“Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests”

Guest post by David Middleton

Eureka!  Gorebal Warming is now not worse than previously thought…

By Henry Bodkin
18 SEPTEMBER 2017 • 7:15PM
Climate change poses less of an immediate threat to the planet than previously thought because scientists got their modelling wrong, a new study has found. New research by British scientists reveals the world is being polluted and warming up less quickly than 10-year-old forecasts predicted, giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.

An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook.

Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, the ultimate goal of the 2015 Paris Agreement.


According to the models used to draw up the agreement, the world ought now to be 1.3 degrees above the mid-19th-Century average, whereas the most recent observations suggest it is actually between 0.9 to 1 degree above.


Published in the journal Nature Geoscience, it suggests that if polluting peaks and then declines to below current levels before 2030 and then continue to drop more sharply, there is a 66 per cent chance of global average temperatures staying below 1.5 degrees.


The Telegraph

While they understate the abject failure of the models and idiotically inflate the nonexistent role of “affordable renewable energy” in the failure of the models, it’s a start… About like an alcoholic recognizing that he might have a problem.

Although… This does make me wonder if they might have been sandbagging us.  Spending 30 years telling us it’s “worse than previously thought” and that “we have only (fill in the blank) years to save the planet”… To now telling us that, if we only give them more money for climate science and greenschist, we can now save the planet.

Of course… Anyone with an IQ that can’t be counted on two hands already knows that climate change has never been. nor will ever be, “threatening to planet”… (Warning: Lots of F-bombs)…


Limiting global warming to 1.5 °C may still be possible

Analysis suggests that researchers have underestimated how much carbon humanity can emit before reaching this level of warming.

Jeff Tollefson
18 September 2017

A team of climate scientists has delivered a rare bit of good news: it could be easier than previously thought to limit global warming to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, as called for in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. But even if the team is right — and some researchers are already questioning the conclusions — heroic efforts to curb greenhouse-gas emissions will still be necessary to limit warming.

Published on 18 September in Nature Geoscience1, the analysis focuses in part on the fact that global climate models used in the 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) tend to overestimate the extent of warming that has already occurred. After adjusting for that discrepancy and running further models, the authors of the latest study found that the amount of carbon that humanity can emit from 2015 onward while holding temperatures below 1.5 °C is nearly three times greater than estimated by the IPCC — or even larger if there is aggressive action on greenhouse gases beyond carbon dioxide.


Nature News


63 thoughts on ““Climate change not as threatening to planet as previously thought, new research suggests”

    • Alas, their reason for us having more time is that China added so much solar power to its grid. I guess they don’t want someone calculating that in global percentage and then wondering how that amount makes such a massive difference to calculations.

      • Looks to me like just another attempt to “Move the Goal Posts” even farther out (again)
        They just seem to be unable to say the words “Sorry, we were wrong”

      • The old joke is worth repeating
        Andy: Barney why are you covering all the office furniture with newspaper?
        Barney: to keep the elephants away
        Andy: Barney we don’t have any elephants around here
        Barney: See it’s working.

      • China’s renewable’s made up almost 25% of electricity production in 2016.
        It consisted of roughly 4 parts hydro to 1 part wind/solar.
        IMHO 3 parts hydro to 1 part wind/solar is about as much wind/solar that can be inexpensively load balanced.

        Peak coal occurred in China in 2013. The other big fakehood of the models is global coal consumption projections.

  1. The models have always been worse than they thought. Exxon even knew that the models were worse than they thought… as far back as 1978…

  2. Lots of great, skeptical, comments about this in The Times ( of London ). The small gang of alarmists there are using arguments that sound so old and stale, like the guy who says flares are really cool long after they went out of style.

    It all sounds to me like the Great Walkback has started, particularly when you consider the other 58 published papers this year doubting the AGW story.

    • Bingo.
      Next step: Claim credit for the ‘improved curve’, and thereby push more stringent controls on everyone, anyway.
      “Because Mother Earth is like, worth making you walk to work, dude…”

  3. I entertained the idea of writing about this. Good thing I concluded against. Two simultaneous articles with the same title.

    This is The Times version from The Australian:

    “The worst impacts of climate change can still be avoided, senior scientists have said after revising their previous predictions.

    The world has warmed more slowly than had been forecast by computer models, which were “on the hot side” and overstated the impact of emissions, a new study has found. Its projections suggest that the world has a better chance than previously claimed of meeting the goal set by the Paris agreement on climate change to limit warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.

    The study, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, makes clear that rapid reductions in emissions will still be required but suggests that the world has more time to make the changes.

    Michael Grubb, professor of international energy and climate change at University College London and one of the study’s authors, admitted that his past prediction had been wrong.

    He stated during the climate summit in Paris in December 2015: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.” He told The Times yesterday: “When the facts change, I change my mind, as [John Maynard] Keynes said. It’s still likely to be very difficult to achieve these kind of changes quickly enough but we are in a better place than I thought.”

    The latest study found that a group of computer models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had predicted a more rapid temperature increase than had taken place. Global average temperature has risen by about 0.9C since pre-industrial times but there was a slowdown in the rate of warming for 15 years before 2014.

    Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford and another author, said: “We haven’t seen that rapid acceleration in warming after 2000 that we see in the models. We haven’t seen that in the observations.” He added that the group of about a dozen computer models, produced by government institutes and universities around the world, had been assembled a decade ago “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”. Too many of the models used “were on the hot side”, meaning they forecast too much warming.

    According to the models, keeping the average temperature increase below 1.5C would mean that the world could emit only about 70 billion tonnes of carbon after 2015. At the present rate of emissions, this “carbon budget” would be used up in three to five years. Under the new assessment, the world can emit another 240 billion tonnes and still have a reasonable chance of keeping the temperature increase below 1.5C.

    “That’s about 20 years of emissions before temperatures are likely to cross 1.5C,” Professor Allen said. “It’s the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

    Professor Grubb said that the fresh assessment was good news for island states in the Pacific, such as the Marshall Islands and Tuvalu, which could be inundated by rising seas if the average temperature rose by more than 1.5C.

    Other factors pointed to more optimism on climate change, including China reducing its growth in emissions much faster than predicted and the cost of offshore wind farms falling steeply in Britain. Professor Grubb called on governments to commit themselves to steeper cuts in emissions than they had pledged under the Paris agreement to keep warming below 1.5C. He added: “We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought, which makes it much more credible for governments to tighten the offer they put on the table at Paris.”

    The Met Office acknowledged yesterday a 15-year slowdown in the rise in average temperature but said that this pause had ended in 2014, the first of three record warm years. The slowing had been caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, a pattern of warm and cool phases in Pacific sea-surface temperature, it said.

    The Times”

    The scientific article is here:

    OK, so let’s get this straight.

    – They proposed ditching democracy in favor of unreliable computer models.

    – They claim computer models were wrong because they were 10 years old, yet they are predicting effects 80 years in advance. How wrong do they estimate they will be by then?

    – They just discovered what every skeptic has known for a long time: That models run hot, and that the rate of warming for the 2003-2014 period has been very low.

    – They acknowledge their hypothesis produced wrong predictions, yet instead of ditching or correcting it they insist in doubling down asking for renewed efforts to reduce emissions.

    • You literally couldn’t make this sort of thing up! It’s like geocentrists asking for more money to prop up Ptolemaic epicycles because they were wronger than previously thought… LOL!

    • The admission that the models were wrong, and that they were wrong in the way that demonized skeptics have been saying their were wrong for so many years, should have a mandatory apology appended addressed to all of those skeptics who were telling to truth, but were rewarded with libel and slander.

    • Fool me once, shame on you.
      Fool me twice, ….
      Send them more $ so they can guess wrong again?
      Should we be insulted that they believe us so foolish?

    • My email notice today from The Times (London) said, “Scientists have admitted that global warming is progressing more slowly than predicted – meaning there may be time, after all, to save the world.”

      Brit humor being what it is, I don’t know if they are being sarcastic with this, “… meaning there may be time, after all, to save the world.” If so, a beautiful example.


  4. The earth transitions between ice ages and interglacials. We all know that. We are in an interglacial. Everyone knows that. That is a good thing. Some people don’t get that. Some people think that the beneficial climate that has allowed man to create SUV’s and feed 7 billion people and record all known human knowledge is a bad thing. The only thing to fear is the return of an ice age. Not the ‘little’ ice age, but a major glacial. That will truly re-landscape the earth. But when that does happen, there will be people trying to prevent that too, and blaming humans for it.

    • It went backwards under OBAMA. The system has become so corrupted it will be difficult if not impossible to unwind. The Universities will no let go easily.

  5. Went to this from Drudge link thinking it would be something else after reading the headline. It was! A big, fat nothing burger. Boils down to “Shut up, you illiterate fools. You are far too stupid to understand anything WE have to say.”, just more elitist crap.

  6. Just an excuse for moving the goalposts out far enough to be unverifiable. If the models were wrong to begin with, why should we believe them now? The scientist bravely acknowledges that he was wrong, but if you went a doctor with a pain in your chest and he concluded it was due to an ingrown toenail when in fact you were suffering from a heart attack, would you believe him if he said “I was wrong, you have a bad case of the mumps!”

  7. First they drew the number 2C from their nether regions and declared that we must keep the increase below that level if we are to save the world.
    Then when the science indicated that there was no chance of exceeding that level even if we did nothing, magically, overnight, the number was changed to 1.5C.
    Neither number was ever supported by anything resembling science or logic. Especially since the world has been warmer than that at least 3 times in the last 5000 years.

    • “First they drew the number 2C from their nether regions”

      Well put, MarkW! That’s exactly what they did. :) They just made it up.

      • Well, hasn’t this whole hullabaloo been largely a governments (taxpayers) paid trip through the more fantastic regions of science fantasy — not even credible enough to be considered good science fiction?

        When the planet’s atmosphere is almost 3% to as much as 7% aggregate greenhouse gases and then by supporting the development of civilization by burning fossil fuels we have added about another .01% to the existing percentage and it’s time to panic?

        Human beings are really strange people.

    • On a global average, the thousands of years of the Holocene Climate Optimum probably averaged over 2 degrees C higher than now, maybe a lot more. The Egyptian and Minoan Warm Periods also likely peaked around there, with the Roman and Medieval WPs probably above 1.5 degrees C higher.

  8. Perhaps realisation is beginning to dawn that the manipulation of temperatures is beginning to unravel. In the UK and Australia people know first hand that it is colder than the claims of ‘hottest’ xxxxx that are constantly being made.

  9. The most egregious error of judgement of the climate establishment science community is their failure to recognize and incorporate into their forecasts the peak in the natural millennial temperature natural cycle which occurred at about 2004. See
    Here is the Abstract of the paper for convenience.
    Norman J. Page
    Houston, Texas
    Dr. Norman J. Page
    Email: norpag@att.net
    DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
    Energy & Environment
    0(0) 1–18
    (C )The Author(s) 2017
    Reprints and permissions:
    DOI: 10.1177/0958305X16686488
    This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”

    Here is the forecast to 2100 from the blog version.

    Fig. 12. Comparative Temperature Forecasts to 2100.
    Fig. 12 compares the IPCC forecast with the Akasofu (31) forecast (red harmonic) and with the simple and most reasonable working hypothesis of this paper (green line) that the “Golden Spike” temperature peak at about 2003 is the most recent peak in the millennial cycle. Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to 2100 to be 0.5°C ± 0.2C, rather than 4.0 C +/- 2.0C predicted by the IPCC. but this interpretation ignores the Millennial inflexion point at 2004. Fig. 12 shows that the well documented 60-year temperature cycle coincidentally also peaks at about 2003.Looking at the shorter 60+/- year wavelength modulation of the millennial trend, the most straightforward hypothesis is that the cooling trends from 2003 forward will simply be a mirror image of the recent rising trends. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. 12, which shows cooling until 2038, slight warming to 2073 and then cooling to the end of the century, by which time almost all of the 20th century warming will have been reversed.
    Long Term
    The depths of the next LIA will likely occur about 2640 +/-. In the real world no pattern repeats exactly because other things are never equal. Look for example at the short-term annual variability about the 50-year moving average in Fig. 3. The actual future pattern will incorporate other solar periodicities in addition to the 60-year and millennial cycles, and will also reflect extraneous events such as volcanism. However, these two most obvious cycles should capture the principal components of the general trends with an accuracy high enough, and probability likely enough, to guide policy. Forward projections made by mathematical curve fitting alone have no necessary connection to reality if turning points picked from empirical data in Figs 4 and 10 are ignored.

  10. Whether it is worse than previously thought or not as bad as previously thought, what we know for sure is that it aint what was previously thought and that therefore the settled science of cagw&cc is not as settled as previously thought.

  11. The future will be littered with the remains of renewable energy schemes. For a preview of that future, use Google Earth to visit Richard Branson’s solar farm on Necker Island before Irma’s recent visit. It will be interesting to see what it looks like after Google’s next refresh. Does anybody know what the refresh schedule is?

  12. This is not a retrenchment. It’s the deployment of yet another strategy. When the rate of warming fell far short of the model forecasts an effort was made to change the rate of warming by cooling the past. When even that failed, a brief effort was made to scare the hell out of everyone with dramatic over-exaggeration. When that failed, we now get this: A new “forecast” that it’s not too late as long as we all get onboard today.

    This is anything but a concession to reality and to think otherwise is naive. If anything, it’s part of a new effort to get President Trump to support the Paris Agreement.

    • I agree, and I believe they are urgently trying to depict the change of course as just a natural part of settled climate science, rather than a massive embarrassment which vindicates the long held views of skeptical scientists and policy proponents. Perhaps a few brave souls who had the wool firmly down over their orbs will now start to wonder if there are just a few things that even Trump got right.

  13. Experts now say there is a two-in-three chance of keeping global temperatures within 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels, As if we are controlling temperature.

  14. So now it is admitted that the Climate Models that they have used to ‘prove’ the theory of catastrophic man-made climate change are wrong. Not just a little bit wrong but out by anything from 30% to 50% wrong. The spin put on this is that it is a good thing because it means we have a chance to meet the goal of 1.5 degrees (whatever that means) but only if we double down on our efforts to reduce CO2 emissions.

    What it really means is that the alarmists have admitted fallibility. They have actually admitted that they are wrong, and wrong big-time too. The models, which do not forget we were told that these models ran on computers so expensive and modern that they could never make any mistake, we are now told that they are trash, but nevertheless everything else we have ever been told is still all true and it’s still bad but, for once, it’s not ‘worse than we thought’. Their man made warming theory pretty much rested on their models though, because it was the output from these that ‘proved’ the theory that CO2 is boiling the planet. So, with the models gone, the theory has gone too. It only takes one thing to disprove a theory and this is that one thing.

    Once the spin has been countered this should be the start of the end of the Climate Change scam. I read the story first in The Times and was heartened to see that pretty much everyone who commented on it said the same thing; that the theory is now disproved and dead because they have admitted being wrong, so therefore why should we not assume that everything else ‘they’ said is wrong too?

    • Not really, Paul. The 97% consensus had no real definition all along. It means whatever the presenter wants it to mean. I know this to be true, because 97% of scientists agree. (See how it works!)

      • Sure – the 97% consensus didn’t have a real definition, but that hasn’t stopped the media, governments and many others from using the 97% consensus as ‘evidence’ of the ‘reality’ of climate change. The new revision of the extent and impact of climate change is clear and absolute evidence that claims of a 97% consensus are no longer true and cannot be used by the media, government and others to justify climate change mitigation such as the Paris agreement.

  15. David,
    Like a lot of your readers, I go occasionally to woodfortrees.com to easily check interactively all the world temperature gauges.
    According to one of their overview pages, on the 5 gauges shown,if the world keeps warming at the current rate since 1951, we will see an increase in world temperature (including SST figures?) of .13C to .17C per decade.
    The warming this century is much lower per decade on all gauges.
    Am I correct in thinking that if the world does not spend $1 on adaption to CAGW, the world would in any event be within ( or close to) the much touted remaining below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050?

    • I think that is correct. “Business as usual” was already going to stay below the 2 C limit and possibly below the 1.5 C limit.

    • The “adaptation money” does not come from world’s pockets; it streams from our pockets to pockets of Gore&Comp.

  16. Let’s assume that the new news is right: the climate is less sensitive to CO2 as was thought yesterday,
    Then: won’t it not also be less sensitive to emission reductions? logically yes!
    Then Paris is even more futile than its was

  17. herbert. one of the biggest blows to the “consensus” IS natural gas power generation.

    just replacing current coal power plants with the equiv. natural gas, the US- without doing anything else-

    would allow the US to meet the paris accords agreement reduction in CO2 .. replace said plants with nuclear plants like SHOULD HAPPEN (but NIMBY and a misplaced greenie people being against nuclear will prevent that from happening) would drive the emissions down even more.

  18. David,
    It is true that one can only count to 10 on both hands, using each finger as a digit. However, if one uses binary (base 2) where each finger can have a value of 1 or 0, and the sequential position indicates the exponent for the base, then one can ‘count’ to (2^10)-1, or 1023, with all fingers and thumbs up. The symbolic representation of Carlin’s favorite word is ‘4’ in ‘digital’ binary.

  19. At the Paris climate summit in 2015, Professor Grubb said: “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”

    He considers models “evidence” – actually, “all the evidence”. It is time to formulate rules of evidence for climatology. Climatology is simply incompatible with science.

  20. “An unexpected “revolution” in affordable renewable energy has also contributed to the more positive outlook”

    “An unexpected good rookie camp for Ebby LaLoosh has also contributed to the more positive outlook of the Durham Bulls.”

  21. We should be grateful that warmers are at last admitting that they got it wrong. This represents a victory for science. We should now look forward to seeing the whole warmer edifice crumble, allowing our money to be spent on something sensible and worthwhile.

    Though I expect the BBC will still be banging on about the hockey stick in 10 years time.

  22. I too am perplexed by the statement:
    “All the evidence from the past 15 years leads me to conclude that actually delivering 1.5C is simply incompatible with democracy.”
    Incompatible? This seems completely incoherent? There must be referred to some implied mechanism. Democracy doesn’t produce anything other than a result of an election.

    Does the statement infer that being able to enforce the onerous restrictions policy makers would like to impose to supposedly achieve a 1.5 °C world average temperature increase are not compatible with getting an agreed decision from a democratic plebiscite?

    • rocketscientist,

      To me, it infers a strong desire/intention to establish a sciency/technocratic Big Brother sort of global Government, that supersedes “self rule”/”rule by consent of the governed” and such . . like Europe, basically ; )

  23. I view this ‘statement’ as the being like the very first steps a toddler makes. It’s the very first step in the very, very long walk-back from the ‘catastrophic’ predictions hithertofore made.

  24. The ancients knew (at the 97% consensus level) that sacrificing virgins was necessary to placate the gods. The good news for virgins was that the high priests eventually divined that the gods were exceptionally pleased with the sacrifices and that if they just ramped up the rate of sacrifices for a while then not quite as many sacrifices would required in the future.

    In the meantime the virgins figured out a quick way to disqualify themselves from sacrifice and eventually the high priests turned their attention to that. The gods never objected to virgins disqualifying themselves as long as the disqualification was performed by a high priest.

    You know it makes sense.

  25. I’m not so sure this is any realistion or serious change of position – surely it’s just a slippery way to convince us that if we go all out for renewables and global eco-facism/governance we can still be ‘saved’. The CAGW movement is in danger of preventing implementation of their goals, by being too doom-laden – why would we bother trying to reduce that risk of CAGW if we are already committed to disaster – call me cynical!

  26. What we need is Climateberg trials. I want to see each and every one of these lying fr@uds on trial. If they can bring evidence which would pass even basic scientific muster to support their preposterous positions over the last few decades then they walk. Otherwise it’s climate Spandau prison. And models are not evidence.

  27. In the history of the planet Earth the climate has never stopped changing and yet that seems to be the goal of these misguided alarmists. I would just suggest they don’t play God with my only planet – I still need it for a few things in the remaining years of my life.

Comments are closed.