Javier Vinos comment

[Sunsettommy]

From HERE

the global warming hypothesis begins with the assumption that the climate system is naturally in a state of energy balance.

In addition to the assumption that the radiative forcing scenarios are a relatively accurate representation of what has been causing climate change since 1765, there is also the assumption that our temperature datasets are sufficiently accurate to compute ECS values.

there has been a multi-century warming trend occurring, even in the early 20th Century, which the IPCC ignores and which suggests a natural source for long-term climate change.

We know each and every one of those assumptions is wrong. The global warming scare is maintained on false assumptions. The question is why should we care about any value of ECS? It is not only meaningless, but nobody has demonstrated that even the concept of ECS is correct. In a dynamic climate system with lots of variable feedbacks there is no reason to think that a doubling of CO2 will produce the same amount of warming as the previous or next doubling. To compound the ECS problem, it might take centuries to realize the warming, during which, obviously, the Earth will be warming or cooling for a variety of reasons.

I’ve always been puzzled by ECS studies from skeptical scientists. Why would any skeptical scientist want to study something they know is a meaningless concept? It is a complete waste of time. In addition, affirmationists always ignore low-ECS studies.

[Billy_Bob Systems Administration]

From HERE

the global warming hypothesis begins with the assumption that the climate system is naturally in a state of energy balance.

In addition to the assumption that the radiative forcing scenarios are a relatively accurate representation of what has been causing climate change since 1765, there is also the assumption that our temperature datasets are sufficiently accurate to compute ECS values.

there has been a multi-century warming trend occurring, even in the early 20th Century, which the IPCC ignores and which suggests a natural source for long-term climate change.

We know each and every one of those assumptions is wrong. The global warming scare is maintained on false assumptions. The question is why should we care about any value of ECS? It is not only meaningless, but nobody has demonstrated that even the concept of ECS is correct. In a dynamic climate system with lots of variable feedbacks there is no reason to think that a doubling of CO2 will produce the same amount of warming as the previous or next doubling. To compound the ECS problem, it might take centuries to realize the warming, during which, obviously, the Earth will be warming or cooling for a variety of reasons.

I’ve always been puzzled by ECS studies from skeptical scientists. Why would any skeptical scientist want to study something they know is a meaningless concept? It is a complete waste of time. In addition, affirmationists always ignore low-ECS studies.

The worst kind of bias...  Confirmational Bias...  Then we have those ignoring those studies which show it meaningless...   If you unwilling to address your own internal biases, then you are not doing science. In the case of ECS they ignore the basic tenet of a logarithmic process and the diminishing returns of affect.   

We need to get back to the basics on this... We have run headlong into absurdity.