Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Tue, 10/12/2010 - 15:03.
Your interpretation may indeed be correct, that CO2 + Short-lived Species = 1.65 * CO2 warming. This would mean that CO2 would have accounted for 0.48°C or 61% of total warming last century, as you state. I read the statement as "having augmented CO2 by supplying 65% of the radiative forcing." This may be incorrect and I have asked Dr. Penner for clarification. I will report here when I receive a reply.
Even if my initial interpretation of the paper's result is incorrect, the result is still that CO2 is much less influential than previously and widely assumed. This does not change the implications for climate model sensitivity, which would still be greatly overstated.
![[SOHO Sun Spot Image]](http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/eit_304/1024/latest.jpg)
That interpretation may be correct.
Your interpretation may indeed be correct, that CO2 + Short-lived Species = 1.65 * CO2 warming. This would mean that CO2 would have accounted for 0.48°C or 61% of total warming last century, as you state. I read the statement as "having augmented CO2 by supplying 65% of the radiative forcing." This may be incorrect and I have asked Dr. Penner for clarification. I will report here when I receive a reply.
Even if my initial interpretation of the paper's result is incorrect, the result is still that CO2 is much less influential than previously and widely assumed. This does not change the implications for climate model sensitivity, which would still be greatly overstated.