I removed 1-6 because they negate/balance each other.
No they don't, they reinforce each other. Here they are again:
1. The earth as a grey-body emits over a range of frequencies in long-wave radiation.
2. Some of the gasses in the earths atmosphere are predicted, and observed, to absorb long-wave radiation across certain bands. We call these gasses greenhouse gasses.
3. That energy is predicted, and observed, to be stored as kinetic energy - IE Heat energy.
4. The conservation of mass predicts that for every kilogram of carbon burned four kilograms of carbon dioxide are produced.
5. The conservation of mass also predicts that every kilogram of carbondioxide put in the atmosphere stays in the atmosphere until it is removed (usually by natural processes)
6. The conservation of energy predicts that energy stored by the atmosphere is retained by the atmosphere until it is released by the atmosphere in some form.
1. Means that as the earth gets warmer, the total amount of energy emitted increases, as does, as I recall, the amount emitted in the long-wave raditation bands that greenhouse gasses absorb increases until a certain point where the earth emits more radiation in regions where the atmosphere is transparent. There is only one way of increasing the amount of outgoing radiation, and that is increasing the amount of incoming radiation (because the black-body law predicts the two are balanced). There are two ways of increasing the radiation received at the surface - increasing the amount of insolation, or increasing the amount of radiation emitted in all directions by the atmosphere.
Earth achieves a balanced radiation budget -> Humans burn carbon which produces carbon dioxide -> Carbon dioxide produced by humans stays in the atmosphere until it is removed (mostly by the ocean) -> Increasing carbon dioxide levels increase the amount of longwave radiation stored by the atmosphere as thermal energy -> The thermal energy stays in green house gasses until it is transferred to non-greenhouse gasses or re-emitted -> energy absorbed by non-greenhouse gasses is stored until it is transfered back to greenhouse gasses -> Atmosphere warms -> long-wave radiation emitted by greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere increases -> total radiation received by the earths surface increases -> Earths surface warms until the incoming matches the outgoing -> Earth acheives a balanced radiation budget.
Perhaps you could explain to the rest of us where exactly they "negate/balance each other" rather than glibly dismissing it?
How does Beer-Lambert apply during the various warmings/coolings during this (and past) interglacials/glacials. After all, they are a part of 'climate norms'. *note as I understand it, no 2 glacials/interglacials are exactly alike
Simple. We start with the milankovich cycles. Conservation of energy predicts that decreasing the amount of solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere decreases the total amount of radiation received at the surface. Black body radiation predicts that decreasing the total amount of radiation received at the surface lowers the earths temperature and reduces the amount of radiation emitted by the surface. The beer-lambert law predicts that as the amount of incident radiation decreases, so must the amount of radiation absorbed. As the amount of radiation absorbed by the atmosphere decreases, so does its temperature. As the earth cools, its albedo starts to increase. As its albedo increases, blackbody radiation predicts that the proportion of radiation reflected increases and the amount of radiation emitted decreases. This effect also decreases the incident radiation seen by atmospheric carbon-dioxide with the same consequences as a result of the beer-lambert law.
Beer-Lambert applied during the hiatus/slowdown with an approx 13% rise in co2. Wait. Beer-lambert didnt work in observation as predicted on paper.
The observation is correct, the conclusion drawn from it is wrong. The conclusion you have drawn is flawed in that it completely ignores, for example, this:
The prediction of these eight points, the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, is that we expect to see a generalized warming trend over long time scales super imposed on top of natural climate cycles.
su·per·im·pose transitive verb \ˌsü-pər-im-ˈpōz\
: to place or lay (something) over something else
: to place or lay over or above something <superimposed images>
Merriam-webster
superimpose
Line breaks: super|im¦pose
Pronunciation: /ˌsuːp(ə)rɪmˈpəʊz, ˌsjuː-/
verb
[with object]
Place or lay (one thing) over another, typically so that both are still evident:
Oxford
What you're doing here is introducing (or at least trying to) the denier fallacy I alluded to in my previous post.
Your conclusion is wrong because:
The hypothesis of anthropogenic warming does not predict that anthropogenic warming somehow magically supplants natural climate cycles, but rather, it predicts that anthropogenic warming acts in addition to the natural climate cycles, reducing the impact of cooling phases and exaggerating the impact of warming ones.
... If I have two functions, one of which is linear and monotonicly increasing - f(a), the other of which varies as a wave and has positive and negative phases - f(b), then the total function, f(c) where f(c)=f(a)+f(b) is going to display an overal positive, linear, monotonic trend when considered over a long enough period, however, it's also going to show, over shorter periods, areas with an exaggerated slope, and areas where the slope is negative, approximately zero, or only very slightly positive, depedning on the difference between the first derivatives of the two functions.
The only thing implied by the current hiatus is that something is removing thermal energy from the atmosphere at approximately the same rate that increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 13% put it there, or, something has reduced the total amount of radiation reaching the earths surface by that amount. Yes, there are well known exceptions, for example turbid scattering, however, turbid scattering in the atmosphere is a consequence of aerosols and dust, which are a good way of reducing the incident radiation at the surface.
The Beer-Lambert law was originally forumlated in 1729. In the 285 years since it was first formulated it has been tested millions of times by chemistry students around the world. Not just chemistry students - every time a commercial laboratory does a colourmetric test for an analyte, they're testing the beer-lambert law.
Earth’s comfort temperature range, is being controlled by something a whole lot more influential than atmospheric CO2.
By this I presume you mean that big glowy thing in the sky, the massive natural thermonuclear reactor which weighs more than the rest of the solar system combined. While yes, it's true that without the big massive glowy thing in the sky the temperature of the earth would be 3k, it's also true that the properties of the atmosphere raise the average temperature from something like -20 or -15, and the only way to correctly predict the temperature of the earth is to account for the heat energy absorbed and retained by the earth's atmosphere.
But hey, if you don't think changing the composition of your bedding influences how warm it keeps you, then feel free to go camping in the arctic with a pair of cotton sheets to keep you warm, I'm sure everything will work out fine.