You may have forgot about daytime. Here is a fun experiment for you. All you need is a thermometer. You can get almost instaneous results. Measure the temperature is full bright sun at noon, then move into a shadow cast by a cloud and measure the temperature again. Report back.
You may have forgot about addressing the basic point already made. From the variability of cloud and no cloud, comes the variable positive and variable negative feedback effects.
half life around 5 to 10 years maybe. An estimate for the amount of anthropomorphic CO2 in the air at any time is around 30% of total but we can't observe it directly because the amount of CO2 from natural sourcing and sinking is three orders greater and these are not perfectly balanced. If they were perfectly balanced of course we could easily observe the anthro contribution because we'd see it against a constant background. But we can't. We can estmate though. We have only had accurate CO2 concentration reading for the past 50 years. Everything before that is from proxy.
It is a single molecule of CO2 which has a half life around 5-10 years, not the effect of atmospheric CO2, which once put in the atmosphere carries its effects for hundreds of years. Pump more and more in decade after decade and there is no proper reason to assume those effects will not last longer and longer.
Certainly man made CO2 contribution can be measured and it is. Natural sourcing and sinking balances have nothing to do with it. The measurement of carbon isotopes over the last 150 years gives a clear picture of human CO2 contributions. You must surely know that. You may deny it but I'm sure you know it.
I think vertical convection is . It's virtually instantaneous compared to other mechanisms.and there is about 30 degrees of cooling associated with it. I'll look it up for you, it might only be about 20 degrees. Oops, my mistake it is more than 60 deg of cooling.
There is no new or "special" science about atmospheric movements in the vertical direction. Clouds develop from that convection. Whether developing comparatively fast or slow, they are having an almost insignificant effect when compared against those effects found from natural and artificial CO2 emissions. As already pointed out, cloud tends to balance between negative cooling and positive warming feedback. All the (scientific) evidence there is does however point towards an overall positive feedback balance not a negative one .
Introducing stuff already known then emphasizing elements of it to dramatize some so called new findings which aren't new and don't find support in basic scientific fact, is agenda driven rhetoric not science .
That something we agree on, but only up to a point. You might be interested to know that the effect of adding more CO2 decreases with each addition to the point that by 600 ppm there is almost no measurable effect of adding more. Actually there is no measurable effect at any concentration. Its effect, in the atmosphere, has to be calculated, it can't be measured directly. You could do it in the lab though. (see the link to Salby's London talk I gave jem.)
Funnily enough, I am not interested to know that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere decreases its effects, because then you are saying the science you just agreed with, is not the science you just agreed with!
The saturation argument is too old and too ridiculous and has been debunked so many times, it is quite frankly too absurd for you to trawl it up yet again.
Perhaps your infatuation with Salby is simply skewing your own better judgement.
