Given the large and growing (my opinion) uncertainty of the aerosol forcing, how can we make meaningful
statements about the climate sensitivity from paleo - experiments?
Perhaps we could say that probabilistic
statements about climate sensitivity ignore uncertainty regarding the true relationship between predictor and predictand.
Moreover WG III is not responsible for making
any statements about climate sensitivity and have no business doing so.
Neither is there any evidence to support
your statement about climate sensitivity being insignificant.
Not exact matches
We already looked at how
climate skeptics rely on a selective reading of the literature to highlight low estimates of
climate sensitivity and use the divergence between
climate models and measured temperatures to make conjectural
statements about climate models being too sensitive to CO2, without considering other factors that could account for such divergence.
In July, for example, The Sunday Times was forced to retract an article that accused the IPCC of flubbing a
statement about the Amazon rainforest's
sensitivity to
climate change.
Also, perhaps a more open - ended question would be what does he think the average sceptic MEANS when they say «I am sceptical
about AGW, or CAGW, or the consensus position on
climate sensitivity, or IPCC
statements, or the possibility of mitigation...»
I know that earlier Forster & Gregory inconsistently describe the conclusion as the «suggestion» of a relatively small
climate sensitivity, but in the light of their aforementioned subsequent
statement about robustness I see that as likely to have been a sop to a reviewer who was hostile to their conclusion.
Sorry, Michael, but I have a hard time parsing that
statement to mean anything other than debate
about the MWP,
climate sensitivity, etc. is politically motivated.
Hence, the IPCC report includes a range of possibilities for
climate sensitivity, the implication of which is that assent to or dissent from the
statement about the greatest part of late 20th century warming is the signature of «endorsement» or «rejection» is outright nonsense.