Post

So do you disagree that this is a vindication of Hansen? I thought a .36/decade warming rate was really high.... Anyway if Hansen is right things are really bad; I would appreciate reassurance otherwise if it does exist.

I don’t think it’s strong evidence for exceptionally high climate sensitivity. It does imply that we should probably expect warming of about 0.35 C/decade to continue if global greenhouse gas emissions stay around their current levels.

Thanks. That makes sense. But if the warming rate is around .36/decade or .4/decade (as in this paper www.nature.com/articles/s41...) wouldn't that mean ECS is at the very least substantially higher than 3C?

"Worth noting" is more generous than how I would have framed it but I agree!! - and wish this were forefonted more often! Especially that - unlike the oversimplified "warming has accelerated!" - warming is *not* a function of *time*, but rather, as you say, a linear function against cumulative...

emissions! And just to bring that home a bit stronger, I like to point out to people that the key IPCC illustration of the relationship, AR6 WGI SPM Fig. SPM.10, does not have time on the x-axis! So, indeed, we can get an acceleration against time if the rate of emissions increase (as they have!)

without the underlying TCRE of ~0.45°C/1,000 GtCO₂ having much changed! And even the argument/warning that the carbon sinks are weakening as surface temperatures rise... not only is that *expected/accounted for* in the relationship between warming and cumulative emissions, it is literally a...