If you consistently keep up with the literature (or textbooks or major reports) they explain any changes in definitions and why. Climate scientists would be well aware of this. If you don’t keep up with the literature or reports or you just get most of your information from blogs, that’s on you, not climate scientists.
No, your post #143 showed nothing that made any sense. You used the wrong numbers from the surface (not the TOA), with feedbacks included. It was also definitely nothing to do with the TCS.
My post #166 showed the direct blackbody no-feedback response correctly using energy values from the TOA for the formula ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0) which calculates a theoretical 3.71 W/m2 increase at the TOA with a corresponding direct increase of ~1.1C at the surface – with NO feedbacks included. It was also definitely not the ECS.
Transient Climate Sensitivity (TCS) and Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) are NOT the blackbody no-feedback response. The TCS and the ECS includes feedbacks and changes in other processes, the theoretical blackbody no-feedback response does not. Using the blackbody no-feedback ΔF = 5.35 ln (C/C0) formula for them makes no sense.
As I already posted, the blackbody no-feedback response (or Planck response) is a theoretical concept. It’s used to estimate the initial direct response in surface temperature from a change in the radiative balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) for a given change in
one process (eg doubling CO2 or increasing solar energy) with
everything else held constant. It's not supposed to be a real world value as it doesn’t include changes in other processes or feedbacks.
Let’s clarify some terms:
From:
https://www.environment.gov.au/syst...s/factsheetclimatesensitivitycsiro-bureau.pdf
Climate sensitivity is a useful standard measure, telling us how much the Earth’s surface temperature would increase if pre-industrial CO2 concentrations were doubled. Two types of climate sensitivity are used: Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) and Transient Climate Response (TCR).
TCR considers the changes that would occur if CO2 levels increase by 1% (compounded) per year until they double. The TCR is then simply the global temperature increase that has occurred at the point in time that atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach double pre-industrial levels.
The Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) is the amount of warming achieved when the entire climate system reaches ‘equilibrium’ or the stable temperature response to a doubling of CO2. If atmospheric CO2 were held at double pre-industrial concentrations, the planet would still continue to warm.
These are ‘standard’ measures of climate sensitivity, and have been used in climate change science for over 25 years. They are relevant to real world changes because, with continued high emissions, we are likely to exceed a doubling of CO2, compared with pre-industrial times, later this century. They are simplified measures, and do not themselves provide projections of climate change. Such projections depend on the details of the timing and extent of future emissions, including changes in gases other than CO2. TCR and ECS are closely related measures of climate sensitivity, but TCR is always smaller than ECS, largely because the Earth’s oceans have not had as long to respond to the doubling.
By the way, the value of ~1.2C (rather than ~1.1C) for a theoretical blackbody no-feedback response (Planck response) to a doubling of CO2 comes from GCM models because they include variations for location and seasons, unlike the simplified 1D model used by Myhre et al (1998).
