*by Kyoji Kimoto*

**1. Comparison of climate sensitivities among three groups **

**Group A (IPCC AR4):**

CS(NF)=1.2K mathematical error due to Cess’s calculation

CS(WF)=3K too large positive feedback since λ_{i} for IPCC AR4 are utilized

**Group B (Bony):**

CS(NF)=1.0K not surface value since T is 255K in Stefan-Boltzmann law

CS(WF)=2.0K large positive feedback since λ_{i} for IPCC AR4 are utilized

**Group C (Ramanathan):**

CS(NF)=0.52K surface value since T is 288K in Stefan-Boltzmann law

CS(WF)=2.2K too large positive feedback since GCM study is adopted

**Group B’ (Lindzen,Spencer):**

CS(NF)=0.9-1.1K not surface value since T is 255K in Stefan-Boltzmann law

CS(WF)=0.5-0.6K large negative feedback due to water vapor or cloud feedback

**Group C’ (Kimoto):**

CS(NF)=0.54K surface value since T is 288K in Stefan-Boltzmann law

CS(WF)=0.75K fairly large positive feedback since λ_{i} for IPCC AR4 are utilized

CS(WF)=0.5K slightly negative feedback

CS(WF)=0.2K large negative feedback

**2．CS(NF) obtained from RCM studies with fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km**

According to IPCC, climate sensitivity (With Feedback) is expressed as follows.

CS(WF)=CS(NF) x (Feedback effects)

CS(WF): Climate Sensitivity(With Feedback)

CS(NF): Climate Sensitivity(No Feedback)

Table2 shows two RCM studies appeared after [Manabe et al., 1964/67] with fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km obtaining CS(NF) of 1.2-1.3K (see Figure1).This constitutes the first basis of IPCC’s claim that CS(NF) is 1.2K. Radiative forcing for CO2 doubling is in the range of 3.5-4.0W/m2 at the tropopause.

However, dTs is around 0.6K when moist adiabatic lapse rate is utilized as shown in Figure2, which is better parameterization in RCM studies than fixed lapse rate of 6.5K/km [Ramanathan et al., 1978, Hummel et al., 1981].

**3. CS(NF) calculation based on Stefan-Boltzmann law**

In 1976, Cess obtained -3.3(W/m2)/K for Planck feedback parameter λ0 utilizing the following procedure, which gives CS(NF) of 1.2K with radiative forcing of 4W/m2 for CO2 doubling [Cess.1976].

Cess’s procedure has been followed by many researchers including IPCC AR4 [Soden et al., 2006], which constitutes the second basis of IPCC’s claim that CS(NF) is 1.2K (see Group A in Table3). **However, this procedure is apparently a mathematical error since Eeff is not a constant. Furthermore, the combination of Ts and OLR is not accordance with Stefan-Boltzmann law [Kimoto, 2009].** Table3 shows the comparison of CS(NF) for three groups calculated with radiative forcing of 3.7W/m2 for CO2 doubling.

Table 4 shows CS(WF) calculated from CS(NF) of Group A and Group C’ in Table3 with averaged feedback parameters λ_{i} of lapse rate, water vapor, albedo and cloud feedback for IPCC AR4 [Soden et al., 2006].

**Table 3. Planck feedback parameter L0 and CS(NF) based on Stefan-Boltzmann law**

Table 5 shows the comparison of CS(NF) and CS(WF) of three groups in Table 3. CS(WF) are calculated with feedback parameters λ_{i} shown in Table4. Table 5 also shows the test results as to Ts and OLR utilized in Stefan-Boltzmann law to calculate CS(NF).

CS(NF) of Group B’ (Lindzen, Spencer) is 0.9-1.1K which is calculated with T=255K or 259K in Stefan-Boltzmann law at the effective radiation height of 5-8 km. Therefore, these CS(NF) cannot be applicable to the surface considering moist adiabatic lapse rate.

**References**

Barrett J., 2005: Greenhouse molecules, their spectra and function in the atmosphere. ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, Vol. 16, 1037-1045.

Bony, S., Colman, R., Kattsov, V.M., Allan, R.P., Bretherton, C.S., Dufresne, J.L., Hall, A., Hallegatte, S., Holland, M.M., Ingram, W., Randall, D.A., Soden, B.J., Tselioudis, G. and Webb, M.J. 2006: Review Article How Well Do We Understand and Evaluate Climate Change Feedback Processes? J.Climate,Vol.19,3445-3482.

Cess, R.D., 1976: Climate Change: An Appraisal of Atmospheric Feedback Mechanisms Employing Zonal Climatology. J. Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.33, 1831-1843.

Cess, R.D., Potter, G.L., Blanchet, J.P., Boer, G.J., DelGenio, A.D., Deque, M., Dymnikov, V., Galin, V., Gates, W.L., Ghan, S.J., Kiehl, J.T., Lacis, A.A., LeTreut, H., Li, Z.X., Liang, X.Z., McAvaney, B.J., Meleshko, V.P., Mitchell, J.F.B., Morcrette, J.J., Randall, D.A., Rikus, L., Roeckner, E., Royer, J.F., Schlese, U., Sheinin,D.A., Slingo,A., Sokolov, A.P., Taylor, K.E., Washington, W.M. and Wetherald, R.T., 1990: Intercomparison and Interpretation of Climate Feedback Processes in 19 Atmospheric General Circulation Models, J. Geophysical Research, vol.95, 16, 16,601-16,615.

Douglass, D.H., Knox, R.S., Pearson, B.D. and Clark, Jr. A., 2006: Thermocline flux exchange during the Pinatubo event. Geophysical Research Letters. Vol.33, L19711, doi: 10.1029/2006GL026355.

Hansen J., Johnson D., Lacis A., Lebedeff S., Lee P., Rind D. and Russell G.,1981: Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Science Vol.213,957-966.

Held I.M. and Soden B.J., 2000: Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming. Annu. Rev. Energy Environ. Vol.25, 441-475.

Hummel J.R. et al., 1981: Comparison of radiative-convective models with constant and pressure-dependent lapse rate. Tellus, Vol.33, 254-261.

Idso S.B., 1998: CO2-induced global warming; a skeptic’s view of potential climate change. Climate Research, Vol.10, 69-82.

Kerr R.A., 2004: Three Degree of Consensus. SCIENCE Vol.305, 932-934.

Kimoto, K., 2009: On the confusion of Planck feedback parameters. Energy & Environment, Vol.20, 1057-1066 (http://www.mirane.co.jp).

Lindzen R.S., 1997: Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?. Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. USA Vol.94, 8335-8342.

Lindzen R.S. and Emanuel K.A., 2002: The Greenhouse Effect (PDF is in his home page)

Lindzen R.S. and Choi Y.S.,2009: On the determination of climate feedbacks from ERBE data. Geophysical Research Letters Vol.36,L16705.DOI:10.1029/2009GL039628.

Manabe S. et al., 1964: Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Convective Adjustment. J. Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.21, 361-385.

Manabe S. et al., 1967: Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity. J. Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.24, 241-259.

Manabe S. et al., 1975: The Effects of Doubling the CO2 Concentration on the Climate of a General Circulation Model. J. Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.32, 3-15.

Newell R.E. et al., 1979: Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature. J. Applied Meteorology, Vol.18, 822-825.

Ramanathan V. et al., 1978: Climate Modeling Through Radiative-Convective Models. Reviews of Geophysics and Spacephysics, Vol.16,465-489.

Ramanathan, V., 1981:The Role of Ocean-Atmosphere Interactions in the CO2 Climate Problem. J. Atmospheric Sciences, Vol.38,918-930.

Sclesinger, M.E., 1986: Equilibrium and transient climatic warming induced by increased atmospheric CO2. Climate Dynamics, Vol.1,35-51.

Soden,B.J. and Held I.M.,2006:An Assessment of Climate Feedbacks in Coupled Ocean-Atmosphere Models. J.Climate, Vol.19,3354-3360.

Spencer R.W. and Braswell W.D.,2010: On the diagnosis of radiative feedback in the presence of unknown radiative forcing. Journal of Geophysical Research Vol.115: D16109.DOI:10.1029/2009JD013371.

Trenberth, K.E., Fasullo,J.T. and Kiehl,J. 2009: EARTH’s GLOBAL ENERGY BUDGET. Amer Met Soc, March 2009 BAMS 311-323.

Tsushima, Y., Abe-Ouchi,A. and Manabe,S., 2005: Radiative damping of annual variation in global mean temperature: comparison between observed and simulated feedbacks. Climate Dynamics, Vol.24,591-597.

Wetherald, R.T. and Manabe,S., 1988: Cloud Feedback Processes in a General Circulation Model. J. Atmospheric Sciences Vol.45, 1397-1415

Frederick ColbourneI would like to suggest another paper by Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven Laboratory, Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system. Schwartz S. E. J.

Geophys. Res., 112, D24S05 (2007). doi:10.1029/2007JD008746

As I understand the paper Dr. Schwartz estimate climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 as 1.1 ± 0.5 K. He based his estimate on ocean heat content.