The Incorrect Postulate of Climate Alarmism

Very interesting series of posts today on the blog of Dr. Claes Johnson, Professor of Applied Mathematics, KTH, Stockholm, Sweden on his physical derivation of a climate model which predicts the sensitivity of the earth's climate to a doubling of CO2 to be only 0.15ºC, which is in far better agreement with the five peer reviewed studies of empirical satellite data, and in stark contrast to the IPCC/GISS models which artificially inflate the effect of CO2 by a factor of up to 5.35 over the Stefan-Boltzmann prediction to create their artificial alarm.

Dr. Johnson takes issue with the application of the Stefan-Boltzmann Radiation Law to the coupled Earth-atmosphere system, and argues Fourier's Law is the appropriate physical law, which would require the IPCC to use an imaginary positive feedback fudge factor of 30 to match their unjustified claims of the sensitivity to CO2. 

The basic postulate of IPCC climate alarmism is the relation dQ = 4 dT connecting radiative forcing dQ to global warming dT, with dQ = 4 Watts/m^2 from doubling of CO2 giving the climate sensitivity of dT = 1ºC, which is inflated to 1.5 - 4.5ºC by feed back.

The relation dQ = 4 dT comes from Stefan-Boltzmann's Radiation Law, which cannot be disputed as such.





However, the application of the Radiation Law to the coupled Earth-atmosphere system can be disputed. This is what I do in the previous posts on Climate Sensitivity and in the related article A New Approach to Climate Sensitivity with a a model study indicating instead a basic climate sensitivity of 0.15ºC without feed backs...

The basic climate sensitivity thus appears to be 0.15ºC (by Fourier's Law), rather than the commonly presented rock solid 1ºC (by Stefan-Boltzmann's Law). To reach a climate sensitivity of 4.5ºC starting from 0.15ºC requires a positive feed back factor of 30. What can be the science behind a so large positive feed back factor? IPCC does not give any clue, and nobody else... Maybe climate sensitivity is about 0.15ºC? Barely noticable?