I'm not missing anything. And it DOES matter what the warming is attributed to if you want to be taken seriously. To say otherwise is just completely ridiculous.
Let's be clear about something here. This subtraction methodology you are attempting to use is YOUR methodology. No one, as far as I am aware, in climate science is using this method because they know what you can't seem to figure out. And that is that there isn't enough known about all of aerosols forcings and its feedbacks to quantify it accurately for the entire Earth. We do know enough to know it is a negative forcing but you either want to pretend it doesn't exist or that it is a positive forcing so that you can get the results that you want.
Yeah... they also saw fit to provide a warning that the content of the site was outdated. But you don't care. You just believe whatever you want no matter if it is true or not.
Now you are just trying to change the subject. Unfortunately for you, this overly simplified calculation is just as stupid as your other one. And it also goes directly against the vast majority of all the rest of climate science with your claim of CO2 having a negative feedback.
When are you going to quit pushing this intellectually dishonest garbage? Don't you ever get tired of being proven wrong over and over again?
Because there is not a test or an experiment that can validate how sensitivity the climate is to added greenhouse gasses,
the only pas is a subtractive method, and we see it mentioned indirectly fairly often.
When you see words to the effect of "there is no alternative explanation", it represents a subtractive methodology,
i.e. they do not know what it is, but they know what it is not!
As far as the SORCE data being outdated, if in 2001 they found that up to .3C of the observed .6C of total warming was natural,
Why would you think the amount attributed to the natural category change in 20 years?
Also, they could change the statement on their website any time they choose, if they felt it was incorrect.
In addition we have things like this,
Chapter 3: Detection and Attribution of Climate Change
Key Finding 1
The likely range of the human contribution to the global mean temperature increase over the period 1951–2010 is 1.1° to 1.4°F (0.6° to 0.8°C), and the central estimate of the observed warming of 1.2°F (0.65°C) lies within this range (high confidence). This translates to a likely human contribution of 93%–123% of the observed 1951–2010 change. It is extremely likely that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 was caused by human influence on climate (high confidence). The likely contributions of natural forcing and internal variability to global temperature change over that period are minor (high confidence).
So what was half of the warming between 1951 and 2010?
HadCrut4 says .733C, so half is .36C, so the .3C is not ruled out!
"overly simplified calculation":, If you find an error in my calculations, then point it out.
The idea that the overall greenhouse effect is 33C, and that CO2 accounts for 20% of that, is not my idea,
and the calculation of 33C X .2 = 6.6C, is not incorrect.
I am saying that it takes 8.09 doublings to increase CO2 from 1 ppm to 280 ppm, perhaps I made an error there,
but 1ppm to 256 ppm is 8 doublings, so 280 ppm is 256/24=.093.
More important is that the 8.09 doublings lines up with expected forcing for 2XCO2, 3.71 W m-2.
using my "overly simplified calculation" 20% of the greenhouse effect forcing of 150 W m-2, is 30 W m-2,
and 30W m-2/8.09 doublings is 3.708 W m-2.
P.S. I may have been in error, on some things, but you have not proven me wrong, you have introduced some additional variables, thank you!