## NOT SO GREEN | Feedback on Feedback

**Apparently emissivity has several components which are likely to change in various situations. Thus using it as a constant is only an approximation. Any climate models which use it as a constant are technically imprecise, although the range of values for emissivity would have to be studied to consider how much error this adds.**

On The Confusion Of Planck Feedback Parameters

Although the surface temperature change is 3.0 C with the Planck feedback parameter ( previous value ) for CO2 doubling when lapse rate ,water vapor, surface albedo and cloud feedbacks are included in the IPCC AR4, it is shown to be 0.5 – 0.75 C with ( Planck feedback parameter ) **proven** here. Since the IPCC overestimates the threat of carbon dioxide by 4 – 6 times, the revaluation will be needed for the CO2 reduction policies in terms of cost and potential hazards.**READ MORE**

Blog comments **:**

Calculus is Calculus. A calculator will give an answer based upon its inputs. And Calculus will give a result based on the terms in your starting equation which are based **on your assumptions** of what it is that you are calculating.**The world is a ‘grey body’**. Integration ( over atmospheric columns ) can be done numerically by stripped down climate models, or done algebraically by using constants that already embed the emissivity ‘integration’ over altitude.

The maths is OK, it’s the **interpretation** of it that is incorrect, and has, through simplification, in " summaries for policy makers " brought about " **catastrophic global warming** ".