The too-simple-model is used to predict the following "basic postulates of global warming":
- Postulate1: "Total greenhouse effect" = 33 C.
- Postulate2: "Added greenhouse effect" of global warming of 1 C from doubled CO2.
The value of a model depends on what data is used as input and what is the realism of the model. Let us compare the too-simple-model with the not-too-simple-model from these points of view. We have:
1. Too-simple-model for "total greenhouse effect":
- data1: 15 C ground temperature.
- model1: Stefan-Boltzmann for blackbody.
- output1: Total greenhouse effect = 33 C.
- data2: $dQ=4 W/m2$ from estimated 10% change of the CO2 "ditch".
- model2: Differentiated form of Stefan Boltzmann $dQ=4T$.
- output2: 1 C added warming by doubled CO2.
- data3: 15 C ground temperature at 5/6 closed window. Earth surface emissivity = 0.7.
- model3: Stefan-Boltzmann for fully open window.
- output3: Total greenhouse effect = 2 C. Added effect 10% of total = 0.2 C.
The estimate of the "total greenhouse effect" of 2 C thus can be expected to be more reliable than both postulates of global warming, in particular more reliable than Postulate2 as the foundation of CO2 global warming alarm.
PS1 Concerning the absolute madness of strangling Western economies by costly meaningless reductions of CO2 emissions, read about the US-China deal set by Obama.
PS2 GWPF questions the CO2 alarm sent by the Royal Society, but does not question Postulate2 as the very basis of the alarm. But if the 1 C of Postulate2 is replaced by 0.2 C on better scientific grounds, then no further questioning is needed. It is strange that skeptics like Lindzen et al, who are able to question just about everything the Royal Society says, are unable to question Postulate2. It appears that Postulate2 serves as a dogma so strong that questioning is unthinkable. This is how a true dogma can persist to hold its grip. Questioning is unthinkable. And if questioning is unthinkable, then a dogma with weak scientific support can continue to serve as the truth.