Come on now: Scientists say “apocalyptic predictions” about global warming by the U.N. are NOT credible

Adding to the general confusion and disagreement about the true dangers of global warming, a new study has determined that the UN’s “apocalyptic” global warming predictions are completely overstated.

Researchers from the University of Exeter used new calculations to determine the likely impact that greenhouse gases would have on global warming, and they were able to discount extreme scenarios like the UN’s prediction of the world warming by as much as 19.8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. They’ve now reduced the range of potential outcomes at the end of the century by more than half.

Their modeling method looked at how much our planet’s average surface temperature would rise should the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere double.  While past attempts to determine equilibrium climate sensitivity have looked at the historical temperature records, the new study focused on the year-to-year global temperature fluctuations. They analyzed how responsive short-term temperature changes were to slight bumps in the climate regardless of greenhouse gas emissions.

While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the UN has predicted that equilibrium climate sensitivity would be in the range of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius, the new study sees a range of 2.2 to 3.4 degrees Celsius. This means the “end of the world” according to the UN is not as close as they would like you to believe.

However, the researchers concede that their new model does not take any possibility of rapid climate shifts caused by the planet itself into consideration. For example, the thawing of the carbon-rich permafrost on the planet, ice sheets melting in Antarctica, or a gulf stream collapse could all cause a big shift.

Experts are praising the new study

Their “ingenious” approach was lauded by University of Leeds Professor Piers Forster. In a companion article published in the journal Nature, he wrote: “The idea underpinning this work is so enviably simple that it will make climate scientists ask, ‘Why didn’t I think of that?’”

This study is not likely to go down well with some global warming alarmists, however. A professor from the University of Colorado Boulder, Roger A. Pielke Jr., called the new study “clever” on Twitter, writing: “If your climate advocacy is grounded in ‘[it’s] gonna be bad, really bad’ arguments, then new science (‘not as bad’) puts you in an awkward position. No doubt some catastrophists will today feel a need to diss the new study lest they give evil deniers due.”

You may recall a similar story last year about how global warming climate models are blatantly incorrect and biased toward churning out overblown predictions designed to frighten the masses. On that occasion, a paper that was published in Nature Geoscience concluded that faulty software models were used by the IPCC and widely cited by those with a vested interest in furthering the global warming narrative. They showed that climate change was not quite the urgent threat to our planet that it had been made out to be. Is anyone starting to notice a pattern here?

Find credible news on climate science at Climate.news.

Sources include:

DailyMail.co.uk

WashingtonTimes.com

NaturalNews.com