Now UN says global warming exaggerated

On our site and elsewhere, global warming/climate change defenders say almost 100 percent of “climate scientists” maintain global warming/climate change is happening at a rapid rate, and will cause great damage. Now the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has reduced its alarmism:

The big news is that, for the first time since these reports started coming out in 1990, the new one dials back the alarm. It states that the temperature rise we can expect as a result of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide is lower than the IPPC thought in 2007.

Admittedly, the change is small, and because of changing definitions, it is not easy to compare the two reports, but retreat it is. It is significant because it points to the very real possibility that, over the next several generations, the overall effect of climate change will be positive for humankind and the planet.

Specifically, the draft report says that “equilibrium climate sensitivity” (ECS)—eventual warming induced by a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which takes hundreds of years to occur—is “extremely likely” to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit), “likely” to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit) and “very likely” to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit). In 2007, the IPPC said it was “likely” to be above 2 degrees Celsius and “very likely” to be above 1.5 degrees, with no upper limit. Since “extremely” and “very” have specific and different statistical meanings here, comparison is difficult.

Still, the downward movement since 2007 is clear, especially at the bottom of the “likely” range. The most probable value (3 degrees Celsius last time) is for some reason not stated this time….

Most experts believe that warming of less than 2 degrees Celsius from preindustrial levels will result in no net economic and ecological damage. Therefore, the new report is effectively saying (based on the middle of the range of the IPCC’s emissions scenarios) that there is a better than 50-50 chance that by 2083, the benefits of climate change will still outweigh the harm.

Warming of up to 1.2 degrees Celsius over the next 70 years (0.8 degrees have already occurred), most of which is predicted to happen in cold areas in winter and at night, would extend the range of farming further north, improve crop yields, slightly increase rainfall (especially in arid areas), enhance forest growth and cut winter deaths (which far exceed summer deaths in most places). Increased carbon dioxide levels also have caused and will continue to cause an increase in the growth rates of crops and the greening of the Earth—because plants grow faster and need less water when carbon dioxide concentrations are higher.

Up to two degrees of warming, these benefits will generally outweigh the harmful effects, such as more extreme weather or rising sea levels, which even the IPCC concedes will be only about 1 to 3 feet during this period.

Yet these latest IPCC estimates of climate sensitivity may still be too high. They don’t adequately reflect the latest rash of published papers estimating “equilibrium climate sensitivity” and “transient climate response” on the basis of observations, most of which are pointing to an even milder warming. This was already apparent last year with two papers—by scientists at the University of Illinois and Oslo University in Norway—finding a lower ECS than assumed by the models. Since then, three new papers conclude that ECS is well below the range assumed in the models.

Graph shows it

Check out the following graph, in which the thick black line is the actual performance of temperatures. The other lines show the previous predictions — much higher — now shown to be alarmism.

So, global warming “deniers” like me have been right all along. I’m not a climatologist. But I have long experience with governments and know to take anything they say with a grain of overheated ocean saltwater.

California

If California had a sensible political establishment, Gov. Jerry Brown immediately would call a Special Session of the Legislature to repeal AB 32, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, which mandated reducing greenhouse gas levels by 25 percent by 2020; and which set up a corporatist Cap and Trade scheme for greenhouse gases.

And it would repeal the 2011 renewables mandate Brown signed in 2011, which requires that all electricity in the state must come 33 percent from renewables by 2020.

But that won’t happen. Green power now is a large special interest in the state. Ecology/saving the planet is the latest Puritan enterprise for which witches must, as in Salem, be found and burned. The witches are energy users.