The Correlation = Causation Fallacy of Climate Alarmists

[PoS]

Sorry, hate to burst your bubble (not really), but you cannot actually prove that climate science is bunk by posting your silly crap on the internet. If you want to disprove AGW, you have to get into the field and convince the other scientists in it that they are wrong with actual analysis.

I know its impossible for you to ever get this, but I am posting this for people who still have the mind to look at facts.

Ive posted the links where studies refute your Talibanish belief that every scientist thinks humans are causing climate change. Do you understand that bit?

Once again: I have posted links to studies made by scientists who dispute the climate change narrative you keep believing as fact.

Get it yet?

Here is the link to the articles: Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

Now let's see you dispute them. Get it? Not me. Them.

I doubt you'll get it since you never do, so just keep herping and derping there. :lol:

 

[ludin]

Let's parse this for a second. Whenever I see someone explicitly add in "catastrophic" it is a "tell" for me. What it says is that if I were to provide data and evidence that AGW is real (obviously easily done) you could retreat to "But I wasn't talking about whether it was real or not...I'm talking about the catastrophic nature that some people call out!"

This is why you guys lose this argument. No one here is saying that an AGW can't happen. It can happen. The entire theory was based on what happened to Venus. something cause an utter meltdown of it's ecological system.
Where an planetary event cause a massive amount of green house gasses to be released and created an AGW event to occur.

It's a game of epistemological "whack-a-mole" because no matter how much data is provided to show that AGW is real you get to hide behind "catastrophic". The fact of the matter is we don't know how bad it CAN get, but we DO KNOW that it will be a MAJOR CHANGE in our climate that could result in SIGNIFICANT ALTERATIONS to pretty much everything we as a society rely on.

It isn't about whether or not it is real. That is not the argument. The argument is whether or not it is occurring here. If it is occurring here there is little that can be done about it.
The problem is that scientists do not fully understand the nature of earth's climate and they are ignoring previous climate patterns on purpose.
In their explorations they discovered the Antarctica didn't use to be a glacier. It was a lush forest with tons of pine tree's and other vegetation. There is nothing to say
that it cannot return to that.

Remember: in the 14,000 years or so that humans have gathered in cities the global climate has been pretty steady. Meaning we've adapted to a variety of climates across the globe but in all those cases the climates remained relatively stable overall. Sure there have been cases where local climate dramatically changed and those cases almost never resulted in something BETTER.. Just ask the Mayans of Mesoamerica whose entire civilization was essentially destroyed due to multidecadal droughts.

Earth's climate has hardly been what i call stable. You have to realize though that climate patterns change very slowly and take hundreds to thousands of years to develop.

If we know we can alter the climate (again scientists agree this is possible) why would we "roll the dice"?

Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

I wish you folks would stop trying to tell me that the field I went into, science, is loaded up with a bunch of unethical liars. Perhaps the fact that you see it so commonly in others should tell me that whatever it is you do for a living is made up mostly of unethical liars.

This is a strawman argument. When you have a political organization driving the science then that is an issue. the number one rule in science is that data drives the conclusion not the conclusion drives the data.
which is what is happening in the climate science realm.

Is that the case? Are you a member of a group of UNETHICAL LIARS?

this is just a deflection argument.

Or could it just be that your simplified back-of-the-envelope calculations are in error?

Nope because the IPCC has been forced to admit that they are over hyping the effects of CO2. they have had to do this on a consistent basis and they have been called out for using dubious material and
excluding other material that doesn't align with their views. They cite authors that object to how their papers were used.

So, the NEXT TIME you decide that AGW is mostly due to scientists "lying" or "Hiding" the data or "shading the conclusions" in order to get a buck...I will know that you are EXPLICITLY SAYING that that is what YOU and everyone in YOUR field does.

that is because they have been caught doing it. Michael Mann to this day has lost several major lawsuits because he refuses to turn over the meta data and the formula's for his hockey stick graph.
His hockey stick graph failed several key tests that showed it was manipulating the data in a way that was no conclusive to the actual data that was put in.

Mann's biggest failure was the monte carlo test.

You need to understand LOGIC before you can hold forth on topics like this.

Your ad hominems are failures.

A good hypothesis isn't good because it has amassed a consensus. But a good hypothesis should develop a consensus.

yet that is what has happened. only in this case the consensus was developed before the hypothesis and they are trying to make
the data fit the hypothesis.

they are breaking the very first rule of science.

 

[vegas giants]

I know its impossible for you to ever get this, but I am posting this for people who still have the mind to look at facts.

Ive posted the links where studies refute your Talibanish belief that every scientist thinks humans are causing climate change. Do you understand that bit?

Once again: I have posted links to studies made by scientists who dispute the climate change narrative you keep believing as fact.

Get it yet?

Here is the link to the articles: Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

Now let's see you dispute them. Get it? Not me. Them.

I doubt you'll get it since you never do, so just keep herping and derping there. :lol:

I dispute them. Prove one that says AGW is false.



Its fake news

 

[OlNate]

LOL you dont know how anything works. :lol:

I gave you a link that spells out all the scientists and their studies that are refuting climate change, and what do you do? You herp and derp, as always!

Come on, refute them! I dare you!

Here is the link again since you keep censoring it because it proves you wrong: Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change

You should be more disciplined with your sources...

NoTricksZone - Media Bias/Fact Check

Popular Technology - Media Bias/Fact Check

Dropping articles from outlets that rate moderate on the pseudoscience scale, let alone full on quackery, is utterly self defeating. I know you'll have a wise ass response to this, but the appropriate response is thank you, if you actually give a **** about what you're typing here.

 

[vegas giants]

This is why you guys lose this argument. No one here is saying that an AGW can't happen. It can happen. The entire theory was based on what happened to Venus. something cause an utter meltdown of it's ecological system.
Where an planetary event cause a massive amount of green house gasses to be released and created an AGW event to occur.



It isn't about whether or not it is real. That is not the argument. The argument is whether or not it is occurring here. If it is occurring here there is little that can be done about it.
The problem is that scientists do not fully understand the nature of earth's climate and they are ignoring previous climate patterns on purpose.
In their explorations they discovered the Antarctica didn't use to be a glacier. It was a lush forest with tons of pine tree's and other vegetation. There is nothing to say
that it cannot return to that.


Earth's climate has hardly been what i call stable. You have to realize though that climate patterns change very slowly and take hundreds to thousands of years to develop.



Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.



This is a strawman argument. When you have a political organization driving the science then that is an issue. the number one rule in science is that data drives the conclusion not the conclusion drives the data.
which is what is happening in the climate science realm.



this is just a deflection argument.



Nope because the IPCC has been forced to admit that they are over hyping the effects of CO2. they have had to do this on a consistent basis and they have been called out for using dubious material and
excluding other material that doesn't align with their views. They cite authors that object to how their papers were used.



that is because they have been caught doing it. Michael Mann to this day has lost several major lawsuits because he refuses to turn over the meta data and the formula's for his hockey stick graph.
His hockey stick graph failed several key tests that showed it was manipulating the data in a way that was no conclusive to the actual data that was put in.

Mann's biggest failure was the monte carlo test.



Your ad hominems are failures.



yet that is what has happened. only in this case the consensus was developed before the hypothesis and they are trying to make
the data fit the hypothesis.

they are breaking the very first rule of science.

You cite a lot of personal opinions not based in facts.


These are facts

NASA: Climate Change and Global Warming

 

[Mr Person]

I know its impossible for you to ever get this, but I am posting this for people who still have the mind to look at facts. Ive posted the links where studies refute your Talibanish belief that every scientist thinks humans are causing climate change. Do you understand that bit? Once again: I have posted links to studies made by scientists who dispute the climate change narrative you keep believing as fact. Get it yet? Here is the link to the articles: Yes, Virginia- Thousands of Scientists Are Skeptical of Climate Change Now let's see you dispute them. Get it? Not me. Them. I doubt you'll get it since you never do, so just keep herping and derping there. :lol:

More cowardly and dishonest edits, like always.

Here's what I posted:

What, you thought you'd evade the point with your typical dishonest editing?

You need to become a trained climate scientist who is capable of understanding all those papers you never read to get that. You're not and you won't, because you can't. You're just someone running their mouth on the internet. Climate scientists are not going to waste their time on you. It's not their or anyone else's duty to prove to your that you are wrong. You are calling them wrong, so it's your duty to prove it, and you can't do that hiding away on an anonymous internet forum.

So you just sit there wearing your magic hat and your magic cape, and tell yourself that you totally *GOT* those climate scientists by posting your stupid bull**** on the internet, anonymously, like all Super Scientists do.


All this is is another hopelessly stupid failure of a thread, and the hilarious thing is you don't even see it. You legitimately believe that by running your mouth on the internet anonymously, you create a "debate", and in that debate it becomes everyone else's duty to prove you wrong.

That is not how this works. That is not how anything works.

:lol:

______________
PSA: the bolding is designed to help PoS understand the words. Probably about as effective as speaking louder and more slowly in English to a French person when they don't understand you the first time, but hey . . .

and:

LOL, and he runs with the dishonest editing again.

Sorry, hate to burst your bubble (not really), but you cannot actually prove that climate science is bunk by posting your silly crap on the internet. If you want to disprove AGW, you have to get into the field and convince the other scientists in it that they are wrong with actual analysis.

And I'm sorry, but that cape is not magic. You may have worn it while posting, but that doesn't mean that by posting you shifted the burden onto other people to disprove the stupid **** you said. Burden's still on you, and posting links to articles on the internet doesn't do anything to affect the validity of AGW. Especially not where those articles have "thousands of scientists" rather than "thousands of climate scientists" in the title, for the same reason you don't go to a neurosurgeon for heart surgery.

But then, I'm wasting my time on a guy who legitimately cannot tell the difference between a cold night in one English town and a global climate; a guy who reads an article about greenhouse gas emissions in meat production and fears he will be "forced to become vegan" and "banned from farting". It's not like I don't know that this subforum isn't just here so you can cosplay Super Scientist.

You just don't get that you cannot disprove AGW by running to an anonymous internet forum and declaring, as if it was the first time you learned it, that correlation does not prove causation.

You just don't get that you cannot disprove AGW by posting an article that claims "scientists" (who probably are not climate scientists) are "skeptical".

You just don't get that you cannot disprove AGW by claiming it is false, and then demanding that someone else convince you otherwise.

:lamo

 

[longview]

Are you basing this 4-8.5degC on the estimation that CO2 accounts for about 1/3 of the overall greenhouse effect and that the greenhouse effect accounts for about 34degC warming over the blackbody temperature of the earth as calculated by the Stefan Boltzman equation?

Yes, Earth is supposed to be 33C warmer than it would be if the atmosphere were completely transparent,
and no one is claiming that CO2 accounts for 1/3 of that amount, estimates run between 11% and 26%, centered around 20%.

May I ask why you choose to go with such a grossly oversimplified system? Considering that the system contains extremely well-known feedbacks...thankfully the good folks at the American Chemical Society have a nice write-up in relation to the calculation and associated issues.

It can be found HERE

The basis of the concept is a good place to start, for AGW, it is the greenhouse effect!
We cannot say that CO2 had this one sensitivity for all the time Earth had an atmosphere, yet a different sensitivity now!

Not sure how you got to that point. In fact here's what the simplified calculations result in (also including CH4 forcing for their example):

(Emphasis added)

How could all the feedbacks be negative if the calculated temperature increase is less than the actual temperature increase (which obviously includes the feedbacks)?[/QUOTE]
Your own link,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
shows that the 2XCO2 radiative forcing warming would be 1.1C.

ΔFCO2 = (5.35 W·m–2) ln(265/185) = 1.9 W·m–2
ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K

applied to 2XCO2 would become 5.35 X ln(2)=3.708 W/m2, and .3 X 3.708=1.112C.
but if the long term results of doubling CO2 is .5 to 1C, then the feedbacks are negative, it takes an attenuation to go from 1.1 C down to .5 to 1C!

I only used doubling s down to 1 ppm, to arrive at 8.X doubling s between 1 ppm and 280 ppm, that puts the ~6.6C of old warming from CO2
at ~.825 C per doubling, since most modtran calculations start at ZERO ppm, there could be more doubling s, which would make the units per doubling lower.

 

[istodolez]

How very 1984 of you.

LOL.

So is it a BAD thing to have an education in a field, per your view of the world?

Yeah, that seems to line up.

(I take it you actually have read 1984...right? My comment about skepticism has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the metaphorical construction of 1984.)

 

[istodolez]

The basis of the concept is a good place to start, for AGW, it is the greenhouse effect!

But it's grossly oversimplified. You know it IS possible to oversimplify a concept so much that one can draw the incorrect conclusion from it, right?

We cannot say that CO2 had this one sensitivity for all the time Earth had an atmosphere, yet a different sensitivity now!

Ummm, I don't believe that anyone DOES say that. I don't know where you got that info.

How could all the feedbacks be negative if the calculated temperature increase is less than the actual temperature increase (which obviously includes the feedbacks)?

Your own link,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
shows that the 2XCO2 radiative forcing warming would be 1.1C.

applied to 2XCO2 would become 5.35 X ln(2)=3.708 W/m2, and .3 X 3.708=1.112C.
but if the long term results of doubling CO2 is .5 to 1C, then the feedbacks are negative, it takes an attenuation to go from 1.1 C down to .5 to 1C!
[/quote]

No. If one considers just CO2 and CH4 (per the link I provided) the estimated warming just due to those things is 0.7K (0.7degC) but we find that the actual warming is 3-4K (3-4degC) so the feedbacks add to the value. (OBVIOUSLY there are also negative feedbacks in there as well, but clearly there's no way that they are all negative.)

 

[istodolez]

Where an planetary event cause a massive amount of green house gasses to be released and created an AGW event to occur.

Actually, in reality, AGW came from Svante Arrhenius in 1898. He knew (as did pretty much everyone by the end of the 19th century) that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and he knew we were pumping a lot of excess CO2 into the atmosphere.

I've literally NEVER heard anyone suggest Arrhenius was basing the AGW hypothesis on Venus. Perhaps I'm wrong but I sure have never heard that.

Here's a nice history of the AGW hypothesis: The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

It isn't about whether or not it is real. That is not the argument. The argument is whether or not it is occurring here.

That has been sufficiently shown. Hence the world's climate experts have examined the hypothesis over the last 50-100 years and found it to be the most likely explanation.

If it is occurring here there is little that can be done about it.

If a very large portion of the excess CO2 is due to human activities (again we know this to be the case due to isotopic fingerprinting of the C) then OF COURSE there's something we can do! LOL! In fact we are the ONLY ones who can do anything about it since we are responsible for our emissions.

The problem is that scientists do not fully understand the nature of earth's climate and they are ignoring previous climate patterns on purpose.

You are fractally wrong there. I will admit that the climate is not perfectly understood, but the fact that we DO have fields like paleoclimatology helps us understand climate change in the absence of human activity and we have a lot of data on climate change WITH human activity.

In their explorations they discovered the Antarctica didn't use to be a glacier.

Antarctica was warmer in the past in no small part because it wasn't always at the south pole! This is called Plate Tectonics.

Sure there are other factors as well related to climate and atmosphere, but again, one cannot simply oversimplify the more complex topic and assume some deep insight.

Tectonic history: into the deep freeze - Discovering Antarctica

You have to realize though that climate patterns change very slowly and take hundreds to thousands of years to develop.

I've got a PhD in geology. Trust me...I know this.

This is a strawman argument. When you have a political organization driving the science then that is an issue. the number one rule in science is that data drives the conclusion not the conclusion drives the data.
which is what is happening in the climate science realm.

It's also an easy argument for people who have ZERO experience in the sciences.

I've seen it SO MANY TIMES in debates with Creationists and Climate Denialists. It's facile in the extreme. But it also requires that thousands upon thousands upon thousands of climate experts over the course of something like 100 years are all "lying" to you.

That's utter insanity.

His hockey stick graph failed several key tests that showed it was manipulating the data in a way that was no conclusive to the actual data that was put in.

No, actually you are quite wrong. But it is also highly unlikely that you can actually explain, in your own words, what Mann was found to be doing in terms of "manipulation". Strap in, buckaroo...you're going to have to explain PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS.

Do you dare take a shot at it?

Mann's biggest failure was the monte carlo test.

Now you're getting close....do you care to explain exactly what that entails? Or is it just an impressive phrase?

C'mon! Take the bait: explain the problems with the hockey stick and this "monte carlo test". I would LOVE to see this.

 

[longview]

Let's parse this for a second. Whenever I see someone explicitly add in "catastrophic" it is a "tell" for me. What it says is that if I were to provide data and evidence that AGW is real (obviously easily done) you could retreat to "But I wasn't talking about whether it was real or not...I'm talking about the catastrophic nature that some people call out!"

It's a game of epistemological "whack-a-mole" because no matter how much data is provided to show that AGW is real you get to hide behind "catastrophic". The fact of the matter is we don't know how bad it CAN get, but we DO KNOW that it will be a MAJOR CHANGE in our climate that could result in SIGNIFICANT ALTERATIONS to pretty much everything we as a society rely on.

Remember: in the 14,000 years or so that humans have gathered in cities the global climate has been pretty steady. Meaning we've adapted to a variety of climates across the globe but in all those cases the climates remained relatively stable overall. Sure there have been cases where local climate dramatically changed and those cases almost never resulted in something BETTER.. Just ask the Mayans of Mesoamerica whose entire civilization was essentially destroyed due to multidecadal droughts.

If we know we can alter the climate (again scientists agree this is possible) why would we "roll the dice"?



Bull****.



I wish you folks would stop trying to tell me that the field I went into, science, is loaded up with a bunch of unethical liars. Perhaps the fact that you see it so commonly in others should tell me that whatever it is you do for a living is made up mostly of unethical liars.

Is that the case? Are you a member of a group of UNETHICAL LIARS?

Or could it just be that your simplified back-of-the-envelope calculations are in error?

So, the NEXT TIME you decide that AGW is mostly due to scientists "lying" or "Hiding" the data or "shading the conclusions" in order to get a buck...I will know that you are EXPLICITLY SAYING that that is what YOU and everyone in YOUR field does.



You need to understand LOGIC before you can hold forth on topics like this.

A good hypothesis isn't good because it has amassed a consensus. But a good hypothesis should develop a consensus.

Why would adding "catastrophic" matter? Well for one AGW could be very real, but also the sensitivity to added CO2 so low as to be benign.
We humans, can at best produce maybe 2, doubling s of CO2, it would be very difficult to find, extract and burn more hydrocarbons than that.
If as the data suggests that the long term sensitivity to doubling the CO2 level is less than 1C, there is nothing catastrophic about adding CO2.
It can cause some warming, but that may be as beneficial as harmful.
A better goal, would be to solve our very real energy problem.
I cannot go into the ethics of the people who are supporting the IPCC's flavor of catastrophic AGW, just that the catastrophic portion is not supported by the data.

 

[Jack Hays]

You should be more disciplined with your sources...

As should you.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[SUP][3][/SUP] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[SUP][5][/SUP] Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.[SUP][4][/SUP]


Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Media_Bias › Fact_Check





Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is a website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt. The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news ...

 

[Jack Hays]

LOL.

So is it a BAD thing to have an education in a field, per your view of the world?

Yeah, that seems to line up.

(I take it you actually have read 1984...right? My comment about skepticism has ABSOLUTELY ZERO to do with the metaphorical construction of 1984.)

Actually, your tactic to delegitimize dissenting opinions is right outta 1984.

 

[vegas giants]

As should you.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[SUP][3][/SUP] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[SUP][5][/SUP] Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.[SUP][4][/SUP]


Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Media_Bias › Fact_Check





Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is a website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt. The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news ...

The site has been used by researchers at the University of Michigan to create a tool called the "Iffy Quotient", which draws data from Media Bias/Fact Check and NewsWhip to track the prevalence of "fake news" and questionable sources on social media.[6][7] The site was also used by a research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in initial training of an AI to fact check and detect the bias on a website.[8][9]

 

[Jack Hays]

The site has been used by researchers at the University of Michigan to create a tool called the "Iffy Quotient", which draws data from Media Bias/Fact Check and NewsWhip to track the prevalence of "fake news" and questionable sources on social media.[6][7] The site was also used by a research group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in initial training of an AI to fact check and detect the bias on a website.[8][9]

It deceives the lazy.

 

[vegas giants]

It deceives the lazy.

You mean like those lazy guys at MIT. LOL

 

[Jack Hays]

You mean like those lazy guys at MIT. LOL

In this case, yes.

 

[vegas giants]

In this case, yes.

Oh looky you have an opinion. I find your evaluation to be lazy.


See.....now I have one too. LOL

 

[istodolez]

Actually, your tactic to delegitimize dissenting opinions is right outta 1984.

Is it ever possible to "delegitimize" a position? Let's say I suggested that all the French Kings of the House of Valois were 98feet tall and shot lasers out of their eyes and established the country of China. This is the position I have arrived at because I am "skeptical" of standard French History.

Would my position be legitimate?

Do you think my "skepticism" is perfectly reasonable and leads to a position that should be treated as equal to all the normal historical positions?

 

[Jack Hays]

Is it ever possible to "delegitimize" a position? Let's say I suggested that all the French Kings of the House of Valois were 98feet tall and shot lasers out of their eyes and established the country of China. This is the position I have arrived at because I am "skeptical" of standard French History.

Would my position be legitimate?

Do you think my "skepticism" is perfectly reasonable and leads to a position that should be treated as equal to all the normal historical positions?

Others would judge the credibility of your view.

 

[vegas giants]

Others would judge the credibility of your view.

And of yours

 

[OlNate]

As should you.

The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst."[SUP][3][/SUP] The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."[SUP][5][/SUP] Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.[SUP][4][/SUP]


Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Media_Bias › Fact_Check





Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is a website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt. The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news ...

As should you. Following from the link you provided.

Poynter issued a statement, saying: "We regret that we failed to ensure that the data was rigorous before publication, and apologize for the confusion and agitation caused by its publication."

 

[istodolez]

Others would judge the credibility of your view.

But you are unable to? As an historian you find my "skepticism" to be perfectly reasonable in re the French kings from the 14th to the 16th centuries.

Good to know.

 

[longview]

But it's grossly oversimplified. You know it IS possible to oversimplify a concept so much that one can draw the incorrect conclusion from it, right?



Ummm, I don't believe that anyone DOES say that. I don't know where you got that info.


Your own link,
Climate Sensitivity - American Chemical Society
shows that the 2XCO2 radiative forcing warming would be 1.1C.

applied to 2XCO2 would become 5.35 X ln(2)=3.708 W/m2, and .3 X 3.708=1.112C.
but if the long term results of doubling CO2 is .5 to 1C, then the feedbacks are negative, it takes an attenuation to go from 1.1 C down to .5 to 1C!

No. If one considers just CO2 and CH4 (per the link I provided) the estimated warming just due to those things is 0.7K (0.7degC) but we find that the actual warming is 3-4K (3-4degC) so the feedbacks add to the value. (OBVIOUSLY there are also negative feedbacks in there as well, but clearly there's no way that they are all negative.)[/QUOTE]
The formula for converting imbalance W/m2 to degrees K, (or C), does not consider ether CO2 or CH4,
Here it is again,
ΔT ≈ [0.3 K·(W·m–2)–1] (2.2 W·m–2) ≈ 0.7 K
it simply says that each +W/m2 of energy imbalance is equal to +.3K (or C)!
The 2.2W/m2 is the ACS estimation of the imbalance cause by both CH4 and CO2,
but the formula is only about the relationship between imbalance and temperature, without a cause of the imbalance!
Tell me how the feedbacks equal 3-4 C, when the feedbacks since Earth had an atmosphere, pushed the other direction?
That assumed 33C warmer that Earth is said to be, goes back to the early 1900's,
but as you say we have been in the narrow Human civilization range of temperatures
for many thousands of years, and that same 33C would likely be true, when the pyramids were built.
In any case that 33 C is fully equalized, so the ~20%, or 6.6 C attributed to ALL the CO2, is also fully equalized!
How many doubling s of CO2 did it take to make that 6.6C?
it is simplistic to say a minimum of 8 doubling s, but it could be more!
We need to consider that our early industrial period, say before 1970, blocked a lot of sunlight from hitting the ground.
Pollution laws, in the US and in many other countries worked, and the aerosol pollutants declined and the skies cleared.
By the mid 1980's solar insolation was increasing, even while TSI was decreasing.
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface | Science

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds
to an increase of 6 W m-2 in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22).

Consider that between 1992 and 2002, using NOAA's AGGI, forcing from greenhouse gasses only increased by .308 W/m2 421 ppm to 446 ppm
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
Which likely had a greater impact on observed warming, the 6 W/m2, or the .308 W/m2?

 

[Jack Hays]

As should you. Following from the link you provided.

I have no idea what you are referring to.