Climate sensitivity “lower than previously thought”

Not as bad as thought?

Not as bad as thought?

It’s only taken years of effort from “deniers” but now the mainstream media is finally catching up. Climate sensitivity is likely to be far lower than the alarmists claim, making frighteningly expensive attempts to regulate CO2 even more futile:

GLOBAL temperature increases as a result of increased carbon dioxide levels in the Earth’s atmosphere are likely to be lower than previously thought, an international research team has found.

The Oxford University-led study found that a predicted doubling of CO2 concentrations, expected to occur later this century, is likely to raise global temperatures in the short term by between 1.3C and 2C.

Previous estimates, based on climate data from the 1990s, predicted steeper rises of up to 3.1C. The new study, published today in the journal Nature Geoscience, used data gathered more recently, when the average rate of global warming was slowing down.

The latest estimate is “arguably the most reliable”, the paper says, partly because it is less affected by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in The Philippines, but caution is still required in interpreting the available data.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change previously estimated a temperature rise of between 1C and 3C, with increases outside that range described as “very unlikely”. The new study team, which included an oceanographer from CSIRO’s marine and atmospheric research division in Hobart, estimates this rise could be as little as 0.9C.

The researchers also found that some of the modelling being used for the fifth IPCC assessment report, which is due next year, could be inconsistent with their observations.

As always, however, dogma must come first:

Ultimately, however, they found their new predictions suggested little difference to the global temperature increase in the long run. Their best estimate of the “equilibrium climate sensitivity” – the long-term temperature rise once the effects of higher CO2 concentrations had bedded down – was 2C, with an upper limit of 3.9C. This compares with other previous estimates, the study said.

Steven Phipps, a research fellow with the University of NSW, said the study provided “the most accurate estimates yet of climate sensitivity” and, in broad terms, confirmed what has long been known.

“Our planet faces a very uncomfortable future if our emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated,” he said. (source)

If we actually spent even a tenth of the money wasted on greenhouse gas mitigation on research into alternative energy sources, we wouldn’t need unabated emissions to continue. However, it’s a step in the right direction.


  1. The predictions failed..but that doesnt matter.
    Thats the beauty of this mad tripe..mistakes/failed predictions/failed conferences/failed co2 trading/missing money from co2 trading..none of it “matters’.
    And most of the scaremongers live no differently to joe public..yet they are really scared but they dont actually do anything to prove how scared they are..
    A pox on all these hypocrites.

  2. thingodonta says:

    They are still only following the herd instinct. They adjust the figures after the event, which just shows they don’t know what is causing the event.

    They still don’t know what is causing the warming, i.e. how much comes from heat lags from high solar activity in the 20th century, and how much from C02, but they are starting to realise that c02 hasn’t had much effect. And if the temperatures don’t rise in the next 20 years either, they will revise climate sensitivity from c02 down further. But what they wont admit, is that they don’t know what climate sensitivity to c02 is, and that nothing needs to be done about climate change in the first place, based on the current evidence, because that would mean loss of face.

  3. AndyG55 says:

    How about they just admit that CO2 has ZERO influence on temperatures.

    None, Nada, ZIP ! !!!

    The main influence on global temps over the last 50 or so years has been data manipulation and “adjustments” plus unaccounted for UHI effects.

  4. As a retired 67 year old I go regularly to the George’s River, Como, NSW where I lived as a child from age 5 to 15 years. I am intimately familiar with the high water marks in the River. The River has not risen a centimetre in 50 years. The Warmists can put on as many hair shirts as they like but I am outraged at their gall for dragging the rest of us into their ratbag Millenium theory. I guess they have their German automobile and their million dollar plus residences and they are worried the rest of us will soon be able to afford these luxuries too and hence the need for the rest of us to sacrifice consumer privileges to gain moral superiority. A sought of renewable energy before butter idea. We have Spain with their 24% unemployment to show us what can be achieved with a national commitment to solar and wind energy: let’s hope they don’t have to have another revolution to resolve their ideological conflict again this century.

%d bloggers like this: