They give an equation to determine the probability of a temperature rise of ΔT, given
an estimated feedback factor f and the error on its determination σ (f).
Not exact matches
Since Milankovitch
factors are excluded as small, BUT they do exist and by ignoring them you are introducing an increasing underestimation of the incoming solar radiation (& its impact on solar irradiance and on water vapor etc
feedbacks), then why is there not an uncertainty
estimate for this or better yet an actual
estimate of what the under estimation is?
But it could be even worse — with the GHG
feedback added in, the full response from the paleoclimate effects looks like it could multiply the IPCC
estimates by a
factor of 4 to 6.
«Researchers (17, 18)
estimated mean and SD of
feedback factors calculated from two different suites of climate models.
If the IPCC number of 1 C for a doubling of CO2 is wrong, then the
estimate of the contribution of
feedbacks is wrong by the same
factor.
For the sake of brevity, I took the «official» values of the CO2 radiative forcing and of the Planck parameter as correct, and pointed out to the audience that the major debate between the skeptics and the believers centers on the overall
feedback gain
factor, which — in the IPCC's implicit central
estimate — is 2.81, almost tripling the warming that a CO2 doubling causes before
feedbacks are taken into account.
Thus,
estimates of cloud
feedback require process - level understanding and modeling of the nontrivial
factors on which clouds depend.
As can be seen, the «constant RH assumption» exaggerates the actually observed moisture increase with warming by a
factor of around 10:1 (and hence the model - based water vapor
feedback estimates).