Did you inject sunlight in the Gibbs energy and others?
We're speaking of a system out of equilibrium essentially, with visible light received and far IR emitted. Are you trying to apply some law for equilibrium?
The climate scientists assume Total solar irradiance to be constant (despite the solar forcing rapidly oscillating as the earth rotates)
Their calculations are based on the notion the the earth is in a state of Equilibrium prior to CO2 being added. However they are not applying Gibbs/le Chatelier’s and just assuming that positive feedback will occur. From a chemical perspective that doesn’t make any sense to me.
From what I can see the theory has been a case of the tail waging the dog.
The causal chains appears thus
Evidence of ice ages where the cause was unknown.
Correlation of CO2 and temp in ice cores, Assumption the CO2 drives temp, ignoring Henrys law.
CO2 was found to produce insufficient forcing, so assumption of positive feedback causing CO2 to have large effect. Ignoring Gibbs free energy minimisation, where the null assumption would be negative feedback.
It appears they assumed relative humidity remains constant, despite radiosonde observation showing that wasn’t the case at the time of theory formulation.
They also predicted stratospheric warming, which they reversed when it was found to be cooling, even though a cooling stratosphere would drive an increasing lapse rate (energy potential between bottom and top of stratosphere.
All the observations of temperature and humidity show no evidence of positive feedback.
That should in my opinion falsify the theory.