It's also important to note that, notwithstanding the billions spent on this nonsense, the ECS range remains fundamentally the same as it was 40 years ago when it was launched. Thus, even accepting their approach (rather than yours), how is it that they've not been able to better refine their estimates, even though they play at it constantly?
"It is generally accepted that the direct warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is small, only about one degree per doubling of CO2,[3] so the debate is all about the feedbacks, especially cloud feedback to the greenhouse gas warming.[4]"
As such, it constitutes a critique accepting the starting parameters, which your post questions. The FN reference #3 is based on a 1979 report: Charney, J., Arakawa, A., Baker, D., Bolin, B., Dickinson, R., Goody, R., . . . Wunsch, C. (1979). Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academies Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/12181.
Most Canadians have no idea what to believe . They’ve been duped 6 ways to Easter Sunday which the PM and Biden don’t even recognize . … they call it a March Holiday
Let’s just be practical and stop the
Weaponization of carbon. Let’s grow our economy and do something about carbon too … have our cake and eat it too …Scrap the carbon tax to benefit all Canadians. Boost LNG exports and do the math on coal displacement in China and other burners of coal
LNG exports to China could significantly reduce global CO2 emissions
My ability to do the math and grasp the intricacies of heat transfer are limited. I think you've ended up with a very different result from CO2 doubling compared with the standard estimates (which tend to vary between 0.75 deg. C & 1.25 deg. C ).
As you know, probably way better than me, the feedback debate is essentially whether warming allegedly caused by CO2 will produce more "heat trapping" gasses and/or conditions. The principal feedbacks are water vapour & its condensed cousin, clouds. WV is the principal "greenhouse" (misnomer) gas - all else being equal, the claim is that more will lead to higher temps. Note - I'm not arguing in favour of one position over another - I lack the chops to do that. The argument seems to be that the same input will provide a higher surface temp. b/c of the heat trapping secondary effects. The IPCC argument, as summarized by Andy May (who goes on to critique it) is as follows:
"[T]he IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis report (2013) states on page 667 that “CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate.” This is also in the title of a paper by Lacis, et al. (2010) cited in the IPCC report. Both works acknowledge that CO2 alone does not have enough of an effect to cause problems. But, by delaying the radiative transfer of thermal energy to space, they claim the lower atmosphere will warm and that this will cause the amount of water vapor to increase in the lower atmosphere. Water vapor is a much stronger “greenhouse gas” and this will cause the problem they espouse."
He clearly disagrees with that idea. I also this quote (from a link on Idso's website in a post by Andy May) about thermodynamics - I've never gotten past the first stage:
“Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don’t understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more. (Physicist Arnold Sommerfeld (1868-1951))”
It's also important to note that, notwithstanding the billions spent on this nonsense, the ECS range remains fundamentally the same as it was 40 years ago when it was launched. Thus, even accepting their approach (rather than yours), how is it that they've not been able to better refine their estimates, even though they play at it constantly?
There's a discussion of the newer AR6 ECS estimates at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/04/24/the-mysterious-ar6-ecs-part-1/ [I think it's 6 parts in total] . However, that reviews accepts the more standard interpretation of the impact of a CO2 doubling:
"It is generally accepted that the direct warming effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is small, only about one degree per doubling of CO2,[3] so the debate is all about the feedbacks, especially cloud feedback to the greenhouse gas warming.[4]"
As such, it constitutes a critique accepting the starting parameters, which your post questions. The FN reference #3 is based on a 1979 report: Charney, J., Arakawa, A., Baker, D., Bolin, B., Dickinson, R., Goody, R., . . . Wunsch, C. (1979). Carbon Dioxide and Climate: A Scientific Assessment. National Research Council. Washington DC: National Academies Press. doi:https://doi.org/10.17226/12181.
Feedbacks can't add joules of energy, just redistribute the ones already present. They are irrelevant to the ultimate equilibrium temperature.
Most Canadians have no idea what to believe . They’ve been duped 6 ways to Easter Sunday which the PM and Biden don’t even recognize . … they call it a March Holiday
Let’s just be practical and stop the
Weaponization of carbon. Let’s grow our economy and do something about carbon too … have our cake and eat it too …Scrap the carbon tax to benefit all Canadians. Boost LNG exports and do the math on coal displacement in China and other burners of coal
LNG exports to China could significantly reduce global CO2 emissions
Win win
My ability to do the math and grasp the intricacies of heat transfer are limited. I think you've ended up with a very different result from CO2 doubling compared with the standard estimates (which tend to vary between 0.75 deg. C & 1.25 deg. C ).
As you know, probably way better than me, the feedback debate is essentially whether warming allegedly caused by CO2 will produce more "heat trapping" gasses and/or conditions. The principal feedbacks are water vapour & its condensed cousin, clouds. WV is the principal "greenhouse" (misnomer) gas - all else being equal, the claim is that more will lead to higher temps. Note - I'm not arguing in favour of one position over another - I lack the chops to do that. The argument seems to be that the same input will provide a higher surface temp. b/c of the heat trapping secondary effects. The IPCC argument, as summarized by Andy May (who goes on to critique it) is as follows:
"[T]he IPCC AR5 Physical Science Basis report (2013) states on page 667 that “CO2 is the main anthropogenic control knob on climate.” This is also in the title of a paper by Lacis, et al. (2010) cited in the IPCC report. Both works acknowledge that CO2 alone does not have enough of an effect to cause problems. But, by delaying the radiative transfer of thermal energy to space, they claim the lower atmosphere will warm and that this will cause the amount of water vapor to increase in the lower atmosphere. Water vapor is a much stronger “greenhouse gas” and this will cause the problem they espouse."
He clearly disagrees with that idea. I also this quote (from a link on Idso's website in a post by Andy May) about thermodynamics - I've never gotten past the first stage:
“Thermodynamics is a funny subject. The first time you go through it, you don’t understand it at all. The second time you go through it, you think you understand it, except for one or two small points. The third time you go through it, you know you don’t understand it, but by that time you are so used to it, it doesn’t bother you any more. (Physicist Arnold Sommerfeld (1868-1951))”
(A post by Andy May on: http://www.co2science.org/articles/V24/sep/a2.php, leads to the quote on his own website: https://andymaypetrophysicist.com/2017/06/01/thermodynamics-and-the-greenhouse-effect/ )