Again... There's no controlled laboratory experiment which quantifies the associated temperature of CO2 from radiative forcing.
Let's talk real science for a second. You're an engineer so maybe you can explain to me how to construct such an experiment.
Here's the boundary conditions:
1. It has to allow for water vapor feedbacks
2. It has to mimic the actual greenhouse (ie it has to be a gas volume with decreasing pressure with altitude in order to measure the balance of energy in and out and allow for how CO2 actually works as a greenhouse gas --it re-radiates IR until it gets to a point in your model "atmosphere" where re-radiation back out into the vacuum of space gets higher and higher...this is how the greenhouse effect ACTUALLY works)
3. It would be very nice to couple the model atmosphere with some "ocean" as well. That way the added CO2 in your system will have to undergo the complex chemistry of CO2 in the model "ocean".
The reason I mention all that is how earth science is done. Since we can't actually make an entire tectonic plate in the lab we have to go out into the field and see how these things function. We track the movement of the plate. But we don't do repeatable experiments in the lab on this. But plate tectonics is really well established!
Earth sciences OFTEN rely on field work ONLY.
As I noted earlier, my earth science career was mostly in the lab and in the petrography scope room, so I didn't get out much. There are SOME things you can do in the lab and some things you can't.
CLimate sensitivity is one of those things that is really hard if not impossible to do in the lab.
Tyndall measured different cool down times for two different gas compositions; air and 100% CO2. He observed there was a difference in the cool down times but never quantified the temperature difference. No one has, but they could.
But it wouldn't really relate to the greenhouse effect other than to show that CO2 absorbs IR. That was the point of Tyndall's research. He wasn't trying to quantify how many photons of IR a given quantity of CO2 was absorbing. And even if that COULD be pulled back out
it wouldn't really be useful to understanding how added CO2 in the real atmosphere behaved with regards to warming.
That's because the greenhouse effect ISN'T JUST CO2 ABSORBING IR PHOTONS. It's CO2 absorbing an IR photon, then re-radiating it back out and another CO2 molecule absorbing it etc etc. The IR photons steadily rise in the atmosphere to a point where it re-radiates back out into space. The incoming and outgoing energy to the earth is in balance. The key is
that level in the atmosphere where the IR re-radiates back out into space is higher and higher and higher with more CO2. And at those high elevations the amount of gas is much lower so the transmission out into space is less efficient which leads to increased warmth at the surface.
So it comes down to modeling.
Why do you ignore the folks who used real-time measures related to Mt. Pinatubo?
Scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of the recent warming trend depending on which datasets they consider.
Yeah, you keep noting that, but that isn't really quite the story. There are denialists and skeptics who think they've found the magic key but until the vast majority of experts who actually WORK IN THIS AREA look at this analysis and act on it I'm going to assume that this analysis, like McKitterick and McIntyre's PCA "analysis" is probably flawed in some way. I will hold off on simply accepting a claim that has just been thrown out.
Your guys include urban station temperature data
Which, again, has been shown to NOT AFFECT THE OVERALL DATA SET.
and use the low variability solar output dataset in your models. My guys exclude urban station temperature data and use the high variability solar output dataset in their models. So don't act like the science is settled. It's not.
Your guys amount to a small cadre of denialists. In every science there's denialists even in the ranks of the professionals. I had a mineralogy teacher in the 80's who doubted plate tectonics (he was really old and relatively well known in his circles, but he still had this doubt.)
There's always going to be a small number of opponents. Since neither you nor I are actual climate scientists it seems like you are following nothing more than confirmation bias. Otherwise you'd be bound to listen to the majority of the experts and not just your favorite minority.
