This is an interesting study. I’ve not got time to look at it in detail, but I can’t obviously spot anything wrong with it.
Why the basic global warming hypothesis is wrong; CO2 climate sensitivity exaggerated 21X
What it suggests is that the Lapse rate is not a constant irrespective of CO2 as those producing the 3C warming estimates assume, but that the lapse rate changes with CO2 levels. And because the important heat exchange is at the top of the atmosphere (see advanced greenhouse model), the effect is to counter the change in CO2 with a change in lapse rate
Four eminent modellers formed the central dogma of the IPCC AGW theory. Their theory claims the zero feedback climate sensitivity (Planck response) is 1.2 ~ 1.3 K for 2xCO2. When multiplied by the feedback factor of 2.5, this gives the canonical climate sensitivity of 3 K claimed by the IPCC .
However, this IPCC dogma fails due to the lack of parameter sensitivity analysis of the lapse rate for 2xCO2 in the one dimensional model (1DRCM). The dogma also contains a mathematical error in its derivation of the Planck response by Cess (1976). Therefore, the IPCC AGW theory and its canonical climate sensitivity of 3 K for 2xCO2 are invalid.
This study derives a climate sensitivity of 0.14 K from the energy budget of the earth.
I’ve been suggesting that CO2 sensitivity is around 0.2 to 0.5 assuming moderate to strong negative feedbacks. If this figure is right, then the effect could be 0.03 to 0.15C warming over a century. That is so small, there is no chance at all of anyone detecting that level of warming – more so because natural variation could be up to an order of magnitude larger.
If this is right, it now means history books will not be writing our society up as “hysterics” but instead “completely ignorant morons”.