AGW theory proposes that a new equilibrium is set at a higher surface temperature when GHGs increase but a new equilibrium cannot be set because any such proposed new equilibrium would permanently upset the balance between the upward pressure gradient force and the downward force of gravity.
Either the atmosphere would expand indefinitely (if the net effect of GHGs is warming) and be lost to space or it would contract indefinitely (if the net effect of GHGs is cooling) and fall to the ground as a congealed solid.
The net effect on hydrostatic balance at any given level of insolation by the radiative effects of GHGs must be zero...
Extend the logic to realise that they mediate the climate response to everything that would otherwise serve to disrupt hydrostatic equilibrium. So, one can concede that human emissions might affect global air circulation patterns INSTEAD OF changing surface temperatures but due to the vastly greater effects of solar and oceanic variability we could never notice or measure it.
Extend the logic to realise that they mediate the climate response to everything that would otherwise serve to disrupt hydrostatic equilibrium.
So, one can concede that human emissions might affect global air circulation patterns INSTEAD OF changing surface temperatures but due to the vastly greater effects of solar and oceanic variability we could never notice or measure it.