The 3C canonical value doesn’t likely apply to this crazy human-caused rapid change. ECS=3C worked well (Hansen) as an average for the ice ages when CO2 went from 180ppm to 280ppm, but look at the review paper of von der Heydt https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0049-3 2016, over a half-dozen studies – some paleo, some paleo+model, some just modelling, various times… and every single study shows higher ECS applies at hotter climate states. Even in just the past interglacials warm periods, Friedrich et al 2016 find ECS is 4.9C. Michael Mann studied the paper and concluded it was “sound, and the conclusions quite defensible”. 4.9C ! That’s catastrophic.
It’s 42, right?
I knew it!
“Someone fix the probability drive. We have to get outta here.”
The 3C canonical value doesn’t likely apply to this crazy human-caused rapid change. ECS=3C worked well (Hansen) as an average for the ice ages when CO2 went from 180ppm to 280ppm, but look at the review paper of von der Heydt https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40641-016-0049-3 2016, over a half-dozen studies – some paleo, some paleo+model, some just modelling, various times… and every single study shows higher ECS applies at hotter climate states. Even in just the past interglacials warm periods, Friedrich et al 2016 find ECS is 4.9C. Michael Mann studied the paper and concluded it was “sound, and the conclusions quite defensible”. 4.9C ! That’s catastrophic.
Public “Scientific reticence” is not our friend.
True.