I, and the climate science community in general, don't agree with JasonC's analysis. Feel free to believe him if you want to. I'm sure it makes you feel better.
I did research the question. JasonC's on shaky ground because he doesn't consider how the radiative forcing is actually translated into the physics of Earth's climate system.
Suppose for the sake of argument it is 1.2 and not 0.6. Since the community you site continually says 3-5 not 1.2, why aren't you running after them for their error, 3-6 times the size of the one you'd impute to me?
Because the direction is more important than the figure?
It is possible I've missed some factor and I'm off by 2 times - though I based my reasoning on a power budget your provided, and it is at least as likely any error in the estimate comes from there, rather than my reasoning, if error there is. Physically informed calculations like that can miss by a factor of 2, it does happen. But they don't miss by an order of magnitude. And none of those alleging an order of magnitude higher temperature response, can even name the source of the power they are alleging as operating.
I've asked you about fifty times to name the power source that can supposedly keep the whole earth glowing 5C hotter. You've trolled every website there is and I imagine asked all your friends, but I still don't have a power source. Not even one to test, let alone one that passes.
Seems to me the honest thing to do in the circumstances is to admit you don't know what the scale of warming will be, and that you actually don't have any good reason to believe the headline 3-5C figures, that you can't tell the rest of us how that makes physical sense, and that you are flat guessing if you agree with it.