Abstract
[1] In our Pinatubo paper [Douglass and Knox, 2005a, hereinafter referred to as DK] we concluded that there was negative climate feedback and a short climate response time. Robock [2005, hereinafter referred to as R] claims that the outgoing long-wave radiation (LW) was incorrectly described as the forcing and that interchange of energy with the thermocline was unjustifiably neglected in determining our results. Although we made certain incorrect statements about the LW radiation, these were not part of our determination of the parameters. As to energy flow to the thermocline, as we argue elsewhere [Douglass and Knox, 2005b, hereinafter referred to as DK2], this flow is estimated be small and to affect our lifetime and sensitivities by less than 15%, not by a factor of three, as claimed.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
