Climate model studies and empirical analyses of paleoclimate data can provide
estimates of the amplification of climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal events.
Finally, not only did K et al not use a reasonable amplification factor for land, but they also did not account for the inherent uncertainty in
the estimate of amplification.
Climate model studies and empirical analyses of paleoclimate data can provide
estimates of the amplification of climate sensitivity caused by slow feedbacks, excluding the singular mechanisms that caused the hyperthermal events.
Not exact matches
It is well recognized that we can't just add these together, but in fact, they tend to reinforce each other, and the
estimated amplification of the direct response to CO2 forcing is expected to exceed their sum.
Additional heat added to Arctic ocean due to current Arctic
Amplification compared to prior normal: Based on my very rough
estimate of average difference
of 200w / sq meter over 2.0 million sq km
of exposed Arctic ocean waters for 60 days = 20
Thus, we take 4.5 °C as our best
estimate for LGM cooling, implying an
amplification of surface temperature change by a factor
of two relative to deep ocean temperature change for this climate interval.
For example, Gavin's Pussycat has already pointed out that in their analysis they did not take into proper account how polar
amplification results in larger swings in temperature at higher latitudes — and that when
estimating temperature variation at lower latitudes on the basis
of proxies at higher latitudes one has to scale down the variation, that is recognize that the swings in temperature will be smaller at those lower latitudes.
Because the majority
of recent ΔFP − M
estimates (see Sect. 1) are only in the range 0.1 − 0.2 W / m2, and
amplification processes have not been identified, the role
of the solar forcing in the natural climate change remains highly uncertain (Solomon et al. 2007).