Full papers plus additional comments from co-author Nic Lewis follow. I have added some relevant diagrams and tables from the report, plus reproduced the foreword by Dr. Judith Curry as well as updated the summary Equilibrium Climate Response Graph originally by Dr. Patrick Michaels to include this new ECS value and range. – Anthony

Models per AR5 Table 9.5. The bar heights show how many models in Table 9.5 exhibit each level of TCR.
NEW REPORT: CLIMATE LESS SENSITIVE TO CO2 THAN MODELS SUGGEST
The GCMs overestimate future warming by 1.7–2 times relative to an estimate
based on the best observational evidence.
Press Release
A new report published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation shows that the best observational evidence indicates our climate is considerably less sensitive to greenhouse gases than climate models are estimating.
The clues for this and the relevant scientific papers are all referred to in the recently published Fifth Assessment report (AR5) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). However, this important conclusion was not drawn in the full IPCC report – it is only mentioned as a possibility – and is ignored in the IPCC’s Summary for Policymakers (SPM).
For over thirty years climate scientists have presented a range for climate sensitivity (ECS) that has hardly changed. It was 1.5-4.5°C in 1979 and this range is still the same today in AR5.
The new report suggests that the inclusion of recent evidence, reflected in AR5, justifies a lower observationally-based temperature range of 1.25–3.0°C, with a best estimate of 1.75°C, for a doubling of CO2. By contrast, the climate models used for projections in AR5 indicate a range of 2-4.5°C, with an average of 3.2°C.

This is one of the key findings of the new report Oversensitive: how the IPCC hid the good news on global warming, written by independent UK climate scientist Nic Lewis and Dutch science writer Marcel Crok. Lewis and Crok were both expert reviewers of the IPCC report, and Lewis was an author of two relevant papers cited in it.
In recent years it has become possible to make good empirical estimates of climate sensitivity from observational data such as temperature and ocean heat records. These estimates, published in leading scientific journals, point to climate sensitivity per doubling of CO2 most likely being under 2°C for long-term warming, with a best estimate of only 1.3-1.4°C for warming over a seventy year period.
“The observational evidence strongly suggest that climate models display too much sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentrations and in almost all cases exaggerate the likely path of global warming,” says Nic Lewis.
These lower, observationally-based estimates for both long-term climate sensitivity and the seventy-year response suggest that considerably less global warming and sea level rise is to be expected in the 21st century than most climate model projections currently imply.
“We estimate that on the IPCC’s second highest emissions scenario warming would still be around the international target of 2°C in 2081-2100,” Lewis says.
Full report attached.
Contacts:
Nic Lewis
e: nhlewis@btinternet.com
t: +44 (0)7462 155076.
Marcel Crok
e: marcel.crok@gmail.com
m: +31 6 16236275
Dr Benny Peiser
Director, The Global Warming Policy Foundation
t: 020 70065827
m: 07553 361717
e: benny.peiser@thegwpf.org
registered in England, no 6962749
registered with the Charity Commission, no 1131448
==============================================================
Nic Lewis comments in an email to me:
The report shows that – contrary to the impression given by the Summary for Policymakers – the observational, scientific evidence in the main IPCC AR5 report actually supports much lower estimates of how sensitive the climate system is to greenhouse gas levels, both in the long term and over the remainder of this century, than those exhibited by almost all of the CMIP5 climate models used for virtually all the projections of future climate change. The report develops sound observationally-based projections of future global warming, to the last twenty years of the century, that are 40–50% lower than the IPCC’s average projections on the same emissions scenarios.
I carried out the scientific analysis for the report and co-wrote it with Marcel Crok, a Dutch science writer. The foreword is written by Judith Curry.
==============================================================
Foreword
The sensitivity of our climate to increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide is at the heart of the scientific debate on anthropogenic climate change, and also the public debate on the appropriate policy response to increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Climate sensitivity and estimates of its uncertainty are key inputs into the economic models that drive cost-benefit analyses and estimates of the social cost of carbon.
The complexity and nuances of the issue of climate sensitivity to increasing carbon dioxide are not easily discerned from reading the Summary for Policy Makers of the Assessment Reports undertaken by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Further, the more detailed discussion of climate sensitivity in the text of the full Working Group I Reports lacks context or an explanation that is easily understood by anyone not actively reading the
published literature.
This report by Nic Lewis and Marcel Crok addresses this gap between the IPCC assessments and the primary scientific literature by providing an overview of the different methods for estimating climate sensitivity and a historical perspective on IPCC’s assessments of climate sensitivity. The report also provides an independent assessment of the different methods for estimating climate sensitivity and a critique of the IPCC AR4 and AR5 assessments of climate sensitivity.
This report emphasizes the point that evidence for low climate sensitivity is piling up. I find this report to be a useful contribution to scientific debate on this topic, as well as an important contribution to the public dialogue and debate on the subject of climate change policy.
I agreed to review this report and write this Foreword since I hold both authors of this report in high regard. I have followed with interest Nic Lewis’ emergence as an independent climate scientist and his success in publishing papers in major peer reviewed journals on the topic of climate sensitivity, and I have endeavored to support and publicize his research. I have interacted with Marcel Crok over the years and appreciate his insightful analyses, most recently as a participant in climatedialogue.org.
The collaboration of these two authors in writing this report has resulted in a technically sound, well-organized and readily comprehensible report on the scientific issues surrounding climate sensitivity and the deliberations of the IPCC on this topic.
While writing this Foreword, I considered the very few options available for publishing a report such as this paper by Lewis and Crok. I am appreciative of the GWPF for publishing and publicizing this report. Public accountability of governmental and intergovernmental climate science and policy analysis is enhanced by independent assessments of their conclusions and arguments.
Judith Curry
Atlanta, GA, USA
February 2014
===============================================================
PDF’s short and long (technical) versions

Upthread someone asked “What is a flame war?”
It is a heated exchange laden with insults on the Internet. As an early user of “news” on the pre-browser Internet, I first saw the term in 1985(ish) when someone would post an unsubstantiated and factually wrong claim and, when called on it, would double down. They’d then get “flamed” and – if stupid enough to flame back – a flame war would ensue and many a bystander would assemble. Internet was mostly polite and pure back then, so flame wars really stood out.
Gail Combs says:
March 5, 2014 at 6:19 pm
> Sorry mods, the spring fever is breaking out, no doubt aided by all that man-made CO2.
Gail, come home to new Hampshire – no spring fever here. I have 17.5″ snow pack, this morning was below zero, and the maple sap still is nowhere to be seen.
Ron Richey says:
March 5, 2014 at 8:42 pm
> What’s a flame war?
I preserved one small one from (now) ages ago. Frozen Flame. Normally I don’t get involved, but this fellow had been annoying for far too long.
I xxxx all the foul language since the page is really an excuse for showing some family photos.
Ric Werme says: @ur momisugly March 6, 2014 at 2:46 pm
Gail, come home to new Hampshire – no spring fever here. I have 17.5″ snow pack, this morning was below zero, and the maple sap still is nowhere to be seen.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Why the heck do you think I left! Actually I have a friend in N.H. looking for a place down here and we gave her the listing across the street (36 ac). Another friend from East Rochester NY is also looking for a place down here.
With everyone moving from the north to the south, why in heck does anyone think a couple degrees warmer is a problem???
[The mods do not have a solution to Gail’s crossword lot problem: Not enough clues to solve down here, up there, north-to-south, 36 across, nor New Hampshire, Old Hampshire, East Rochester, West Hampshire or plain shire. Mod]
Interesting to not the cluster of models that generate 2 degrees, and the absence of 1.9 degree ones.
Evidence that some of the models are tuned to a desired output?
2 degrees is a suspiciously round number.
I don’t know exactly what these “CMIP5” models are, but they appear to be a ‘front’. They are being presented in technical discussions as the scientific consensus and are relatively moderate (even then they exceed observations). Meanwhile, quite different models are used on the political front. An example would be the CSIRO model cited by Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2012, as justification of a carbon tax. This model predicts (up to) 5 degrees C warming by 2070 (there is an uncertainty range, but 5 degrees was the only figure mentioned by Gillard and the many media reports). These are the models that are having the greatest impact on policy: why aren’t they being shown in these comparison figures and charts?