This quote from your second link pretty much echoes what I have said in my last couple of posts.
And how do they determine the 'climate sensitivity'?Scientists calculate that the effect of a doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2) alone would be a global temperature rise of about 1 °C. However, when the various climate feedbacks are taken into account, the most likely temperature increase following a doubling of CO2 – known as the ‘climate sensitivity’ – is about 3 °C, with an uncertainty range of 2–4.5 °C
Ok. So there is no emperical evidence as to why they have the net feedbacks so high. Just the use of computer models.After decades of laboratory studies, atmospheric measurements and accumulated knowledge, scientists consider many elements of the climate system to be well understood. But other aspects of the climate’s behaviour are less certain. Scientists therefore compare estimates of ‘climate sensitivity’ derived from basic physical principles with estimates derived from alternative methods, notably computer model simulations of the climate and calculations based on proxy measurements of past climate change. Despite the many uncertainties, there is broad agreement on the ‘best estimate’ value of climate sensitivity – about 3 °C. This agreement between different, independent methods gives scientists confidence in their predictions of how the climate will respond to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.
And how are these models going?
From your first link.
I would say, not very well. Why did none of these models predict the lack of warming we have had over the last decade and a half?