Another study has "substantially lower[ed]" the U.N.'s forecasts of potential temperature increases, the authors of the study concluding that climate change is "not as bad as we thought." The findings follow another study published in January that "all but rules out" both "very high climate sensitivities" as well as the lower end predictions of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The new study, conducted by climatologist Judith Curry and mathematician Nick Lewis and published in the American Meteorological Society's "Journal of Climate" on April 23, downgrades the predicted global temperature increases by 30-45% compared to the forecasts of the 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%.
The downgraded forecasts of Curry and Lewis were published a few months after a study headed up by the University of Exeter's Peter Cox, which 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.
As The Daily Wire highlighted in January, scientists have acknowledged that attempting to forecast future global temperatures is a near impossibility, as it requires factoring in the "known unknown" of "equilibrium climate sensitivity," which "requires accounting for a wide range of notoriously difficult-to-predict factors, including, as Cox notes, the climate 'tipping points,' rapid changes in the climate that have occurred historically caused by the planet itself rather than more predictable external factors." The process is so complex, MIT atmospheric physician Richard Lindzen says in a video for PragerU, that "long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible."