Not exact matches
As noted earlier, our main conclusions are insensitive to the
precise details
of the forcing
estimates used, the volcanic scaling assumptions made, and the
precise assumed climate
sensitivity.
Indeed, this was found to be true for any
of several different published volcanic forcing series for the past millennium, regardless
of the
precise geometric scaling used to
estimate radiative forcing from volcanic optical depth, and regardless
of the
precise climate
sensitivity assumed.
But arguments over the
precise value
of climate
sensitivity duck the wider point, which is that even if we're lucky and climate
sensitivity is on the low side
of scientists»
estimates, we're still heading for a substantial level
of warming by the end
of the century if greenhouse gas emissions aren't addressed, as the IPCC has highlighted.
If you want a
precise estimate of the change in
sensitivity from what you would consider a «trusted source», you are own your own.
Note also that the Earth System
Sensitivity is deduced from various past climate change events like the Paleocene — Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), but the qualitative estimates of longer - term climate sensitivity are less precise than the HS12 fast feedback sensitivity
Sensitivity is deduced from various past climate change events like the Paleocene — Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM), but the qualitative
estimates of longer - term climate
sensitivity are less precise than the HS12 fast feedback sensitivity
sensitivity are less
precise than the HS12 fast feedback
sensitivitysensitivity estimates.
While climate contrarians like Richard Lindzen tend to treat the uncertainties associated with clouds and aerosols incorrectly, as we noted in that post, they are correct that these uncertainties preclude a
precise estimate of climate
sensitivity based solely on recent temperature changes and model simulations
of those changes.