This implies
a greater value of climate sensitivity than estimated in the 2006 paper.
Another point worth making about the figure is that
greater values of climate sensitivity likely translate into quicker evolution of the climate, all other things being equal (e.g., Bahn et al., 2011, Fig. 2).
Not exact matches
As I said in the post, I think that there is a
great discussion and debate to be had over the nature, size, and type
of each
of these various homeostatic mechanisms... but instead the AGW folks want to debate the exact
value of the imaginary «
climate sensitivity» figure.
You are correct that
climate sensitivity is probably more uncertain than to < 10 %, however there is a substantial literature on why it is very likely
greater than 1.5 - 2 C per doubling
of CO2, while ruling out higher end
values of climate sensitivity is much more difficult.
If peak Phanerozoic ca is
of the order
of 1000 ppm then either slow - feedback
climate sensitivity is
greater than the canonical fast feedback
value of 3 °C for 2 × CO2 [Solomon et al., 2007], or global temperatures have been no warmer than ~ 6 °C above preindustrial conditions.
It means that the current method
of estimating
climate sensitivity would return a
value greater than 3 C.