That was Cohen himself telling us, so you are just claiming that he is lying. But as I expected you will only going to toss him under the bus as he is not agreeing with you.
Good luck on convincing others now that you are serious.
And that is what Cohen and others are talking about. What usually happens is that you usually resort to the most likely conclusion only when pressed and then forget that others did told you that before and repeatedly.
What you are missing is that only until recently climate scientists are beginning to increase the resolution and data to allow them to look at what global warming is doing at specific regions. Before they concentrated on more general views but that lead to issues that made some scientists to make incorrect local assumptions, once those issues were corrected scientists are reporting that the “wrong” assumptions are now matching the predictions and actual data of the regions observing cooling, a condition that the same researchers report that it will not be a permanent one and leading to more extreme weather because globally speaking the earth is warming still, so there is no need to dismiss the main theories.
A big big mistake as it is clear that you did not even read the abstract I quoted, the models are more accurate now once the mistaken assumptions were corrected, you are only running on empty ideas.
You might find this hard to believe, but until your next post, I actually did not realize the opinion piece from the NYTimes from 2010, was written by Cohen. So when you said he wrote that, I was responding based on what he has published in scientific papers and letters, not realizing he wrote the NYT opinion.
No, I was quite simply wrong. Obviously he wrote the 2010 piece. It’s just that he never wrote that in any of his scientific publications. This shows how little I pay attention to opinion pieces, and blogs and editorials! I was basing my view on what Cohen has published. He never said that in any science paper!
Of course now that I know he wrote the 2010 opinion article, of course he said it. If you hadn’t said what you did, I would still not know he wrote it. :smack:
:smack::smack::smack::smack::smack:
His models certainly are more accurate. I don’t think everybody jumped on board with his ideas back in 2007. I haven’t seen any other models or papers predicting colder winters, based on a new model. But certainly if the models are changed, and they predict something different than they did before, then they changed the theoretic assumptions they program the models with. Which is what happens when you realize your model is wrong.
It’s not “absurd” to point out an obviously and ridiculously wrong interpretation of a paper. I’m happy to explain it again down below. Those who have read your numerous posts on these topics in the past already know that “anyone can read it” or “anyone can see it for themselves” coming from you should be an immediate red flag because they are your famous taglines used when referring either to citations that almost always completely fail to support your claim, or else are irrelevant cherry-picks. It’s SOP.
Also, “anyone can read it” is a handy bit of sleight-of-hand when one knows that most people don’t have the time or inclination to read a scientific paper, or don’t necessarily have the scientific background to understand it in context. Those are also brave words coming from someone who just lectured us in post #25 that "facts often need interpretation, a framework … "
Nice try at backpedaling, and you still got it wrong! I’ll get to that, but let’s first go back to what you actually said the first time, in post #136:
“…If the MIT theory is correct, and Cohen’s (and others) theory about the winter cooling trend is correct, then the entire theoretical framework of current consensus global warming theory, due to an enhanced greenhouse effect, from increasing CO2, might be completely wrong.” (emphasis mine)
I realize it’s futile discussing this with you, but again, this is to set the record straight for interested readers on this board.
The “enhanced greenhouse effect” is quite simply the assertion that adding more CO2 to the air increases, or “enhances”, its so-called greenhouse effect and so raises the earth’s average temperature. More precisely, it refers to the underlying mechanism where net additional CO2 increases its radiative forcing approximately as a function of the logarithm of the ratio of the new concentration to the original concentration, and that forcing continues until a new, higher equilibrium temperature is reached.
These facts are a consequence of basic physics and are not in dispute, not by this paper or any other in legitimate science, and to suggest that this paper has anything at all to do with disputing the enhanced greenhouse effect or “the entire theoretical framework of global warming theory” is completely wrong and preposterously asinine. What the paper describes are the underlying mechanisms of what happens after CO2 concentration is stabilized, dynamics that have been observed in AOGCMs for at least seven years (as reported years ago by Trenberth and others). It is no surprise that outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) increases (from initial depression by CO2 absorption) as the earth warms toward equilibrium in a stable-CO2 scenario; indeed, if that didn’t happen we’d never reach equilibrium! The paper’s contribution is to try to explain why OLR increases as rapidly as has been observed in the majority of models, which is the hypothesis that a few decades after CO2 stabilization, absorbed solar radiation due to feedbacks becomes a dominant contributor through much of the temperature rise.
It boggles the mind how anyone could see this as challenging “the entire theoretical framework of current consensus global warming theory” or the enhanced greenhouse effect, especially when several of the paper’s contributors have been at pains to explain to the lay audience that it does not. But then again, FX seem to think that Cohen’s papers challenge it, too. I guess when all you have is a denialist hammer, everything looks like a nail.
It’s also absurdly humorous that FX’s new, revised backpedaled re-interpretation of the Donohoe PNAS/MIT paper gets things exactly backwards, namely “… expected winter warming, as well as positive feedbacks from decreasing snow, two key assumptions of global warming theory, will turn out to be wrong”. Yeah, right. The strength of positive feedbacks from albedo reduction, precisely from decreasing ice and snow cover, as well as from increasing water vapor, are the whole damn point of the paper! As a matter of fact, although Donohoe doesn’t talk about this in that particular paper, one could speculate that evidence for greater strength of albedo feedbacks like reduced ice and snow cover would argue for a higher estimate of climate sensitivity, because climate sensitivity is the sum of all net forcings plus feedbacks, and the feedbacks have always been the bigger area of uncertainty in assessing equilibrium climate sensitivity.
The other things wrong with that backpedaled quote are better addressed by responding to this priceless bit of utter nonsense:
I see that we have gone from FX claiming that water vapor couldn’t possibly be a feedback to claiming that it’s a strong positive feedback (one of the other main points of the very same Donohoe/MIT paper that he’s been touting) to now claiming that it’s a “strong negative feedback”. Fascinating! (To be fair, it’s been suggested that in some limited areas, for some limited time, increasing relative humidity may temporarily produce more snow cover, but this is a relatively minor, regional, and likely to be short-lived factor, whereas water vapor in itself is a major positive feedback globally.)
Actually there are so many other things wrong with that quote that I hardly even know where to begin. The “scenario where winters cool while summers still warm” would be an interesting scenario indeed if it existed, but it doesn’t. The long-term global reality is the exact opposite. Winters have been warming faster than summers overall since the latter part of the mid-twentieth century, let alone “cooling”. Against this overall backdrop, and the context of overall planetary warming, there have been some severe winters in some recent years across the eastern US, Europe and eastern Asia, while winters have concurrently trended warmer in northeastern Canada, the Mediterranean and North Africa, and the Arctic has been warming about four times faster than the global average, especially in fall and winter. Judah Cohen is one of the researchers looking at circulation system changes in the high and upper mid-latitudes as possible explanations for these recent regional anomalies, which may or may not be systemic or persistent. In particular, the hypothesis of increasing precipitation creating more snow cover driving some of these changes is not likely to be persistent, since warming temperatures will likely turn more of that precipitation to rain, consistent with rapidly diminishing snow and ice cover all over the Arctic – one of the major reasons Arctic temperature is rising so fast.
Thus the Cohen paper and the MIT paper don’t in any way undermine any of the fundamentals of “global warming theory” but only discuss the details of some of the underlying dynamics. But then FX has also suggested in the past that it’s solar variations that are driving warming, and then at other times that the globe isn’t warming at all but cooling, and then we get introduced to these papers that are supposed to completely undermine AGW theory except that to anyone actually reading them with any comprehension, they don’t. One is reminded of the old adage about throwing all the mud you can and seeing what will stick. Fortunately on this board, with a large number of professionals, scientists, and people with scientific backgrounds, it appears that very little of the anti-science denialist mud is sticking. I haven’t read the latest bunch of nonsense and probably won’t bother. I assume it’s more of the same.
Sam, sorry about the delay in responding – going over all the points again is leading to very lengthy posts and seems too much like work … but I did want to address this set of particularly key points.
My purpose in bringing up what I described as the elemental factors underlying climate change theory was to reinforce the fact that it has a solid theoretical foundation. I don’t think there’s any equivalence at all between your making the giant leap into doubts about the consequences and the things I was talking about, though I can see how it might seem that way to you.
What you did when I asked you what doubts you could possibly have about the basic fundamentals, you glibly sidestepped the question with the following: “It depends on the purpose of the ‘reasonable doubt’, doesn’t it? The IPCC itself says there is more than reasonable doubt about many things. So much so that let’s cut to the chase and look at their actual estimates for global warming.” So with that neat pair of phrases – “depends on the purpose of the ‘reasonable doubt’” and then “let’s cut to the chase” you reframed the whole argument, going from my question about the basics which you didn’t answer, to an answer about the IPCC conclusions about which there are, indeed, significant ranges of uncertainties relating to timeframes and magnitudes.
My point in bringing up the scientific consensus was, recognizing that complexity, and the impracticality of any one individual personally evaluating all those vast layers of scientific processes that lead to those conclusions, was to say “I know it’s complex, so in those areas most of us need to put our trust in what the vast majority of scientists believe, and the confidence with which they believe it”. And in that respect you’re wrong that I used some kind of “old trick” to try to falsely imply that there is consensus on urgent action. There is. This is just a sampling…
Joint statement from the national academies of the G8+5 nations in 2009:
Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change. References the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment of 2007, the statement asserts that “climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid.”
From the European Academy of Sciences and Arts:
Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future.
From the European Science Foundation:
There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change… On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.
From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:
The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society…The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.
*
From the American Geophysical Union:*
While important scientific uncertainties remain as to which particular impacts will be experienced where, no uncertainties are known that could make the impacts of climate change inconsequential. Furthermore, surprise outcomes, such as the unexpectedly rapid loss of Arctic summer sea ice, may entail even more dramatic changes than anticipated.
*
From the American Chemical Society:*
There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change. The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement.
From the American Public Health Association:
The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat…. US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change,
From the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences:
As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control. CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.
From the Geological Society of America:
If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty-first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species.
From the European Geosciences Union:
Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action.
While it’s very hard to actually understand what you are saying, it seems like you are saying “before they were wrong about some things”.
And there it seems like you are saying “but now they got it right”, and now the predictions are for cooling for “some regions”. Is that correct?
And there it seems like you are saying “the cooling won’t last”. Is that what you are trying to say?
I’m not responding to “most people”, but to a very small number who write as if they know it all. Certainly you can read a paper and see what it says.
It’s a good thing you have no interest discussing any of this, because goddamn imagine how long your post would be if you were willing to respond. :rolleyes:
Well, I’ve actually read people who will dispute them, but nobody like that is posting here. Don’t confuse the basic physics and scientific principles used in a theory with the theory itself. The theory is not about an increasing greenhouse effect, it is about what will happen because of the enhanced effect. If reality doesn’t behave as the theory predicts things will change, then the theory is wrong. It doesn’t mean the physics of greenhouse gases is wrong, which is what you seem to think.
That is explained in the paper, the ones you claim nobody has time to read.
It’s exactly that they are saying the warming will be due to increased SW that I was theorizing about. If Cohen is right, the expected drastic warming from a lack of winter snow isn’t going to happen. Which is why it would mean the basic theory is wrong. Because if snow is changing the amount of SW, making it colder in winters, then a key assumption is wrong, hence the theory is wrong. It’s no big deal, we just change the theory.
Now you are doing what you accuse others of, you are being deceptive, not telling the whole story. I was specific in explaining that water vapor is not a feedback loop, as some claim it is. More water vapor does not just mean more heat is retained, that is the major flaw in the theory, or the claims about what will happen. In fact, as Cohen and reality itself may be showing us, increased water vapor from warming can be a negative feedback when it snows often and early in Asia. If this is so, an increase in water vapor can be a negative forcing, in that it does not make a loop, but does act as a cause, by reflecting away light, it is a forcing in the sense it reduces the temperature. As snowfall, water vapor becomes a negative forcing. Certainly stating it like that might cause frothing rage to appear, but so it goes.
Now you should know that just isn’t true. The facts are obvious in this case, it’s the basis of Cohen and others research, and their modelling based on it. You can’t look at a global map tht shows a negative trend, and claim it shows warming. It doesn’t work like that, but it certainly illustrates why facts won’t matter
That’s a hypothesis, but none of it is a fact. Hell, even the cooling trends he shows in his papers are denied by some people, even when they are factual.
Nobody said the papers undermined anything. I clearly said “if” they turn out to be true, it “may” mean that the basic assumptions about winter warming, reduced snow, and a feedback from water vapor increase, all parts of basic global warming theory, may turn out to be wrong.
This does not mean “no enhanced greenhouse effect”, it means the theoretical changes assumed by the theory, may be wrong. The theory might be wrong. A statement like that is not to be considered a “fact”, anymore than the assumption/theoretical idea that increasing water vapor will always lead to more warming isn’t a fact. It’s a theoretical idea, which needs to be confirmed. That’s a big part of science. Bouncing ideas and thoughts around, trying to discover what is happening, and why.
The basic problem you have all along is to not realize that you confuse the progress of science with your mistaken “they made it just up”; not so, science reacts to new evidence and people like Cohen are telling us that once the correct data is entered in the models (the data that many were missing until recently) the models are doing better now in dealing with the asymmetric cooling that is happening in some regions while the world continues to warm. At the scientific group Cohen is a part of they call this warming of the poles the Arctic Amplification, and as Cohen and others reported, while there is some colling going on what is happening is that:
IOW, it is indeed getting warmer overall in the north pole, and snow cover is increasing as a result of it, and at a faster pace than estimated before as a result of the amplifcation. As it was pointed before scientists are investigating how this piece of the puzzle will land on the table next to the other pieces that are more robust in the big puzzle of Anthropological Global Warming. And before I pointed out that we “only” had to worry about more likely things like increase of droughts in some regions, with ocean rise and acidification, what will global warming do to this piece that we are understanding better? As Cohen reports we are likely to see this piece of the puzzle to include more costly events (besides the ones most expected before) for the future:
That is what
Masato Mori1,
Masahiro Watanabe1,
Hideo Shiogama2,
Jun Inoue3,
Masahide Kimoto1,
Are trying to say, but it is easier for you to assume I was the only one saying it, uh?
What is happening with the models is just what happened when researchers entered the most up to date sensitivity of CO2 to the old model from James Hansen, once that is done the old model does replicate better the latest surface temperatures, and that is why the American Meteorological Association gave Hansen a medal while the contrarian models are just toys and their makers are dismissed.
I’m sure you don’t mean to be, but that is hilarious.
I’ve said it before, but it just doesn’t sink in. If these new developments are actually due to CO2, and the trends we are seeing are actually do to climate change, then it’s much worse than what the IPCC/consensus science has been telling us would happen.
Like winter storm Juno, getting ready to slam the north east US at the moment. If the winter weather is actually because of human caused climate change, due to AGW, human emissions and an enhanced greenhouse effect, we are looking at a much worse situation than what the models and the experts have been saying for decades now.
Much colder winters, with much more snow, along with an increase in warm season temperatures, is a much worse disaster than what basic global warming theory predicts.
And that has been my line and of many scientists for ages, but as usual you show all that you did not paid attention to that in previous discussions.
What I usually noted was that the IPCC is conservative by nature and a lot items like the accelerated loss of ice from the glacial land areas was in previous reports not added much to the estimations of ocean rise and thanks to that loss to extreme weather in the northern polar region; that was because scientists did not had much evidence that the acceleration was taking place, so that acceleration was only pointed as a possibility and only the then most supported heath increases were used by the scientists that just did not wanted to just put yet another worrisome and costly thing to deal with into the big puzzle unless there was good evidence for it.
Of course then the implication remains: we have to control our emissions.
Coffee had not kick in yet, what I wanted to say was:
And that has been my line and of many scientists for ages, but as usual you show all that you did not pay attention to that in previous discussions.
What I usually noted was that the IPCC is conservative by nature and many items like the accelerated loss of ice from the glacial land areas was in previous reports not added to the estimations of ocean rise.
That means that the increase in heat and the result of extreme weather in the northern polar region was also understated; that was because scientists did not have much evidence that the amplification of the heat and an acceleration in the loss of ice was taking place, so that acceleration was only pointed as a possibility in previous reports of the IPCC and only the then most supported heat increases were used by the scientists in their models and projections.
The take home lesson is that scientists are not into the business of raising concerns unless there is good evidence for that. They did not want to add yet another worrisome and costly thing for humans and their governments to deal with.
I imagine the pieces of this puzzle as cube shapes with different scenarios in their faces. The latest reports are telling us that thanks to global warming this piece of the Arctic Amplification is landing [del]snake eyes[/del] bad for us.
Of course then the implication remains: we have now more reasons to control our GWG emissions. As if the previous more likely reasons that are already expected were not enough.
Now I know you are joking. Because if you have been telling us for a long time that the winters are going to become far worse, colder and with much more snow, you better be able to link to it here. (and certainly with over 8,000 posts about global warming, you will have multiple examples to share) Otherwise I am calling bullshit on your claim.
Oh bullshit. The scare stories and alarm-ism about the loss of water from a lack of snow, the warnings about warm winters, the projections of increasing rain in winter, the insects moving north, the entire alarm has been about winters warming up, and snow decreasing. There is no possible way to spin it to say no IPCC or consensus scientist was worried about telling us winters would become colder and with much more snow.
You have got be kidding. Of course if you present facts, and show us where YOU have been talking about this, from years past, it will actually matter.
Now stepping back from this for a moment, and talking about facts, and if they matter, here’s an example of using “facts”, where I don’t think it will actually matter. Several people presented their opinions and I countered by using expert astronomers, to counter ignorance on a subject most people simply don’t care much about. Really, most people don’t even know about it, much less care at all about Olbers paradox.
Will facts make any difference? Will the facts be attacked? Or will the goal post get moved? Will it just be ignored? or will I be told I don’t understand the facts? What will happen?
I’m actually always curious about these sorts of things. But rarely surprised.
What I reported was that in some regions that was going to happen. You are still going for your mistaken idea that warming was going to be homogeneous all over the world. What I said was in relation to the accelerated loss of ice in the north polar regions and why the IPCC was conservative on that.
From 01-15-2011:
Of the IPCC indeed.
That BTW is part of the whole thing, I was aware indeed of more precipitation in areas of the globe because global warming increases the water vapor content specially in some areas, Cohen is telling us the loss of ice is one of the factors in the Arctic Amplification increasing the precipitation on the lands around the polar region because of that ice loss. More than once I pointed out that in some regions this would increase precipitation, and depending when, it does mean more snow in some areas, what Cohen and others are figuring out is where the amplification is sending more snow.
Uh, what Cohen and others are reporting is to explain why many made the mistake of ignoring what the arctic amplification (the warming) was going to do in some areas, as Cohen also reports the warming continues even in winter (as it was predicted) and it seems to be worse than expected, but some regions are getting more precipitation (snow) thanks to more water vapor in the air in those areas.
As pointed before I was referring to the accelerated loss of ice, and how the IPCC was conservative for not worrying too much then about the acceleration that was possibly going on then, not about increase precipitation of snow in some regions of the earth thanks to the arctic amplification; but recently that is now in the picture, and thanks to Cohen and others.
What Cohen reports is a more recent development. The point stands though: Cohen and many others explained that global warming thanks to CO2 increases in the atmosphere is influencing the Arctic amplification.
Oh goody, the problem I already noticed (Yeah, I do follow the Bad Astronomer) is that you are ignoring that other explanations are still more important than the dust one.
And there is another basic problem you are looking indeed at a problem that is happening around and at the center of our galaxy, but the paradox is referring to all directions, not just what you are doing that in essence is just 2 dimensional thinking.
Other factors are more influential and used to explain the paradox and that is a reason why most experts out there do not see the dust as the main reason to explain it.
Again, the point I was making was about the accelerated loss of ice, caused by more warming at the north polar regions, and indeed I pointed that out a long time ago. The snow getting worse in some regions of the norther hemisphere is a more recent development.
As Cohen explained that loss of ice is one of the reasons why more water vapor is rising up in the region and it is not rain that falls down but more snow, you are missing that the north pole with winter temperatures from −43 °C to −26 °C can then take an increase of several degrees and still, thanks to the arctic amplification, the cold can spill to other areas and it is not rain what will fall down.
That precipitation was going to get worse in some regions and it was possible to have cold spells in a warming world was pointed out by me before with an assistance by Colibri:
[some quotes shortened to avoid harsh language from the pit]
[QUOTE=Colibri]
In fact, global climate change predicts more extreme weather of all kinds - not just heat waves and droughts, but also floods and even cold spells.
Weather is basically caused by the heat trying to redistribute itself between equatorial regions and polar ones. When there is more heat near the equator, it requires more intensive flow of air masses to move that heat north. And this produces more extreme weather events of all kinds.
[/QUOTE]
Many times I did reference this analogy of how Steroids in Baseball are like CO2 in the atmosphere:
This analogy originated by a UCAR climate scientist and was also linked by me many times before, what is important this time is that he made the point that even in a warming world there would still be chances for very harsh cold records. (Big pile of snow falling in a hapless guy in the animation)
And as I pointed out, that the average temperature can increase 3 degrees with a doubling of CO2 since the industrial revolution one can see that we can indeed continue to get harsh winters. As Cohen points out, we have the mechanism now to know when and where to expect them and thanks to global warming.
Moving the goalposts, what you demanded from me was: “Because if you have been telling us for a long time that the winters are going to become far worse, colder and with much more snow, you better be able to link to it here.”
No other facts were demanded, only the fact that I did talk about harsher winters before, and the evidence was already linked at: (2012)
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=14844344&postcount=31
“in reality harsher winters are predicted (due to more water vapor in the atmosphere), once again global temperatures are likely to increase 3 degrees with a doubling of CO2 and one can still expect cold and harsher winters, but not cooler than the averages of before.”
Just more evidence that you do not have a clue nor the good sense to stop accusing others of bullshitting after the evidence that I did indeed talk before about it was shown.
What Cohen is talking about is indeed about the evidence of why this asymmetry of harsh winters in some regions is happening while the Arctic is warming a lot. And his latest publication was already linked at. But thank you for letting others know that you indeed have tossed Cohen under the bus.
Then just back your claim up with facts. Show us even a single post from “ages ago” where you were warning, or even just discussing the threat from colder winters, more snow, or really any danger from increasing snow and colder winters…
That way we will know you aren’t just bullshitting.
And that is the third way one can quote posts, and that is the third time I quoted that, but it is clear that you are only showing to all that you can not deal with it.
Please tell me that you are not claiming that the one writing for the New York times was not Judah Cohen.
The strength of positive feedbacks from albedo reduction, precisely from decreasing ice and snow cover, as well as from increasing water vapor, are the whole damn point of the paper! As a matter of fact, although Donohoe doesn’t talk about this in that particular paper, one could speculate that evidence for greater strength of albedo feedbacks like reduced ice and snow cover would argue for a higher estimate of climate sensitivity, because climate sensitivity is the sum of all net forcings plus feedbacks, and the feedbacks have always been the bigger area of uncertainty in assessing equilibrium climate sensitivity.