vegetation.
If we truly knew the net of those, then 5 and 10-year old projections would've projected today's actual conditions, cloud models would reliably project the size, density, altitude, reflectance, and location of clouds, etc. But they didn't and don't. I don't know why that's so hard to admit.
It's a DESERT.
Absolutely unsupportable. I was told expressly by one of the modelers they are *not* suitable, that they become decorrelated with observed conditions within a fairly short span, They may
I'd have a lot more respect and confidence in climate-types if they weren't so patently, obviously pushing for a particular result, selectively reporting, and insisting on certitude they can't support.
Bill, Gore, and Obama think we should all be using solar, yet none of them do, and they all consume vastly more fossil fuel than the rest of us.
Cheers, James Arthur