Quantcast
Published On: Wed, Apr 25th, 2018

American Meteorological Society’s new study on global warming reduces forecasts by 30 to 45%

Global warming skeptics will not be surprised by the news that American Meteorological Society’s “Journal of Climate” study points to “substantially lower[ed]” forecasts of potential temperature increases as authors noted that the climate change is “not as bad as we thought.”

This new study, authored by climatologist Judith Curry (Georgia Institute of Technology) and mathematician Nick Lewis, downgrade the global temperature increases by 30-45% compared to the forecasts of the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Our results imply that, for any future emissions scenario, future warming is likely to be substantially lower than the central computer model-simulated level projected by the IPCC, and highly unlikely to exceed that level,” said Lewis.

The study predicts temperature increases of 1.66C and 1.33C compared to the IPCC models’ more dramatic predictions of 3.1C and 1.9C, respectively, a reduction ranging from 45-30%.

A study by University of Exeter’s Peter Cox concluded that the most dire of the U.N.’s climate change models were almost certainly too high.

“Our study all but rules out very low and very high climate sensitivities,” said Cox. The scientists significantly narrowed the range of possible temperature changes from the U.N.’s widely variable range of 1.5 – 4.5C to a more moderate 2.2 – 3.4C, with a best estimate of an increase of 2.8C by 2100.”

CORRECTION TO THIS POST: This evaluation of the Cox study was falsely equated to this Curry and Lewis paper. See his comments below: “Our study (published in Nature earlier this year) estimates a likely range of ECS of 2.2-3.4 deg C, which hardly overlaps at all with the low values of ECS stated in the abstract of the Curry & Lewis paper (95% confidence limits 1.05-2.45 degC).To make the difference even clearer, our study reports a median value of ECS of 2.8 deg C (which is very similar to the IPCC central estimate), but Curry & Lewis claim a median ECS of 1.5 deg C.”

photo/ Pete Linforth

 

 

About the Author

- Writer and Co-Founder of The Global Dispatch, Brandon has been covering news, offering commentary for years, beginning professional in 2008 on sites like Examiner and blogs: Desk of Brian, Crazed Fanboy. Appearing on several radio shows, Brandon has hosted Dispatch Radio, written his first novel (The Rise of the Templar) will be a licensed Assembly of God Pastor by the Spring of 2017. "Why do we do this?" I was asked and the answer is simple. "I just want the truth. I want a source of information that tells me what's going and clearly attempts to separate opinion from fact. Set aside left and right, old and young, just point to the world and say, 'Look!'" To Contact Brandon email [email protected] ATTN: BRANDON

Displaying 1 Comments
Have Your Say
  1. Peter Cox says:

    Dear Brandon

    You say in your article that the new study “aligns with a separate study by University of Exeter’s Peter Cox”, but that is untrue. Our study (published in Nature earlier this year) estimates a likely range of ECS of 2.2-3.4 deg C, which hardly overlaps at all with the low values of ECS stated in the abstract of the Curry & Lewis paper (95% confidence limits 1.05-2.45 degC).To make the difference even clearer, our study reports a median value of ECS of 2.8 deg C (which is very similar to the IPCC central estimate), but Curry & Lewis claim a median ECS of 1.5 deg C.

    Regards

    Peter Cox

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these html tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Recent Posts

Categories

Archives

At the Movies