The evidence favors a temperature change in the range ~ 4 - 5C for LGM - Holocene, and thus a fast -
feedback climate sensitivity close to 3C or a bit larger.
Not exact matches
Beckage tells us that the uncertainty from human
feedback comes
close to the uncertainty scientists still have in the physical systems (things like permafrost melt,
climate sensitivity, and all that).
What about the
feedbacks that are not normally well represented by ECS and normally fall into the Earth System
Climate Sensitivity, stuff like the Arctic Ice cover, which now has trends over decades
closer to what was seen on centuries in paleoclimate:
Reaching high
climate sensitivities requires a positive
feedback close to the point of instability.
The
closed - loop
feedback gain implicit in the IPCC's
climate -
sensitivity interval 3.3 [2.0, 4.5] Cº per CO2 doubling falls on the interval 0.62 [0.42, 0.74].
I agree that reduction in snow or ice cover resulting from warming constitutes a likely slow positive
feedback, but its magnitude may be quite small, at least for the modest changes in surface temperature that can be expected to arise if
sensitivity is in fact fairly low, so the Forster / Gregory 06 results may nevertheless be a
close approximation to a measurement of equilibrium
climate sensitivity.
In fact the non
feedback sensitivity is
close to the IPCC value, though our calculation is for a very idealized coupled
climate system - but the simulated temperature profile are similar with profile of the observed Earth
climate.
But I also believe it is reasonable to conclude, based on all the recent data out there, that the net
feedback from clouds (LW+SW) is very likely to be negative (rather than strongly positive, as assumed by all the models cited by IPCC), and that the 2xCO2
climate sensitivity is very likely to be below 1.5 C (probably
closer to 1C).