Bored.Wombat

I get about 0.7 K for an increase of 3.7 W/m^2 to a black body at about 288K. (Maybe you're talking degrees Fahrenheit?) No, the IPCC doesn't estimate anything. What the IPCC do is organise scientists to collate the findings of climate science into a report every few years, to help with policy making the world over. This is wrong. The main leg of AGW theory would be the greenhouse effect. Water vapour amplification is certainly measured, but it's not a critical aspect of the physics. Which part do you claim has not been demonstrated? That absolute humidity increases when it gets warmer, or that H2O is a greenhouse gas? Quite. I wasn't aware that there was an "AGW standard theory". When I put that phrase into google scholar, I see why: Your search - "AGW standard theory" - did not match any articles. The term doesn't exist in the scientific literature. Can you be a bit more clear about what you are trying to say "requires that clouds be feedbacks of temperature and never a forcing"? You are misunderstanding what a feedback is. For a positive feedback, both the first and the second part must be true. This way the temperature increase causes clearer skies, which in turn causes further warming. Hence "feedback". If cloud cover were to be a forcing, it would be controlled by some aspect independent of the temperature (such as GCRs as proposed by Henrik Svensmark) that independently cause a warming (or cooling). Yes, it can be a combination. GCRs seem to be responsible for about 3% of the variation in cloud cover, so clouds are mostly feedback, but perhaps (and the literature is mixed on this) partly a vector for GCR forcing. (Note though, that there is not trend in GCRs over the last 100 years, so while they may be responsible for some of the variation in temperature that we are observing they cannot be responsible for the warming trend).