these are the scenarios for testing the logarithmic function it proves the in vivo difference: warmer more agitated air will absorb far more Co2 than in vitro testing shows. and the hotter the air the more GHG increase the temperature.
Just to be clear, CO2 doesn't need any help to enter the system. CO2 isn't a solute, just as air isn't a solution. Air is a mixture. The absorbance of solar radiation by CO2 isn't a function of temperature.
Adjusting the sensitivity of the models to CO2 has nothing whatsoever to do with [CO2]. It is an arbitrary adjustment that artificially enhances the sensitivity of the system. ie, the models are tweaked to be more sensitive to CO2 at every level of concentration.
There is no proposed mechanism as to why or how the log function of absorbance of radiation by CO2 might be altered from the observed logarithmic function.
I don't know how you've come to perceive that I'm in any way agitated, Scott. I'm sorry if I've come across that way...
