Name this logical fallacy.
CO2 climate forcing and various feedbacks are not outputs of climate models; they are inputs in terms of watts per square meter (W/M2), so what the climate models put out in terms of temperature change is basically pre-determined by the initial conditions and inputs. The no feedback forcing for a doubling of CO2 is calculated from physics as about 3.7 W/M2, but the no feedback, or open loop, forcing cannot be measured independent of feedbacks. A body will radiate about 3.7 W/M2 more energy if its temperature is increased by 1 degree C. However, that does not mean that increasing the energy flow to the body by that amount is going to increase its temperature by 1C. Any increase in the temperature has to increase the energy flow away from the body by all means it can, i.e. conduction, convection, evaporation as well as radiation. When the outflow of energy equals the inflow then thermal equilibrium exists with the body at a higher temperature. But that temperature cannot be as much as 1C higher, as the radiative outflow has to be less than the total outflow.
There is not much agreement on the net effect of feedbacks. However, a comparison of the change in temperature vs. the change in CO2 during ice ages and deglaciations gives a pretty good indication that the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is derived directly from ice core records.
But wait a minute. The NOAA admits that ice core records show that temperature leads rather than lags CO2. The NOAA says in part: “While it might seem simple to determine cause and effect between carbon dioxide and climate from which change occurs first, or from some other means, the determination of cause and effect remains exceedingly difficult.” Does anybody really think that the NOAA would include a statement like that if CO2 led temperature?
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/global-warming/temperature-changeSo it seems pretty clear that what the ice core records show is the sensitivity of CO2 to temperature, not the sensitivity of temperature to CO2.
