Lazar, thanks for telling us your work, because it shows why you place too much emphasis on radiative physics.
Are you aware that radiative transfer is responsible for only a small portion of the warming forecast by the IPCC?
Anybody with a vague understanding of physics should know that increasing CO2, in isolation, will of course result in higher average temperature.
Now please explain why we should hysterically respond to the full monte prediction, rather than the mild warming forecast by radiative transfer alone?
Then perhaps you should elucidate on why the following shouldn’t give us pause in accepting the alarmist predictions:
low model temporal and geometric resolution
high noise level in paleoclimatic data
inability of GCM’s to reasonably forecast weather beyond 5 days, and how those same (or similar) GCM’s are used for climate sensitivity studies.
lack of understanding of positive and negative feedbacks in the climate system
inability of models to reasonably predict cloud droplet size, a far more important radiative transfer parameter than CO2 concentration
inability of GCM’s to model convective processes, which are the primary heat engines of the atmosphere
the poor track record so far of CO2 alarmist temperature predictions compared to actual temperatures
the failure of the “warming signature” to appear
the adjustments to Hansen’s temperature istory which dramatically violates statistical expectations in their constant increases in global warming tendencies of temperature record over the same past periods
the fact that many major climate scientists have been going public with their objections to the alarmist predictions, and the fact that those skeptics are the people well enough established as to be invulnerable to loss of tenure or grants
the reported funding of Hansen’s publicity by George Soros
the fact that the earth is a nonlinear dynamic system (read: feedback, chaos, immense complexity) but your analysis is based on radiative physics, a very simplistic part of the system.
———
Here’s my take: AGW will probably happen and may have happened. It will not be a big danger. The threat of premature over-reaction to the possibility of AGW (as opposed to many other dangers mankind faces) is much greater than the threat of AG.
