Skip to content

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

September 19, 2017

By Paul Homewood



From the Telegraph:




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.


They also condemned the “overreaction” to the US’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord, announced by Donald Trump in June, saying it is unlikely to make a significant difference.


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.

We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought Professor Michael Grubb, University College London

The discrepancy means nations could continue emitting carbon dioxide at the current rate for another 20 years before the target was breached, instead of the three to five predicted by the previous model.

“When you are talking about a budget of 1.5 degrees, then a 0.3 degree difference is a big deal”, said Professor Myles Allen, of Oxford University and one of the authors of the new study.

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 goal was yesterday described as “very ambitious” but “physically possible”.


The story is also covered by the Independent, which quotes Myles Allen, one of the paper’s authors:

“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.”

The original forecasts were based on twelve separate computer models made by universities and government institutes around the world, and were put together ten years ago, “so it’s not that surprising that it’s starting to divert a little bit from observations”, Professor Allen added.


This is the paper referred to:


I have a number of thoughts about this:

1) We have known for several years that the climate models have been running far too hot.

This rather belated admission is welcome, but a cynic would wonder why it was not made before Paris.

2) I suspect part of the motivation is to keep Paris on track. Most observers, including even James Hansen, have realised that it was not worth the paper it was written on.

This new study is designed to restore the belief that the original climate targets can be achieved, via Paris and beyond.

3) Although they talk of the difference between 0.9C and 1.3C, the significance is much greater.

Making the reasonable assumption that a significant part of the warming since the mid 19thC is natural, this means that any AGW signal is much less than previously thought.

4) Given that that they now admit they have got it so wrong, why should we be expected to have any faith at all in the models?

5) Finally, we must remember that temperatures since 2000 have been artificially raised by the recent record El Nino, and the ongoing warm phase of the AMO.

Given the latest admission, there is every likelihood that global temperatures will remain flat for a good time to come.

  1. September 19, 2017 10:46 am

    So they are throwing poor old james hansen and poor old neil degrasse tyson undet the bus?

  2. September 19, 2017 10:52 am

    Strangely there is no mention of this on the BBC. Usually Cardinal Harrabin is the first person to comment on any climate change issue. I will watch the BBC lunchtime news to see if there is any mention of it.

    • Robin Guenier permalink
      September 19, 2017 11:28 am

      The BBC website has quite a long piece about it by its Science Editor, Paul Rincon:

      It’s followed by an “analysis” by another Science Editor, David Shukman, who informs us that “it’s remarkable that these computer constructs are even roughly on track”. He observes:

      “The authors themselves are anxious that their research is not misunderstood. The need for urgent action to reduce emissions is unchanged, they say. It’s just that the most ambitious of the Paris Agreement targets is not as unachievable as many once thought, that there is time to act, though the task remains a monumental one.”

      In other words: move on – there’s nothing to see here. And, in any case, Michael Mann challenges the report’s methodology.

      • September 20, 2017 12:57 am

        “it’s remarkable that these computer constructs are even roughly on track”

        I thought it was “settled science” and “there is no debate” with these clowns?

      • buffin47 permalink
        September 20, 2017 6:55 am

        That’s what Myles Allen said when Julia Hartley Brewer let him get a word in edgeways on her Talk Radio show.

  3. Gerry, England permalink
    September 19, 2017 10:52 am

    And we need to remember that the datasets have been ‘artificially raised’ as well especially in Australia as trust in BOM collapses from a whole list of frauds. They are proposing an independent temperature monitoring network of citizens to counter the BOM.

    Meanwhile the ski resorts in New Zealand are closed by too much snow to get there. And at KNMI HQ, the coldest September 16th has been recorded for the Netherlands.

  4. September 19, 2017 10:59 am

    Sounds as though they had an OOPS moment followed by a CYA reaction.

  5. AndyG55 permalink
    September 19, 2017 11:11 am

    “giving countries more time to get a grip on their carbon output.”

    Um.. Carbon Dioxide is NOT pollution.

    The whole farce is based on a fallacy.

    • Paddy permalink
      September 20, 2017 6:28 am

      And CO2 is not “carbon” any more than H2O is hydrogen.

  6. AndyG55 permalink
    September 19, 2017 11:13 am

    Would someone please explain, that apart from natural, highly beneficial warming out of the coldest period in 10,000 years, and some temperature ups and downs due to ocean cycles…….

    … in what way has the climate changed in the last, say 100 years ??

    Seems to have been remarkably stable.

  7. John McCormick permalink
    September 19, 2017 11:20 am

    This is also headline news in the Times,will be surprised if it does similar on the BBC website or news..

  8. HotScot permalink
    September 19, 2017 12:12 pm

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

    Well, it didn’t take long for them to start pushing the story that the man made efforts to control AGW are bearing fruit.

    Watch this one grow.

    • dave permalink
      September 19, 2017 12:22 pm

      “Watch this one grow…”

      How many metastases of the original cancer do we have to endure?

      • HotScot permalink
        September 19, 2017 10:37 pm

        Unending mate. If there’s one thing I have learned in life, it’s that the glass half full minority prop up the glass half empty majority.

        It’s easier to be scared of one’s shadow than it is to confront it.

      • 1saveenergy permalink
        September 19, 2017 11:05 pm

        “glass half full” or ” glass half empty”
        means (as any competent engineer will tell you) the glass is oversized.

        I had a scarey shadow… but managed to lose him at the 3rd roundabout (:-))

  9. Jack Broughton permalink
    September 19, 2017 12:17 pm

    The so-called “radiative Forcing Factors” which are the basis of the models was always a fiction being based on 19th Century equations for emissivity of gases. The feedback mechanism purely a hypothesis used to magnify an already faulty value.

    That the earth will warm to over 1.5 deg K above the LIA values is inevitable and natural: the danger levels such as 2 deg K rise and 5 deg K disaster are also fiction with no scientific basis (other than the big brother models..

    While they admit theory failures, the believers will continue to believe!

  10. HotScot permalink
    September 19, 2017 12:20 pm


    “”We’re in the midst of an energy revolution and it’s happening faster than we thought Professor Michael Grubb, University College London”

    This will be used to whip up efforts to continue building windfarms and solar arrays, because they’re working, despite all the evidence to the contrary!

    And are we to assume from this: “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.” that they are classifying CO2 as a pollutant? Again!

    And what do they mean by “and then continue to drop more sharply”? Perhaps they would like to see CO2 spiral downwards until it reaches levels that can’t sustain life. Then what do we do? Strat burning all the fossil fuel we can find in order to raise CO2 back to safe levels?

    These people are nutters. Do they imaging that at the flick of a switch man has any meaningful effect on atmospheric CO2?

  11. September 19, 2017 12:22 pm

    Myles Allen currently spouting Hurricane alarmism on the World at One, encouraged by Marthe Kearney of course. No mention of the above report.

    • CheshireRed permalink
      September 19, 2017 2:33 pm

      He was on 5 Live this morning saying the same stuff; human contributions made Irma ‘worse than it otherwise would’ve been’ blah blah.
      Nicky Campbell didn’t seem to think NOAA’s admission of ‘no detectable human influence’ on those hurricanes or the 2C cooler-than-normal sea temps were worthy of mention.
      BBC lying by omission yet again.

  12. September 19, 2017 2:52 pm

    One report means nothing
    However it will be spun : here’s 2 takes

  13. CheshireRed permalink
    September 19, 2017 4:18 pm

    The Guardian has spun this as a vindication of computer modelling! Dana Nutti is doing his normal propaganda turn to a tee. Take care reading it though, it’s sickening stuff.

  14. Athelstan permalink
    September 19, 2017 4:56 pm

    So all along realists were right and computer generated GCMs are a crock, well whodathunked it?

    This won’t stop the merchants of green BS though – will it? too much filthy lucre bet on the great green scam for it to fail – even if the basic presupposition was wrong.

    How can that clown Myles Allen say in one breath “oh well er yes the climate models were and clearly got it wrong”

    In a thrice, up next he’s on al been R5 saying ‘human induced emissions exacerbated current (season of “big wind”) Hurricane season’.

    Is it cognotive dissonance or just that he’s paid to say that sort of stuff, or he just can’t stop his incontinent mouth running away with itself?

  15. buffin47 permalink
    September 20, 2017 7:01 am

    Ther problem is that the pauses and intermittent temperature changes bear no relation to the surge in the trace gas CO2.

    No one coming fresh to these data would think to link the two. Yet our useless politicians continue to toss our money away on this.

  16. Europeanonion permalink
    September 20, 2017 8:09 am

    Thank God for Paul Homewood our own Galileo. It is natural that any sane person should be concerned with the health of the planet. What is so wrong in the case of climate science is that coercive methodology has so distorted science, the ‘crying wolf’ spectacle. If you cannot have faith in science who can you turn to? Since the decline of our faith there are only Politicians, the devil you know. We are well aware that you can buy a scientist and it is natural to pay for expertise. But when you tell the science community to find association and you are paying for that confirmation then there will only be one result. The outfall from this situation is, as we have seen, to use that certainty in a most insidious manner where everything can the be foisted on to climate and enquiry stops there.

    It is a boisterous time for nature at the moment. Hurricanes, earthquakes, the natural expressions of an essentially volatile universe. A place of such mysterious physical occurrences that are wonders beyond the calculation of us all. It is therefore natural to the human psyche that we should seek certainty where there is none, be it in the formation and continuance of hurricanes or the general issue of weather. People have ‘warmed’ to the idea of ‘climate change’ to try and find some positive contribution in its amelioration. That we now see to what extent the populace has had to be mislead to sustain that, the material poverty imposed, the jeopardy to which our material futures have been endangered, the philosophical and political nuances that have had to be imposed to favour those without technology over those that hitherto were progressive, the advantage taken of us by the unscrupulous, the rise of the self-appointed to use their censoriousness to press for medievalism where technology should rule; it is no less a tragedy than when the zealot Puritans ruined our ancient monuments and punished the naive and incapable in the seeking-out of witchcraft.

    This has been the second phlogiston period where in the absence of intellect, answers, there has been an easy admission for hearsay and heracy. We are not only bedevilled by the re-occurrence of ancient remedies but also drowned in necromancy and the rise of the ‘witness’. Every device and supposition thrown at Paul has been refuted, explained. The question is, why have we been reduced to dependence on our Galileo to martyr himself to the scourge of public opinion simply to tell the truth? Who controls the truth?

    In previous times there were gentlemen scientists of private means that weighed scientific theory and method at their own expense and deduced concepts that we are still rediscovering today. It is not so much what will happen to European funding should we leave the EU but rather a warning. We now see what happens when science is overly dependent on government for funding and how in the current system this leads to poor science, the corruption of clever people and the reliance on one method over all else. A dearth of contradiction is bad for science and blights all our futures.

    • Athelstan permalink
      September 20, 2017 4:57 pm

      A bloody marvellous post and quite beautifully couched and composed.

      Imho, Paul should put it up as a blog post, as a stand out polemic, of a contrarian argument opposing the ‘received scientific wisdom’ and therein, highlighting the egregious faiure of science made up by consensus.

  17. September 20, 2017 11:21 am

    As a footnote to all this could anyone update me with the legal case in Canada, and the squabble over disclosing data used to construct the dubious AGW case, computer models etc. Are they still claiming intellectual property rights?


  1. Delingpole: Climate Alarmists Finally Admit ‘We Were Wrong About Global Warming’ - VIDOL

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: