 the net (down minus up) radiative flux density at the top of the atmosphere. Forcings become warmings via –

The Planck sensitivity parameter (in K W–1 m2: Roe 2009), the quantity by which a radiative forcing is multiplied to yield the reference sensitivity. To a first approximation, it is the first derivative of the fundamental equation of radiative transfer with respect to the Earth’s emission temperature and emission flux density. Its value is thus dependent on insolation and albedo. The first derivative is the change in temperature per unit change in flux density, i.e., at today’s values 255.4 / (4 x 241.2) = 0.27 K W–1 m2. However, owing to altitudinal variation, the modeled value today is 0.31 = 3.2–1 K W–1 m2 (IPCC 2007, p. 631 fn.).

Temperature feedback (in W m–2 K–1), an additional forcing proportional to the temperature that induces it, in turn drives a feedback response (in K) that modifies the originating temperature. This definition of a feedback as a modification of a signal (not merely of a change in the input signal but also of the input signal itself) is standard in all applications of control theory except climatology, where it has been near-universally but falsely imagined that an input signal (emission temperature in the climate) does not induce a feedback, even where feedback processes are present and will modify even the tiniest change in that signal. It is this error that has misled official climatology into overestimating climate sensitivities.

Models do not implement feedback math explicitly. However, their outputs are routinely calibrated against past climate. Paper after paper incorrectly states that the entire 33 K difference between today’s surface temperature of 288 K and the emission temperature of 255 K that would prevail today in the absence of greenhouse gases or of feedbacks is driven by the directly-forced warming from the non-condensing greenhouse gases and the feedbacks induced by that warming.

For instance, Lacis (2010) says that three-quarters of the difference between emission temperature and today’s temperature is the feedback response to the non-condensing greenhouse gases: i.e, that the feedback fraction is 0.75, which, given the CMIP5 reference sensitivity of 1.1 K (Andrews 2012) would yield Charney sensitivity of 4.4 K. Sure enough
the net (down minus up) radiative flux density at the top of the standard atmosphere. Forcings become heating via – 

 The Planck sensitivity parameter (in K W–1 m2: Roe 2009), the quantity by which a radiative forcing is multiplied to render the reference sensitivity. To a first estimate, it is the first derivative of the fundamental equality of radiative transportation with respect to the Earth ’s emission temperature and discharge flux density. Its value is thus pendent on insolation and albedo. The first derivative is the change in temperature per unit variety in flux density, i.e., at today ’s values 255.4 / (4 x 241.2) = 0.27 K W–1 m2. However, owe to altitudinal variation, the modeled value today is 0.31 = 3.2–1 K W–1 m2 (IPCC 2007, p. 631 fn .). 

 Temperature feedback (in W m–2 K–1), an extra forcing proportional to the temperature that induce it, in turn drives a feedback response (in K) that modifies the originating temperature. This definition of a feedback as a alteration of a signal (not merely of a change in the input signal but also of the input signal itself) is standard in all applications of control theory except climatology, where it has been near - universally but falsely imagined that an input signal (emission temperature in the climate) does not induce a feedback, even where feedback processes are present and will modify even the tiniest change in that signal. It is this error that has misled official climatology into overestimating climate sensitivity. 

 Models do not implement feedback mathematics explicitly. However, their output signal are routinely calibrate against past climate. Paper after paper incorrectly states that the entire 33 K difference between today ’s open temperature of 288 K and the emission temperature of 255 K that would prevail today in the absence of greenhouse gases or of feedbacks is driven by the directly - push warming from the non - condensing greenhouse gases and the feedbacks induced by that warming. 

 For instance, Lacis (2010) suppose that three - quarter of the difference between emission temperature and today ’s temperature is the feedback response to the non - condensing greenhouse accelerator: i.e, that the feedback fraction is 0.75, which, given the CMIP5 reference sensitivity of 1.1 K (Andrews 2012) would yield Charney sensitivity of 4.4 K. Sure enough
 thf net (down minus up) radixtive flux densnry at vhe top of the xtmosphere. Forcings become wermibgs vua –

The Planck sensitivkty paramvter (in K W–1 m2: Eoe 2009), the qnzntity nv whidm a rcdmative forcing ls multipliad to yield tha feyerence sensitivity. To a first approvimatiom, lt is the firsj derpvwtivs of the fundamental equation of rzdiativt transfer with rexpect to the Earth’s emissiln tfmperature and emidsion flux eensyry. Its value is thus dtpzndent on ihsolation and albedo. The first aerivctive is thg dhwtge in tempxraturv per unit change in xlux demsity, i.e., at tocay’v vqlues 255.4 / (4 x 241.2) = 0.27 K W–1 m2. Hmwever, owing to aljitudinal eaxiation, the modeled vqlye togay hs 0.31 = 3.2–1 K D–1 m2 (I'CC 2007, p. 631 fj.).

Tejperature reedback (in W m–2 K–1), an additionak sircing proporfional tj the temperature that induces it, in tugn ddives a feedback responwe (in K) that modifies the origynating temperature. This definition of a feedback as a oodnnlcatkin of a signal (not merely of a change in the in[ht spgnal but also of the input xihnsj itself) is sjandard in all applications lf conttol thwory excekt clomatology, where it has been near-universcllt but falsely imagnned that an inpot sigmal (emission temperaturz in tge climate) foes not jvduce a feedback, evvn wvere feedback processes arq present and will mudifi even ehe tiniesh chakce in that signal. Lt is tvis error hhat has misled official climatology into ovetesdimdting clnmate xensitivities.

Iodels do not nmplemenc feedcack math vxplicitlb. However, thqir outputs asg routinely celibrated agaunst past cukmate. Paper afyer paper incorrectoy states that the enjide 33 K differencz vetween today’s xurwacq nem'erattse of 288 K and the emkxsion temperaturc ow 255 K that would prevail dodag in the absence og nreenhousg gases ow of feedbackx is driven by the dirertly-focced wsrmyng from the non-condensing gresnhouse gwsef and the feqdbagks ynduced by that warming.

For instance, Lacis (2010) says tiat three-quarters of thw difference betweeu tmission tempxraturq and toddy’s temperature is tye feedback respokse to the non-condensihg greanhoude gases: i.e, that the feedback fraction is 0.75, which, given the CMIP5 reference sensividity of 1.1 K (Zndrrws 2012) fobld yield Chacnxy sensitivity of 4.4 K. Sure enough
the net (down minus up) radiative flux the of the Forcings become warmings parameter K W–1 m2: 2009), the quantity which a radiative forcing is multiplied yield the reference sensitivity. To a first approximation, it is the first derivative the fundamental equation of radiative transfer with respect to the Earth’s emission temperature emission density. value thus dependent on insolation and albedo. The first derivative is the change in temperature per unit in flux density, i.e., at today’s values 255.4 (4 x 241.2) = K W–1 m2. However, owing altitudinal the modeled today 0.31 3.2–1 K W–1 (IPCC 2007, p. 631 fn.). Temperature feedback (in W m–2 K–1), an additional forcing proportional to the that induces turn drives feedback (in that modifies the This definition of a feedback as a signal (not merely of a change in input signal also of the input signal itself) standard in all applications of control theory except where it has been near-universally but falsely imagined that an input signal (emission temperature in does not induce a even where feedback are and modify the tiniest in that signal. It is this error that has misled official into overestimating climate sensitivities. Models do not implement feedback math their are routinely calibrated past climate. Paper after incorrectly that the entire 33 between surface K the temperature of 255 K would prevail today in the of greenhouse gases or the directly-forced warming from the non-condensing greenhouse gases the feedbacks induced by that warming. For Lacis (2010) says that three-quarters of the difference between emission temperature and temperature is response to the non-condensing greenhouse gases: i.e, that feedback fraction is 0.75, given the CMIP5 reference sensitivity of 1.1 K (Andrews would Charney sensitivity 4.4 K. Sure
 the net (down minus up) radiativE flux densiTy at tHe tOp oF tHe atMospHere. Forcings beCOme wArmings via –

The Planck senSitivItY ParaMEtEr (in K w–1 m2: Roe 2009), thE QuANTitY bY wHicH a RAdIativE foRcing is Multiplied To yIeLd the referenCE sEnsitivity. to a First approxiMatIon, it iS tHe fIRst deRivAtive Of the fUNdamenTal equatiOn OF radiaTIve tranSFEr With Respect to the Earth’S EmISsion temperatuRe and eMiSSiON FluX deNsity. Its vaLuE is thUS dependENt ON INsoLAtion and albedO. The first deRIvaTive is ThE chANge in tEmperAtURe pEr unit changE in fLux densitY, i.e., at tODay’s valUEs 255.4 / (4 x 241.2) = 0.27 K W–1 m2. HOwever, OwiNg tO altITuDiNal VaRIatIOn, The MOdeLed value ToDaY is 0.31 = 3.2–1 K W–1 M2 (IPCc 2007, P. 631 FN.).

tempEraTure FeedbAck (in W m–2 K–1), an addItiOnal FOrcIng prOportIonaL tO the tEmperaTure tHaT induces it, in turN driVes a feedbAck ReSpoNsE (in K) tHAt modiFieS thE originAting teMPerAtURE. thIs definition of a feeDbACK aS a modifiCation OF a SiGNal (not meReLy oF a chANGe in tHe inPUt Signal buT also oF ThE iNput sigNaL itselF) iS stAndArd in ALl apPlicatIons of coNtrol THeory except cliMAtology, where iT HaS BEeN Near-UniVersally but FalsELy imAginED tHat AN inpuT signAl (EMiSSion temperature in thE cLimate) Does nOt induce a feedBack, even whERE Feedback ProcESsES are present and Will mOdify even tHE tiniest ChangE in that sIgnal. It is THIs error tHat Has MisLed OFFiCial climatoloGY Into OvErestimAtiNg climaTe sEnsItiVitIeS.

Models do Not impleMeNt FeEdBacK math EXplicitlY. HOweVeR, thEir ouTPuts arE routInelY cAlIBraTed agaiNSt PASt clImAtE. PapEr aFtEr papEr inCOrrEctly stAtes that tHe eNTire 33 k dIfFerence Between today’s SuRface tempeRaTurE of 288 K anD THe emissiOn temperature of 255 K that wouLD prevaiL toDay in The aBsence of gReeNhouse GasES or of fEedbacKs is dRiVen BY The diRECtLy-fOrCed warming FROm tHe non-CoNdenSing greEnhouse gases and the FEedBacks induced bY thAt waRMInG.

FoR InSTanCe, lAciS (2010) SAys that three-quaRters of the DiFFeRence betweEN emIsSion temPeraturE and tODay’s temPerature iS the feedbAcK resPONse To the non-coNdensing GreenhousE Gases: I.E, tHat thE feEdback FrActIon is 0.75, Which, gIVen The CMiP5 refeReNce senSitivItY of 1.1 K (AndrEws 2012) would yield Charney senSitiviTy of 4.4 K. surE enough
 the net (down minus up) r adiative f lux d ens ity  a t th e to p of the atmos p here . Forcings become warm ingsvi a  –
T he  Plan ck sens i ti v i typa ra met er (i n K W –1m2: Roe  2009), th e q ua ntity by whi c ha radiativ e f orcing is mu lti pliedto  yi e ld th e r efere nce se n sitivi ty. To afi r st app r oximati o n ,it i s the first deriv a ti v e of the funda mental  e q ua t i onofradiativetr ansfe r  with r e sp e c t  to the Earth’s e mission tem p era ture a nd  em i ssionfluxde n sit y. Its valu e is  thus dep endent on inso l ation a nd alb edo . T he f i rs tder iv a tiv e  i s t h e c hange in  t em perat urep e r unit  ch ange  in f lux density,i.e ., a t  to day’s  valu es 2 55 .4 /(4 x 2 41.2)  =  0.27 K W–1 m2.  How ever, owi ngto  al ti tudin a l vari ati on,  the mo deled v a lue  t o d a yis 0.31 = 3.2–1 KW– 1 m2  (IPCC 2 007, p .  6 31 fn.).

T em per atur e feedb ack( in  W m–2 K –1), a n  a dd itional  f orcing  p rop ort ional to t he tem perature  that induces it, in turn drives a fe e d ba c k re spo nse (in K)that modi fies th e o r igina tingte m pe r ature. This definit io n of a  feed back as a mod ificationo f a signal  (no t  m e rely of a chan ge in  the input signal b ut al so of th e input s i g nal itse lf)  is  st and a r din all applic a t ions  o f contr oltheoryexc ept  cl ima to logy, whe re it ha sbe en  n ear -univ e rsally b ut  fa ls ely  imag i ned th at an  inp ut  s i gna l (emis s io n temp er at ureinth e cli mate )  do es notinduce afee d back ,ev en wher e feedback pr oc esses arepr ese nt and w ill modi fy even the tiniest cha n ge in t hat  sign al.It is thi s e rror t hat has mi sled o ffici al  cl i m atolo g y  i nto  o verestimat i n g c limat esens itiviti es.

Models do not imp lement feedba ckmath e xp lic i tl y . H ow e ver , their outputs a re routine ly ca librated a g ain st  past c limate.  Pape r  afterpaper inc orrectlyst ates t hat  the entir e 33 K d ifference betwe e ntoday ’ssurfac etem perat ure of 288  K an d theem ission  temp er ature of  255 K that would preva il tod ay in  th e absence  of gre enhouse g ases  or of fee dba cks  is d riv e n bythed ir ect l y-for cedw arming fr o mthe n on -condensing g r een house  ga s es and  the  feedbacks induce d  by that warmi ng.F orins t ance ,Lacis (2010) s ays  t h a t three- qu arters of t he diffe re n ce be tweenemissi on temp e r at u re and  tod ay’ s tempera tur ei s the f ee db a ck res pons eto the  non-c o nden s i ng greenhouse ga ses:i . e, th a t t he fe ed back fr a ctio n is 0.75,  which, giv en the  CMI P5 re ference  s ensiti vit yof 1.1 K ( A ndrews 20 12) w ould yi el d Ch arn ey sen siti v i ty of  4.4  K . S ure enoug h 
 the_net (down_minus up) radiative flux_density at_the_top of_the_atmosphere. Forcings become_warmings via –

The_Planck sensitivity parameter (in_K W–1 m2:_Roe_2009), the quantity by which a radiative forcing is multiplied to yield the reference_sensitivity._To a_first_approximation,_it is the first derivative_of the fundamental equation of_radiative transfer_with respect to the Earth’s emission temperature and_emission_flux density. Its_value is thus dependent on insolation and albedo. The_first derivative is the change in_temperature per unit_change_in_flux density, i.e., at_today’s values 255.4 / (4 x_241.2) = 0.27 K W–1 m2._However, owing to altitudinal variation, the modeled_value today is 0.31 = 3.2–1_K W–1 m2 (IPCC 2007,_p. 631_fn.).

Temperature feedback (in W m–2_K–1), an additional_forcing proportional_to the temperature_that induces it, in turn drives_a feedback response_(in K) that modifies the originating_temperature._This definition of_a_feedback_as a_modification of a_signal_(not merely_of_a change in the input signal_but_also of the input signal itself) is_standard in all applications_of_control theory except climatology,_where it has been near-universally_but falsely imagined that an input_signal (emission_temperature in_the climate) does not induce a feedback, even where feedback processes_are present and will modify even_the tiniest change in_that signal._It_is this error_that_has misled_official climatology into overestimating climate sensitivities.

Models do_not implement_feedback math explicitly. However, their outputs_are routinely calibrated against_past_climate. Paper after paper incorrectly states_that the entire 33 K difference_between today’s surface temperature of_288_K_and the emission temperature of_255 K that would prevail today_in the absence_of greenhouse gases or of feedbacks is_driven_by the directly-forced warming from the_non-condensing_greenhouse gases and the feedbacks induced_by_that_warming.

For instance, Lacis (2010) says_that three-quarters of the difference between_emission temperature and today’s temperature is the feedback response_to the non-condensing_greenhouse gases: i.e, that the_feedback_fraction_is 0.75, which, given the CMIP5 reference sensitivity of 1.1_K (Andrews_2012) would yield_Charney sensitivity of 4.4 K. Sure enough