No One Can Understand My Global Warming Argument

[Surface Detail]

All the model results in the world is minor compared to the empirical data.
The data simply does not support the high feedback factors required for ECS to be 3 C or higher.
It really comes down to just a few possibilities, ether the forcing factor for 2XCO2 is too high,
or the feedback factor it too high.
Since the forcing factor is somewhat more established science, I have to go with the feedback factor as what is too high.

The data supports it perfectly well. You just think it doesn't because you don't understand how feedback works.

 

[longview]

The data supports it perfectly well. You just think it doesn't because you don't understand how feedback works.

Show us your numbers, there is a printed .28 C of warming before 1950 from Hadcrut4.
The feedbacks have to treat that temperature perturbation exactly like the predicted temperature perturbation from added CO2.
If CO2 forcing for 2XCO2 is actually 3.71 Wm-2, there has also been about .47C of CO2 forcing since 1950.
Run the numbers, total warming .88 C less the pre 1950 warming of .28 C is .60 C, less the known forcing since 1950 of .47 C leaves .13 C.
Even without considering any other know factors, the feedback factor must be less than 1.27.

 

[Quaestio]

The data supports it perfectly well. You just think it doesn't because you don't understand how feedback works.

There really is no point in responding to any of his posts. It's the same thing over and over again for years on this forum. He ignores everything that contradicts his uneducated views, and just keeps on playing with "numbers" he doesn't have a clue about. He's doesn't learn because he doesn't want to learn.

 

[longview]

There really is no point in responding to any of his posts. It's the same thing over and over again for years on this forum. He ignores everything that contradicts his uneducated views, and just keeps on playing with "numbers" he doesn't have a clue about. He's doesn't learn because he doesn't want to learn.

Please show where the numbers I am using and how I am using them are incorrect?
The only way for a 2XCO2 forcing of 1.1 C to become an ECS of 3 C, is to have an amplification factor of 2.72.
We have a known temperature perturbation, before 1950.
We have a known level of CO2 forcing since 1950.
The difference between the temperature rise between 1950 decade average and the current decade average,
contains all the feedbacks and forcing s, both known and unknown.
Subtracting out the known forcing's, leaves us with what remains.
I have only subtracted out CO2's forcing's, and that does not leave enough unaccounted for warming for and ECS of 3 C.
If you think you can show otherwise, then please do so.