Academic slams tyranny of the greens, page-70

"Hope this helps"?? It's irrelevant. 70% of Earth's surface is ocean. That's what drives the hydrological cycle (and see Wijffels in my last comment).

A given increase in CO2 results in a known increase in IR at surface (from memory, 3.7Wm-2 per doubled CO2). Some of that energy goes into surface temperature and some (quite a lot) into the hydrological cycle. The more the hydrological cycle increases, the less energy is available for raising temperature, ie climate sensitivity (CS) to CO2 is lower. That's why it's important. The models are coded incorrectly with too high a CS.

re "hind casting" : The models have so many tunable parameters, they can cover their deficiencies to match anything in the past. They don't know what caused the 20thC warming, but by assuming it's CO2 and using a high CS (unjustifiably high, as I have been pointing out) they can match it. What matters next is how well the models can predict the future. If they are right, they will predict temperature reasonably well (over a decade or more, not just a few individual years). If they are wrong, they will at some time overestimate temperature (depending on when the unknown natural factors change). The latter is already happening, and the overestimation has been quite significant over 2 decades - a temperature increase of (from memory) ~0.02 degC per decade vs predicted 0.2, a factor of ~10. The real world is proving the climate models are badly wrong, and I have explained why. Well, part of why.

I'm out of time, and away for the next few days. Please check everything I have said. There really is substantial evidence that the models badly overestimate.warming by CO2.