"The only question"? Do you have any idea how large cloud feedbacks are? The uncertainty injected by cloud albedo is a majority of the assumed 3.0C variation in prediction. :roll:
Moreover, with cloud development being so poorly understood, there is no way to extract CO2 contribution to paleo climate as a cause versus CO2 as an effect, let alone any sane guess at what the climate actually was. Until around 1960 or so there was practically no data on the entire southern hemisphere of the planet. Without sound paleo climate records, including the forcings that created those climates, let alone full global data before 1960, there is no rational way to conclude any "record" setting climates rtoday. THose who sell you that bull**** just count of you differing to them.
They absolutely are poorly guessed. The clue is the 3.0C of uncertainty. That is not the indicator of "well known" feedbacks. Tell, me, how do they model of paleo cloud albedo? (Hint: They Can't) :roll:
I'm just here pointing out the holes in the propaganda that you pretend makes your smarter.
Nothing you said there is true. In fact, it is pretty much the exact opposite. High altitude clouds reflect a lot of the sun's light before it can ever contribute to the planet's climate, and the high altitude means that there is little in the way of atmosphere to prevent it. These clouds are not what you would really consider clouds, we perceive them largely as how blue sky is. Thick low altitude clouds act as a blanket and trap heat at the surface, and at the top reflect solar energy back to the upper atmosphere which contributes to upper atmosphere heating.
Those you listen to claim no way to model high altitude clouds.. but for good reason, it is the one forcing model that could actually be tested in real time.
