Aiden says
"Sliggy, the coolant is a metaphor. The point is, increasing the temperature of the coolant flowing in would reduce its ability to absorb heat, even though once it's hotter it would indeed radiate out more heat"
Aiden says
To put it in more general terms, every engineer should know that any change that reduces a dynamic system's ability to lose heat cools it.
While it could simply be said that CO2 increases the systems ability to lose heat. It is better with your metaphor to point out that engineers will introduce a nonlinear feedback regulator to stabilise a dynamic system. In an internal combustion vehicle this nonlinear regulator device is the thermostat. If CO2 truly has a nonlinear reducing warming effect as the IPCC says it does then driving the atmospheric level up forces the system into the operating range of this thermostat.
However if the sun is causing the warming and CO2 causes cooling then we also need to drive the level up. Likewise if the solar decline is going to cause cooling and CO2 causes warming then we need to drive the levels up. The planet has survived the increase to 400PPM well, so not driving the level up beyond saturation as it has been in the distant past seems to be a risk not worth taking.

Alan B says
"on an overcast night, increased humidity equates to higher temperatures, thanks to the thermal blanket that is atmospheric moisture"
The extra cloud, the water vapour produced as CO2 helped to reverse desertification and end world hunger in your example, would reduce temperatures via albedo. A win win. Yet another reason to drive CO2 levels up.
If want a 50MW thoruim reactor right now are there any working for a year or two without problems?

I feel that Malcolm Roberts may be a little too exhuberent in delivering his message, even verging on some exagerrations, but on the other hand some noted alarmist scientists have openly declared that it is OK to exaggerate in order to get their beliefs out to the to the public. It has worked quite well for them, for instance take this opening line from the article above:

“…Guardian Australia's environmental reporter Michael Slezak, could have sought expert advice…”

Sleszaks online article opens with the compulsory photo of BACKLIT menacing looking “smoke contamination” billowing from a bunch of WATER COOLING TOWERS and grinds on with other grossly misleading exaggerations, and omits important contrary information. This prompted me to email him; transcript follows with links rather than images:

“Dear Mr Slesak,
Re your article online,
Could you please clarify a couple of points.

1), WRT the following headline photo:
http://tinyurl.com/jzr3qb3

Are you aware that that menacing looking backlit “black smoke” is actually condensing water vapour from water cooling towers?
2), Why did you not show one of the satellite data sets which contradict the highly adjusted (AKA as homogenised) data from GISS (NASA)? Here is the UAH version (RSS is similar):
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2016_v6.jpg
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

The UK Met office data (not shown by you)
https://crudata.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT4.png
is less extreme in its adjustments than GISS and is also contradicted by UAH and RSS which clearly show a plateau in warming since around 1997 (and the spike from the 2015/16 El Nino; a natural event; is rapidly diminishing).
3), A colleague of mine tells me that he raised half a dozen comments mentioning like things but is currently only able to find one surviving. Now why would that be?

Me? I’ve been thoroughly turned off by the lack of balance at The Guardian and don’t visit anymore.

Yours sincerely,
Bob Fernley-Jones, (mechanical engineer retired, Melbourne)”

Continued:

Perhaps the grand oracles of doom here, (apparently all devoid of any scientific training) might care to open the HadCrut4 global surface temperature graph and note that the 1998 El Nino boldly stands out. However, in contradiction it has disappeared in Slezak’s GISS presentation. It is being more quietly whittled away by the Met Office too, for instance check their earlier HadCrut3 version. Meanwhile both RSS and UAH satellite data show 1998 as inconveniently very proud indeed.

Alan B,

It is well known that water vapour is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. But the amount of H2O in our atmosphere is self limiting because it condenses into clouds. The slight warming effect from CO2 and other greenhouse gases results in more H2O being held in the atmosphere in vapour form. So H2O's main effect is to amplify the warming rather than cause it in the first place. Although there are concerns regarding aircraft emissions of H2O in the stratosphere, particularly at night.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Sliggy,

Don't forget we're only influencing the climate – we don't have the ability to actually control it!

Your "operating range of this thermostat" comment makes no sense at all. Climatologists know for sure that CO2 has a warming effect, amplified by H2O.

CO2 in the thermosphere has a cooling effect on the thermosphere and a warming effect on everything else, as the thermosphere's heat comes from solar energy and particles from space interacting with particles in the thermosphere. But as the thermosphere holds only 0.002% of the gas in the atmosphere, its effect on overall temperatures is negligible.

Aidan,

And the proven lies you believe don't fit your prejudices? You live and breath crap, you Marxist fool.