The sensitivity to CO2 is a very very very difficult to estimate parameter. Different values have been proposed in the past, so I don't think this is new.
I've read before about the influence of the sun, that has another difficult to estimate parameter, so I don't think this is new.
Is there some article with more details? Preferably with some graphics that show the agreement between the new model and the measured temperatures. Bonus point for a clear 5 and 10 years prediction, so we can compare that in 5 and 10 years. Extra bonus point for publishing it in a peer review journal!
My (limited) understanding is that sensitivity due to CO2 changes is a well-understood and non-disputed fact while the sensitivity due to feedbacks in the climate system is unknown and effectively an "input" into climate models. It is the feedback sensitivity parameter that is the source of dispute between supporters of 'catastrophic global warming' theory and 'skeptics' who believe the feedback is much smaller than the values used in the models.
It isn't clear from the article if the new claim is challenging the understanding of CO2 sensitivity, or the choice of feedback sensitivity.
2 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 11.7 ms ] threadI've read before about the influence of the sun, that has another difficult to estimate parameter, so I don't think this is new.
Is there some article with more details? Preferably with some graphics that show the agreement between the new model and the measured temperatures. Bonus point for a clear 5 and 10 years prediction, so we can compare that in 5 and 10 years. Extra bonus point for publishing it in a peer review journal!
It isn't clear from the article if the new claim is challenging the understanding of CO2 sensitivity, or the choice of feedback sensitivity.