So ECS 2 °C was lowered to 1.5°C because of the Ott study you posted...but it did not meet the criteria for being the "best" because...
And I said...
Speaking of obtuse...it appears that you're either ignoring or didn't bother to read my post at all. In that case, I'll take that as your concession.
So you concede that the 2°C you mentioned as part of the lowering of the range is not the 2°C best estimate from the study.
FYI the lack of agreement was between empirical data and modeled data, I tend to give more value to the observed data.
All of this still supports may original comment that the data supports the lower end of the IPCC prediction.
As to the other observations, you cited, everything in AGW is predicated on the predictions of CO2 sensitivity being correct,
and most require the mid to high end of the range.
But let's go through your list.
ice core samples: what about them?
melting ice packs: the ice has been receding for 12,000 years, is there enough data to say if the rate has changed?
methane: methane is an organic process, and has been going on since before Humans existed, has the rate changed?
rising sea waters: If you read much about sea level, the rates are fairly constant, most of the recent acceleration is due to a switch to lower accuracy satellite data.
extreme weather patterns: perhaps, but most likely better reporting of world event, the US has been very calm.
and no the reason the studies were not in agreement is likely that the models used incorrect assumptions for CO2 sensitivity.
