I didn't say anything about additional H20 and I don't have a theory.
What is fact is that the absorbance of solar radiation of CO2 is a base 2 logarithm, and that each doubling of [CO2] would add 2.2W/m/m to the system. The sun delivers ~1300W/m/m and fluctuates by something like 0.1% on a daily basis. The fluctuation alone equates to ~10% of the effect of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. Statistically, the effect of increased [CO2] is insignificant.
With respect to the 'additional planetary heating', it is well-known that the last ice age, when people were ice-skating on the Thames, wasn't that long ago. The earth has warmed since then. Also, it would be base to ignore the urban heat island effect and, when considering recent Oz temps, the recent volcanic eruption in the Pacific. The ABC, which is on board with the alarmist narrative, stated that this eruption would disrupt the climate for up to 7 years. If so, they should refrain from labelling any extreme local temperatures as AGW for another 5 years or so. It would be lovely if they did!
The fact that the IPCC admits to the uncertainty of the effect of clouds on the system (because the whole system is chaotic) should be a red flag flying against EVERY SINGLE ONE of their computer models. The fact that they have so many computer models, and are unwilling to choose one or even just a few, should be another. On average, clouds cover ~70% of the earth on any given day. You've felt the cooling effect of cloud cover during the day and the warming effect of cloud cover at night. This should be another red flag.
I'm not here to argue. I'm not here for political reasons. I'm here because throughout high school, I believed the AGW narrative. It wasn't until I got a taste for chem in uni that I took interest in the alarmist viewpoint and found it seriously wanting.
