That's what the textbook says. The distinction between feedbacks and forcings is a largely arbitrary adoption to ease calculation and prediction of an extremely complex physical system. It's the same reason that water vapour and clouds are treated as entirely independent variables as well. In an ideal world with unlimited CPU power, we'd just simulate water vapour molecules and their energy would dictate their state and clouds would form naturally. We lack the CPU power so we've broken them apart to something we attempt to simulate. The problem is they ALL interact in a complicated way and verifying predictions on something with that many dials is hard. It makes plasma physics models look trivial, simplistic and basically fool proof. In practice, how many plasma physicists have great confidence in a generalized simulation of a brand new, never before tried plasma configuration? Until they can build a parallel real world machine and match variables, they have very little confidence. Without fail, they constantly need to revise the models after comparing to real world models. That is in a plasma, where we KNOW, with great certainty, the rules of interaction between all the particles in the box.

What does that have to do with the overall contribution of water vapour to the greenhouse effect? Well, it means that we shouldn't downplay or dismiss that water vapour, at any given moment, is responsible for trapping 60%+ of the radiation that is captured by the greenhouse effect. Simply classifying it as an integer feedback also includes a laundry list of assumptions about it's behaviour that we have no reason to believe is true. The most glaring of which being cloud formation and the inherent complexity of predicting it.

When we agree that our simulations of water vapour feedback(complete with clouds) has a lot of uncertainty I think that's important. Sure, in models it's a feedback and when we run a model, we can get good results with that feedback dial really small. That hardly seems to me a compelling argument that we've definitively shown it is bounded by that. If you try and model a plasma, and you can get it all working really well modelling only your electrons, you've done great work. You can not claim though that adding an equal number of ions is now easily predictable and you know the bounds of how it will alter your plasma. That's a bad joke, but a lot climate advocates too far away from the modelling layer seem to try and tell it straight faced as proven fact :(.

There is a difference between long lived and persistent. CO2 that enters the atmosphere will stay there much longer, sure. Water vapor will only stay a couple of days, sure. Despite water vapor leaving the atmosphere so quickly though, it's also entering the atmosphere as quickly as it leaves. It's impact and effect on absorption of radiation thus persistently accounts for 60% of all GHG absorption and CO2 less than half that according to the American Geological society.

The people changing the climate now is every living soul on this rock. More importantly, the distinction is that the activity currently dumping CO2 into the atmosphere is in absolutely no way being done with the intention or purpose of engineering the climate. Flying planes, driving cars, raising cattle, planting crops, breathing in oxygen are all just activities people are doing in order to survive. The fact they dump CO2 into the atmosphere is secondary. The step of consciously acting to alter climate, with maximum affect as best as we understand how to for the express purpose of altering the climate is distinctly different.

The area of South Korea is 100,210 km squared.
The area of New York is 141,300 km squared.

The population of South Korea is 51,302,044.
The population of New York is 19,651,127.

So forget comparisons between America and South Korea. Even the state of New York is spread over a large part of the globe, and with half as many people as South Korea. Why is South Korean internet less expensive? Because per mile of fiber, and per cell tower, and every other piece of infrastructure South Korea has more customers to divide the costs over. And that's just compared to New York. Montana and Texas are just right out there on cost per person.

Citation needed, by all appearances EDF was still turning a profit in 2013. It looks like some of their foreign holdings outside of Europe are problematic for them, but that just goes to show their core business of selling nuclear power to Europeans is profitable enough to offset losses from other investments. Hardly a condemnation of the economics of nuclear power.

As for 'free market solutions' I hadn't realized that when we discussed emissions reductions that a solution must be rejected because it is or is not capitalist enough in nature.

The people of France and Europe are paying less for electricity generated with nuclear power. How else do I have to phrase that before you'll stop insisting it is impossible? It doesn't matter what kind market situations and various problems you can concoct about how challenging or impossible a task it is to accomplish. It has none the less been accomplished and won't cease to exist for all your insistences against it.

You bring to mind a quote.
Never let those who say a thing can't be done get in the way of those that are doing it.
France produces more than 50% of it's electricity through nuclear and has some of the lowest electricity prices in Europe. It even exports large volumes of electricity to it's neighbours.

You bring to mind a quote.
Never let those who say a thing can't be done get in the way of those that are doing it.
France produces more than 50% of it's electricity through nuclear and has some of the lowest electricity prices in Europe. It even exports large volumes of electricity to it's neighbours.

Not only are multi-year trends important, also energy imbalance is more important then temperature. The entire greenhouse effect is about the global energy imbalance and temperature is just a proxy measure of that.
We've been measuring that energy imbalance by satellite for a few decades now and seen a net of more in than out, as expected.
Here is a big trick though, that imbalance should also be growing as we dump more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. Or more importantly, the degree to which our activity affects the trend of that Imbalance is important to our long term impact. The IPCC notes from the satellite record, with very high confidence, that since 2001 there has been no trend to the global energy imbalance. If you also look at projected and actual temperatures in the latest IPCC report, measured temp is tracking the very low end of projections, which show pretty manageable temperature changes for the next hundred years.
So there is a scientific consensus under all this. The planet is warming. We are contributing. No need to panic yet though as the severity of our impact is still under investigation and there are many reasons to believe that adaptation may be worlds more efficient than large scale forced and rapid emissions reductions.

You first. If you'd tried taking your own advice you'd have found we don't have nearly a century of data for TSI, we've got only about 30 years of direct measurements.

And if you really want to look at what matters, it should be net energy in and out globally instead of temperature. The IPCC's latest report summarizes the results of our satellite measurement of exactly that, observing it is unlikely any trend exists since 2000 in global top of the atmosphere radiation flux. They don't explain the justification though between this and the later claim that total radiative forcing has steadily increased over that time. The difference is methodology, in that the calculation for total radiative forcing appears to be a summation of measurements of various gas concentrations over that time. Nobody seems to be bothered, worried or interested though in the fact that the directly measured real net forcing doesn't match expectations...

But nevermind the complexity and nuance, as Ban Ki-Moon has said, "Science has spoken!". You don't ask questions when a deity has spoken directly to you and given you direction...

Before implementing a global carbon tax maybe the IPCC predictions should be looked at more closely, no?

The IPCC first assessment report(still available on their site) had temperature projections that we can compare today to see how they match reality nearly 25 years later. Take a look for yourself, and they clearly predict a warming of 0.5C from 1990 temperatures by 2014 IF CO2 emissions remained frozen at 1990 levels. So, sort of their best case scenario. In reality, CO2 emissions have steadily climbed much, much higher than 1990 levels. Today's temperatures though sit at a warming of 0.4C higher than 1990 levels.

The IPCC more recent third assessment from 2001 has much improved projections, and we can again compare them to reality 15 years out. The 2001 assessment has error bars included and a decade more research and refining behind it. If you compare it as well, you see today's temperatures DO fit within the error bars projected 15 years ago by the IPCC, albeit barely. Of course, they are way, way down on the lowest end of the error bars.

What the above tells me is that reality has shown the IPCC has consistently been overestimating the amount of warming to be expected. In other words, the science says don't panic just yet.

Switching to electric cars and nuclear power are a good idea regardless of CO2 emissions, so we should push forwards with them. If for no other reason than they are simply better and cheaper if we invest in them properly. A massive reduction in CO2 emissions that comes with it is entirely secondary as a side benefit. Really, less coal smoke and exhaust fumes are probably the bigger win. Particularly in places like China were even seeing the sun is become rare indeed.

You'll find the relevant IPCC First report here. You're looking for page 336 of the PDF for the temperature predictions. If you go the USGISS sources you can get the measured global average's and see temperature has gone up about 0.4C from 1990 till now. The IPCC report from 1990, even with a freezing of emissions at 1990 levels predicted 0.5C. Regrettably no error bars on the work back then though. The 2001 IPCC third assessment though is almost 15 years old now so a reasonable test as well. It additionally has error bars on the predictions. Thus far 2014 falls at the very bottom end, but still just barely warm enough to stay within the error bars. Although, we would need to have had nearly 0 temp increase through till 2020 to actually get outside the error bars. Observation though clearly shows that even the more recent 2001 predictions are so far very, very much on the high end.

Don't just wave your arms around and claiming I'm lying. The data's plain as day there you just have to be sure to watch that temperature anomalies are constantly being referenced against different years so you have to make sure you adjust correctly for that linear shift to the predictions/measurements.

The IPCC results have not been "very accurate", The First IPCC assessment made temperature projections based on multiple emissions scenarios. ALL the scenarios predicted temperatures much warmer than today for 2014. Even the scenarios based on us freezing emissions at 1990 levels. The results are still posted on the IPCC site so go right ahead and confirm for yourself if you don't believe me.

Now, sure, the IPCC temperature estimates in reports since then have steadily revised down the temperature predictions for 2014. Don't tell me that is because their methods have improved that much though, their projections for 2014 got better and better as 2014 got closer and closer, but the projections out to 2050 and 2100 haven't changed nearly as much. We need a prediction that actually gets things right 15 years later before claiming accuracy. Right now a terribly naive pure math trend analysis on temp from 1880-1990 gives a result as accurate as the IPCC projections from 1990. When your complex and advanced model doesn't fare any better than a highschool level pure math trend projection you don't get to claim high accuracy.

Which is an argument from pure and total ignorance. We are able to look at and manipulate the DNA of our crops and farm animals. We are able to see the random mutations we've selected for in the past, we can see the specific mutations we select for currently. From EVERYTHING we know and everything we can see the sole difference is whether we select mutations based on randomness or not, and the end results are exactly the same.

Despite having no known reason for there to be a difference, despite all current accumulated knowledge showing the working mechanisms to be absolutely identical, you want to insist that there is still much greater risk.

This is madness akin to refusing a different path to work than normal for fear of possible world shaking consequence. This is akin to fear of putting the left sock on first instead of the right. This is akin to knowing my magical rock that keeps away tigers should never be given up because so far it's always worked and we wouldn't want to risk getting eaten by a tiger.

More succinctly, your insistence is far more akin to superstition than science.

All I can read in your response is that you don't understand what it actually means and that scares you.

Here's the difference between the old and new. In both cases, a seed supplier wants to find a seed with round-up resistance.

The thousands of years old method: Supplier plants thousands of acres of the original seed and sprays each crop with roundup. They take the few surviving plants as seeds for the next round. After several years of this spraying and selecting process hopefully they get a seed that largely survives the round-up through some random unknown mutation.

The new method: Supplier identifies the working mechanism of round-up on a plant, and modifies ONLY the genes that are needed to survive being sprayed with round-up.

The new method will yield a plant with DNA that, line for line, has MORE in common with the original non-resistant seed than the thousands year old approach. But sure, with no evidence to back you up, we should believe that the new method is radically and dangerously different and worse than what has been safely improving our lives for thousands of years.