IPCC doesn't state a best estimate for ECS but it looks like their projections are based on models with mean ECS 3.22K.
-
-
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
If you eyeball Figure 8 from the paper it looks like maybe 3/4 of polled scientists would estimate lower than that, 1/4 higher.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
(To be fair, many would say it's only very slightly too high.)
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
I'm not very confident that my interpretation here is correct, but if it is, that seems a more interesting takeaway than the "false balance"
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
Also, almost 40% of those polled think ECS < 2.5K. Many of these people would probably count as skeptics for practical purposes?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @MemberOfSpecies
In that net warming damage is supposed to increase more-than-linearly with temperature rise, and maybe dip below zero for low values.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
It would be interesting to see how sensitivity estimates break down by field of expertise, or in subsets of people with more publications.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.