THIS PAGE HAS BEEN ACTIVATED AS THE NEW STATESMAN BLOG IS NOW CLOSED FOR COMMENTS
At 10am this morning, the New Statesman finally closed the Mark Lynas thread on their website after 1715 comments had been added over a period of five months. I don’t know whether this constitutes any kind of a record, but gratitude is certainly due to the editor of of the New Statesman for hosting the discussion so patiently and also for publishing articles from Dr David Whitehouse and Mark Lynas that have created so much interest.
This page is now live, and anyone who would like to continue the discussion here is welcome to do so. I have copied the most recent contributions at the New Statesman as the first comment for the sake of convenience. If you want to refer back to either of the original threads, then you can find them here:
Dr David Whitehouse’s article can be found here with all 1289 comments.
Mark Lynas’ attempted refutation can be found here with 1715 comments.
Welcome to Harmless Sky, and happy blogging.
(Click the ‘comments’ link below if the input box does not appear)
10,000 Responses to “Continuation of the New Statesman Whitehouse/Lynas blogs.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Thanks Max. I should have realised that if Gore had really qualified as a lawyer, then that is what he would be doing. As Michael Crichton also said in his speech: “If you weren’t bright enough to do science, you could go into politics.”
I try not to be too rude about the legal profession, as both my dad and daughter belong, but I comfort myself that things are different in the US!
Robin,
You seem quite convinced that science has established the causal link between smoking and lung cancer. Clear and unambiguous, would you say? And this is the kind of definitive real science that is needed in the AGW issue?
It would be good to know just what improvements do have to be made to bring the AGW scientific effort up to scratch.
Maybe you could tell me in your own words just how smoking causes lung cancer? What is the mechanism? Which are the danger most dangerous chemicals? Is the tar content of cigarettes? The nicotine? Or is it more the physical damage caused to lung tissue from ingested particles?
Smoking causes heart damage too. Maybe you could say a few words on just how that works too?
Its not a trick question BTW. And I would really like to know the answer myself.
Peter: well, well – so you still can’t understand the difference between the way researchers used real world empirical and replicable evidence to establish the smoking/cancer link and, on an interim basis, the “particulate”/breathing problem link and are taking the same action re the theoretical Higgs boson particle and the lack of such an approach re the dangerous AGW hypothesis. I rather thought not. I suggest you read my #6700 and try a little harder.
Max, Reur 6698: I don’t think it would be easy to secure funding for your proposed research, but I guess it’s all dependent on the skill of the wording in your submission. If I can suggest a headline, I came-up with:
A ballistical study of canine emissions and as to how they might be affected by environmental change and particularly; global warming.
It’s a bit of a stretch I know, but then Pen Haddow somehow managed to suck-in some gullible contributors for his recent “adventure“, and that probably had less scientific relevance than the research that you have just proposed.
Maybe you could ask Peter Martin to assist with appropriate weasel words, given his expertise in this area, and maybe Robin could check-out the legal stuff arising.
BTW, Tony B, do you happen to know how much the Catlin/Haddow thingy cost? I would hazard a cool million!
Oh, and I live in a Melbourne north east suburb. (You asked)
how smoking causes lung cancer
It’s not always necessary to know how something works to make use of it. I’m pretty sure no one knows how anaesthetics work, but I wouldn’t want surgery without one.
I’d rather accept an unknown mechanism that was observable and reproducible than something like AGW, where a widely accepted hypothesis relied on spurious logic and manipulated data!
Bob
The reason I asked is that I am writing a major article on arctic ice through the ages. A key player was William Scoresby
He was instrumental in causing the following letter to be written by the President of the Royal Society to the Admiralty in 1817, asking that an expedition be mounted to examine the melting arctic.
“It will without doubt have come to your Lordship’s knowledge that a considerable change of climate, inexplicable at present to us, must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been during the last two years, greatly abated….
….. this affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
A request was made for the Royal Society to assemble an expedition to go and investigate.
In 1803 William Scoresby junior was apprenticed to his father and went whaling every summer until his last voyage in 1823. Thereafter he became a minister. He was also interested in science and became famous for his observations. His last experiment (in 1856) on the effect of ship’s magnetism on their compasses and took him on a voyage to Australia (Melbourne), where a suburb is named after him (Scoresby)
Do you know of Scoresby?
Tonyb
Hi Peter,
You asked Robin:
Robin has already replied, but let me add my suggestion.
The very first “improvement”, which Robin has requested from you repeatedly with no response (so far), is that of actual scientific experimental or observational studies clearly supporting the premise that AGW is a serious threat, to quote Robin (#6673):
Seems quite simple and straightforward to me, Peter. After all, billions of dollars are being spent on climate research. These studies must be out there somewhere.
In addition to this missing fundamental piece, I have added a brief list of dilemmas requiring explanation below (mostly from previous posts, which you have not yet answered directly).
1. Explanation why surface air temperature has cooled since the beginning of 2001 despite all-time record increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
2. Explanation why the upper ocean has cooled since Argo measurements started in 2003 despite all-time record increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
3. Explanation why future anthropogenic warming is projected by climate models to occur at a rate that is over three times as rapid per unit increase in CO2 as the actual anthropogenic warming observed over the 20th century.
4. Explanation why anthropogenic warming is projected by climate models to occur at a rate that is over three times as rapid per unit increase in CO2 as the greenhouse rate as established by several theoretical equations.
5. Explanation why water vapor is projected in the climate models to increase with temperature to maintain constant relative humidity when actual physical observations show that relative humidity decreases significantly with warming and, in the case of long range NOAA observations of atmospheric water content, the physically measured water content, itself, has decreased significantly with higher temperature.
6. Explanation why clouds are projected in the climate models to result in a net positive feedback with warming when actual physical observations show that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative.
Answering Robin’s fundamental request plus clearing up these six dilemmas would do a lot to bring the scientific basis for the AGW premise “up to scratch” (as you put it).
C’mon, Peter, give it a go.
You asked what was needed. You now have an answer. See if you can supply the missing info.
Regards,
Max
I would hazard a cool million
A stupidly cold million, even!
Robin,
As James P says, it isn’t absolutely necessary to know how something works, but it I’d say it might be quite useful to at least have some inkling, some idea of what is happening. But you haven’t a clue on how smoking causes either Cancer or Heat Disease. Is that right?
Well, how about theoretical Higgs boson particle that you’ve mentioned? How about explaining that one in your own words? If that’s too hard for you, how about explaining any scientific theory you might care to name, in your own words, with reference on how the methods used were demonstrably superior to the bunch of incompetents who have hijacked the AGW issue?
Max,
Where possible I have answered these questions but they are so loaded with false statements that most of them just don’t make sense.
1. Explanation why surface air temperature has cooled since the beginning of 2001 despite all-time record increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Why 2001? Is this just a cherry picked date? You need to look at longer time periods.
2. Explanation why the upper ocean has cooled since Argo measurements started in 2003 despite all-time record increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
as above. You’d need data covering at least one whole El Nino/La Lina cycle
3. Explanation why future anthropogenic warming is projected by climate models to occur at a rate that is over three times as rapid per unit increase in CO2 as the actual anthropogenic warming observed over the 20th century.
It isn’t.
4. Explanation why anthropogenic warming is projected by climate models to occur at a rate that is over three times as rapid per unit increase in CO2 as the greenhouse rate as established by several theoretical equations.
Several theoretical equations? What are they? Leaving equations aside, the scientific case is that the pre-industrial level of CO2 is responsible for about 7 degrees C of the natural GHE of 33 deg C (60deg F ). Doubling that level will add another 3 deg C.
5. Explanation why water vapor is projected in the climate models to increase with temperature to maintain constant relative humidity when actual physical observations show that relative humidity decreases significantly with warming and, in the case of long range NOAA observations of atmospheric water content, the physically measured water content, itself, has decreased significantly with higher temperature.
Again you’ve just cherry picked certain results that you like. Is there any proposed mechanism for why relative humidity (unlike temperature!) should be so CO2 sensitive? You don’t seem to have any problem accepting that!
Even if it turns out to be correct that CO2 dries the atmosphere, might that in itself not be just as bad a result as causing warming? Isn’t this just going to cause more droughts and impact agriculture? You can’t even use the “plants like CO2 and grow better when its warm” argument to counteract that one. I’m no gardener but even I know that the plants in my yard die when it doesn’t rain for months on end.
6. Explanation why clouds are projected in the climate models to result in a net positive feedback with warming when actual physical observations show that the net feedback from clouds is strongly negative.
Strongly negative? Even Spencer doesn’t claim that!
That’s great Bob! We should team up. I’m working on a deal to unload a few thousand tons of “green” refrigeration equipment to a group of Eskimos in far northern Canada…..
I could use a clever wordsmith like yourself to handle the “marketing” aspects.
Tony B, Reur 6706,
I did not know of Scoresby the man, but do know Scoresby that pleasant Eastern suburb rather well. It is about 25 Km from Central Melbourne and on the doorstep of the Dandenong Ranges National Park. No visit to Melbourne can be considered adequate without spending time in “The Dandenongs”; beautiful views, temperate rainforest and other forest types, dining sometimes “rather English” as in say the “Snooty Fox”, great bakeries, arboretums, some very famous and unique gardens, and even the Puffing Billy, now a tourist steam train. (ex forestry) As a keen bushwalker, one of my favourite walks there used to be the “1,000 steps” which has progressive display boards commemorating the Kakoda Track defence against the Japanese army in WW2. The tree ferns and sounds of the Lyrebirds there are great, but since I rescued a Jack Russel (Parson long-leg) from the dog-pound, it is no longer accessible for me, as with all NP’s.
It is so popular up there that on Sundays it can be a pain. (at my level of patience)
Oh, and Scoresby itself has everything you’d like to know about traction steam engines.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I enjoyed your Scoresby (the man) quote, and that lovely elegant style of writing back in those times, (1817), and I pick-out, with my emphasis added:
“… this affords ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened and give us leave to hope that the Arctic Seas may at this time be more accessible than they have been for centuries past, and that discoveries may now be made in them not only interesting to the advancement of science but also to the future intercourse of mankind and the commerce of distant nations.”
‘Tis funny how logic and attitudes change! What?
Brute, Reur 6711, concerning your plan to sell “green” refrigeration to far north Canadian Eskimos;
Brute, by nature, I’m an enquiring/suspicious/sceptical engineer.
Thus, I’m sorry, but you would need to explain much more to me about the proffered benefits of your plan to help those indigenous peoples, before I might consider assisting you in your marketing launch.
And, anyway, you could well be shocked by my expert’s fees, although such fees might be softened if you can clearly show to me that your plan has truly powerful benefits for those Eskimos.
Nevertheless, I doubt if you can afford my help, and consequently suggest that you might commercially do better to ask Peter Martin for his assistance. Without question, he has an extraordinary talent with weasel words and waffle, and whatnot crap. What’s more, he should only ask for a remuneration appropriate for a librarian, or maybe a schoolteacher, whatever he is.
Even so, it might be wise to get Robin to do a lawyer’s check-out on any stuff from Pete though! (and I don’t know what he might ask for remuneration)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW: Here in Oz, we have had some Global Warming stuff down here recently in the early onset of winter.
Although 10C daytime maximum may sound warm to you, for me, unable to burn shredded car tyres to keep warm, that is very cold indeed. My tits nearly fell-off two days ago!
Meanwhile, in our federal capital Canberra; today they had a daytime maximum of 4.6C, the coldest for 43 years. But, no worries, nothing to get excited about; it was significantly colder still back in 1949!
We seem to be setting-up for an excellent snow-ski season here in Oz!
Car alarms have been going-off around Melbourne of snow and ice threat. Sheez!
(and radio warnings to motorists to take care because melt rates on the cold roads are low!)
Here’s a good definition of the scientific method from the Scientific Alliance newsletter (12th June 2009):
The article (here) is worth reading. On climate change it says (inter alia):
Exactly.
Robin,
Who are the “Scienfic Alliance”? Who wrote the drivel above? Do you have any idea? What are his or her scientific credentials.
They’ll just be a bunch of right wing cranks. Its just not not worth responding to.
Hi Peter,
You have finally taken a stand on my questions.
But you have not really answered them.
Let’s look at each one:
This is no response, Peter. I could have “cherry”-picked 1998 (an all-time warm El Niño year), but chose the beginning of the 21st century instead. Admittedly the period is only a bit more than 8 years so far, and this is only one-third of the “cherry-picked” period (1976-2000) used by IPCC to “prove” AGW. Yet you still have not answered the question, i.e. “where is all this greenhouse warming going if we cannot see it”?
Again. No answer, Peter. The basic question is “where is all this greenhouse warming going if we cannot see it, either in the atmosphere or in the ocean.” Could it be that there has been no greenhouse warming despite the all-time record increase in atmospheric CO2? If so, how is this possible, and how can we possibly believe the IPCC projections for the rest of the 21st century, if they cannot even get the first decade right?
Sorry, Peter. Denying something does not make it “go away”. Over the 20th Century we saw 0.65°C total warming, of which 30% to 50% is attributed to the unusually high level of solar activity. If we assume that the balance is ALL due to CO2, then this equates to a 2xCO2 warming of between 0.8°C and 1.0°C (I’ll be glad to walk you through the calculation again, Peter). So the projected 2xCO2 warming of 3.2°C is “over three times as rapid per unit increase in CO2 as the actual anthropogenic warming observed over the 20th century”.
I listed the seven different estimates and equations in previous posts. Go back and look at them. Two are quadratic functions, one is an e exp function and the other four are logarithmic functions. They all agree very closely that the 2xCO2 impact from 280 to 560 ppmv is between 0.65° and 1.2°C, with an average of 0.9°C. Future anthropogenic warming is projected by IPCC to occur at a 2xCO2 impact of 3.2°c, i.e. a rate “that is over three times as rapid per unit increase in CO2 as the greenhouse rate as established by several theoretical equations.” Denying a fact does not make it go away, Peter.
Your “natural” GHE comparison does not wash, Peter. You are trying to attribute this to a quasi-linear relation between CO2 and temperature; none of the equations make this assumption (which is purely your personal idea). They are all logarithmic or near-logarithmic, due to the saturation effect discussed previously. The warming from 280 to 560 ppmv is much less than you have estimated.
This is a rather silly way of denying physically observed facts that have been recorded. There is the 5.5 year M+D study, which showed that the actual increase in water vapor with warming was less than one-fourth as high as that assumed by IPCC (with its constant relative humidity assumption fed into the climate models). Then there is the 60-year record by NOAA, which shows that the total atmospheric water vapor content has decreased over this entire period, with a sharp reduction since 1980. These are observed and recorded facts (not “cherry picked certain results”). You, on the other hand, have brought NO physically observed facts to show that the IPCC assumption is correct. Where are your facts?
Sorry, Peter, denying the facts does not make them disappear.
The second part of your non-answer was an irrelevant question, which I am not sure I understand. Please state more clearly.
You then opined:
This is a silly side-track, Peter. No one says that CO2 causes less rain. Rain removes moisture and therefore dries the atmosphere, but does not cause droughts. The point is simply that the IPCC assumption that relative humidity remains constant with warming has been disproven by a 5.5-year study (showing much lower water vapor increase) and a 60-year record (showing a net water vapor decrease).
Sorry, Peter. You are denying the facts again. Spencer has stated, based on his physical observations on clouds, that the net feedback is strongly negative. Over the study area (20°N to 20°S) he estimated this to be –6.1 W/m^2°K. The second independent study (Norris) also showed a strongly negative net feedback from clouds, estimated at –0.8 W/m^2°K globally. IPCC models assume a positive feedback of +0.69W/m^2°K.
Peter, simply sticking your head in the sand and saying that something is not so does not make it go away.
Your post has been one of simple denial of facts, and not of honestly responding to my questions. I am shocked. Here I thought I was supposed to be the “climate denier”, but it turns out that YOU are the one who denies and refuses to face the facts that do not fit into your personal belief system.
Try a bit harder, Peter.
Regards,
Max
Peter has an interesting and provocative question here:
http://ccgi.newbery1.plus.com/blog/?p=191#comment-20829
Peter (tempterrain);
So, in response to the quotations at 6714, you resort to an ad hominem attack. Hmm, I thought we’d persuaded you long ago that that is a foolish and illogical method of discussion. Seems not.
Precisely what part of the quotation I used is “drivel”?
Peter (6710)
Strongly negative? Even Spencer doesn’t claim that!
Looks like it might be, though. After all, the climate has corrected itself for quite a long time now…
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/12/suggestions-of-strong-negative-cloud-feedbacks-in-a-warmer-climate/
TonyB, TonyN, Peter
On the other thread (Mike Hulme), Peter posted a link to a study for “non-Neanderthals”
http://pages2005.org/products/newsletters/2008-2/Special%20Section/Science%20Highlights/SchneiderVonDeimling_2008-2(20-21).pdf
and then wrote that he should have posted this here.
So I’ll do it for him along with my comments:
The Schneider von Deimling et al. study on paleo-proxy data for predicting future 2xCO2 climate sensitivity is interesting.
This is all based on model simulations using paleo-proxy data of a period much colder than today (the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM, 21kyr BP), rather than physically observed real-life data from today. The climate models assume a dT2x range to see if this range can simulate a cooling that approximates the cooling estimated based on the LGM paleo-proxy data.
The writers tell us:
A table shows model-based dT2x estimates from various model simulations (ranging from 1°C to 9°C), the IPCC range assumption (2°C to 4.5°C) and compares these with the results of the LGM paleoclimate simulation (range of ~1°C to ~4°C).
The writers go on:
And:
This is certainly interesting background information.
It confirms the dT2x of 1°C with no feedbacks and then sees if the assumed dT2x range with feedbacks is reasonable when compared to the LGM paleoclimate data.
But it can in no way replace actual physical observations from today, such as the Spencer and Norris studies showing strongly negative net feedback from clouds, the Minschwaner + Dessler observations, showing a reduction in relative humidity with warming or the 60-year NOAA record of atmospheric humidity trends, showing a steady reduction in water vapor content with warming.
This is, of course, just my analysis. I would say, in general, that actual physical observations from today are worth more than paleo reconstructions, and that these are worth more than model-based estimates, because of the GIGO danger.
Max
Hi Peter,
You opined (apparently using your own personal equation for calculating the CO2 greenhouse impact), that an increase in CO2 from the “pre-industrial” level of 280 ppmv to a projected future level of 560 ppmv, by year 2100, would be 3°C (6710).
Then you asked me to my statement that several theoretical equations put this closer to 1°C rather than 3°C:
There are many equations out there for the equilibrium direct radiative effect of doubling the pre-industrial CO2 concentration. These all show a warming of around 1°C (average of the seven below is 0.95°C).
IPCC formulas:
1. IPCC TAR (Myhre et al.)
dF = [alpha]*ln(C/Co), where alpha = 5.35
2xCO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv), dT = 0.9°C
2. IPCC TAR (Shi)
dF = [alpha]*ln(C/Co) + [beta]*(?C-?Co); alpha= 4.841; beta = 0.0906
2xCO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv), dT = 0.96°C
3. IPCC TAR (Hansen et al.)
dF = [alpha]*(g*C – g*Co), alpha = 3.35
g(C) = ln(1 + 1.2*C + 0.005*C^2 + 1.4*10-6*C^3)
2xCO2(from 280 to 560 ppmv), dT = 0.96°C
Lindzen: Logarithmic
2xCO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv), dT = 0.65°C
Konradtyev + Moskalenko: Logarithmic
2xCO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv), dT = 0.87°C
Motl (quadratic):
Temperature = Temperature0 + ln(1 + 1.2 x + 0.005 x^2 + 0.0000014 x^3)
Where x = CO2 concentration
2xCO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv), dT = 1.19°C
Motl (e exp)
dT = 1.5*[1-EXP-(C-280)/200)], where C = CO2 concentration
2xCO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv), dT = 1.13°C
So you see, Peter, that the various equations all agree that the 2xCO2 sensitivity at equilibrium is around 1°C (and not 3°C, as you have estimated).
BTW, exactly what is your equation?
Regards,
Max
Bob, Max and everyone
Max mentions actual physical observations in 6721.
I would like to take up this theme by reverting to my post 6702 and Bobs reply of 6712. The arctic modellers have got their knickers in a twist over ice levels, and in my post I pointed out that William Scoresby in 1817 had pointed out the Arctic ice was melting. (Bob Bartlett had pointed out the samne thing in the 1930’s-which I have also posted here.)
Scoresby has a suburb named after him in Bob’s home town of Melbourne, and coincidentally Scoresby died in the nearest big town to me -Torquay.
As we were shopping in that town this morning I went to the church where he was buried and sure enough there is a big plaque to him on the wall recalling his arctic expeditions.
Now the point is that Jeff Id over at Air Vent asked mne to write a piece about arctic ice through history, and it is evident that in the 19th Century the scientific establishment chroniclers mounted dozens of expeditions and recorded many thousands of observations on land surface temperatures, sea temperature at the surface and 100 fathoms deep, measured currents and tides, and observed the wind strength and direction.
They came to the conclusion that the arctic ice melted periodically from year to year and also in cycles.
The reasons for ice melt and dispersal were largely down to the warmth of the sea, the strength of the currents, the force and direction of the winds. So back in 1817 we knew what we are still arguing over today.
I am too busy finishing my article to delve into that boxed set of science fantasy
classics collectively known as the IPCC assessments, so I wonder if anyone can tell me if these tens of thousands of observations are incorporated into the IPCC deliberations or-like Becks figurs- have they been erased from history? Any help is welcome
Tonyb
JamesP
Here is more detail on the study cited in the WUWT blog on low-latitude cloud feedbacks, to which you referred us all (6720).
http://www.usclivar.org/Newsletter/VariationsV4N1/BrethertonCPT.pdf
[A caveat: this is climate model stuff, so should be carefully compared with actual physical observations for credibility.]
The Climate Process Team on Low-Latitude Cloud Feedbacks on Climate Sensitivity used a procedure called “superparameterization” to improve the model assumptions on net cloud feedback.
This is described as follows:
The result from the superparameterized CAM-SP model shows that the net feedback from clouds with warming is “strongly negative in both the tropics and in the extratropics”, resulting in a “global climate sensitivity of only 0.41 K/(W/m^2)”: This compares with a strongly positive cloud feedback from the standard models without superparameterization, such as AM2.
This information is interesting because it compares well with the actual physical observations of both the Spencer and Norris studies, and may provide the climate models a more accurate method of estimating cloud feedbacks in the future.
As IPCC states on pp.635/636 of Ch.8 of its AR4 report:
It looks like this recently developed form of improved global modeling called “superparameterization” may enable IPCC to resolve some of this ”largest source of uncertainty” on cloud feedbacks.
If so, it looks highly likely that new model outputs will show a strongly negative net feedback from clouds, as has also been noted independently from actual physical observations.
Since the currently assumed strongly positive feedback from clouds is estimated to contribute 1.3°C to the estimated 3.2°C climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 (AR4 Ch.8, p.633), the impact of a strongly negative net feedback from clouds would not only remove the assumed 1.3°C but also reduce the 2xCO2 climate sensitivity from 3.2°C to well below 1°C.
In effect, this would eliminate the projected threat of a major warming of our planet due to AGW, since the expected warming to the year 2100 would be well under 1°C and nothing to worry about.
The question now is: will IPCC modify their model assumptions on clouds to include this new, improved modeling method (and thereby put themselves out of business)?
Max
Max,
Regarding your equations. You are confusing Climate Forcings, which are measured in W/m^2, with temperture which is measured in degK or degC.
If you look back at the correspondence we had previously, regarding solar forcings you’ll see, from the quotes you yourself made from these papers, that a factor of about 0.8 was required to convert one to the other. In other words, every 1W/m^2 of climate forcing leads to a temperature increase of 0.8deg C. It works just the same for solar as CO2 forcings.
)Just to take your first equation:
IPCC TAR (Myhre et al.)
dF = [alpha]*ln(C/Co), where alpha = 5.35
??? 2xCO2 (from 280 to 560 ppmv), dT = 0.9°C ??? I really think you need to check your calculator. Or learn to use it properly!
According to my calculator ln (560/280) = 0.683
5.35 x 0.683 = 3.7 W of climate forcing.
3.7W x 0.8 = 2.97degC
So maybe the IPCC are exaggerating by 0.03degC.
Is that what you are quibbling about?