mperature by less than 0.05C. No experiment can ever be done on this anyway.

show us the math and physics then see if you are smarter than 100 years of physics.

the experiment is already done, several times in past climates of the planet.

I'm with Ottawa Mike on this one: >> it's not the primary target<<

====

Kano --

That article is ridiculous. The guy makes up something that is not true---

>>The global climate models are all based around the idea that in the long run, when we calculate the global temperature everything else averages out, and we’re left with the claim that the change in temperature is equal to the climate sensitivity times the change in forcing.<<

>>Mathematically, this is: ?T = lambda ?F where T is global average surface temperature, F is the net top-of-atmosphere (TOA) forcing (radiation imbalance), and lambda is called the “climate sensitivity”. In other words, the idea is that the change in temperature is a linear function of the change in TOA forcing.<<

---and then spends the rest of time attacking something that does not exist.

How do we know he made it up?

1) The big Global Climate Models do not assume linearity – if you assume linearity, you don’t need big climate models. They are big because of all the damn feedback mechanisms (and feedback = [equals] nonlinearity).

2) That equation is mostly used to estimate climate sensitivity – and the people doing it know that it is nonlinear - because if it was linear there would be a solution. The fact that people are trying so hard to figure out the climate sensitivity thing means that everyone in the world knows that it is nonlinear.

And although it provides a decent picture of some climate variability (especially since it relies on straightforward and easily interpretable math), it is not used to represent the greater climate response.

As for the author, Willis Eschenbach, even Roy Spencer has spanked the guy for lying and not knowing what he is talking about.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/08/on-t...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/citi...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/will...

It is amazing that you so distrust real scientists, but believe a guy with a BA in Psychology (nothing wrong with that – unless you are pretending that you are something else)

His other academic achievement is a: CALIFORNIA MESSAGE CERTIFICATE from the Aames School of Massage in Oakland, CA.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/112308620/Wi...

C'mon man.

There is no proof. It is an estimate and as such contains a few assumptions. I do not believe most climate scientists (skeptics included) refute this number too strenuously. Perhaps that's because it's not the primary target. However, as you allude to, this number of 1C (it's actually 1C not 1.2C) may be lower than currently estimated.

If you're really into this, here is what might be a good read: http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/11/co2-no...

There is no proof whatsoever that increased CO2 will drive temperatures measurably upward.

CO2 simply does not drive temperature, the Sun does. Warmists tell us today we have the highest CO2 levels in thousands of years, that's not true, but that's what they say. Nevertheless, temperatures are declining in spite of high CO2 levels.

Man-Made Global Warming is a SCAM.

Top climate scientists say there is no man-made Global Warming.

The Great Global Warming Swindle