In the final draft of its new report the IPCC has significantly slashed its predictions for how much the climate will warm in the coming decades.

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

From the second to the final draft of its newest report the IPCC significantly slashed its predictions for how much the climate will warm in the coming decades.

In the second draft of the Fifth Assessment Report it had broadly agreed with the models that the world will warm by 0.4 to 1.0 Cº from 2016-2035 against 1986-2005. But in the final draft it quietly cut the 30-year projection to 0.3-0.7 Cº, saying the warming is more likely to be at the lower end of the range [equivalent to about 0.4 Cº over 30 years]. If that rate continued till 2100, global warming this century could be as little as 1.3 Cº.

This will bring the IPCC’s predictions more in line with the reality of the past two decades, which has seen a complete pause in any warming.

This is actually very good news, as it suggests that the good scientists in the climate community are beginning to regain control of the science. Rather than bend to the political winds, the IPCC is being forced to bend to the data itself. Nonetheless, no one should be sanguine about the situation. As noted by Christopher Monckton at the link,

Multiple lines of evidence now confirm that the models and consequently the IPCC have overestimated global warming. Yet neither that misconceived organization nor any of its host of unthinking devotees has displayed any remorse. Instead, they persist in maintaining that the warming is temporarily paused, though they cannot really explain why; or they blame particulate aerosols, their get-out-of-jail-free fudge-factor; or they pretend warming is really continuing unabated, saying it has gone into hiding deep in the oceans where, conveniently, we cannot measure it, or that the Earth-atmosphere system has a fever driven by four atom-bombs’-worth of heat content increase every second.

What they are not prepared to countenance, notwithstanding the real-world, measured evidence, is the growing probability that they and their precious models have so badly misunderstood the climate, or so well understood it and so badly misrepresented it, that global warming is simply not going to occur at anything like any of the exaggerated rates that they had until now so confidently over-predicted.

Read the whole thing. Look especially at Figure 9, the last figure, as it shows the data in comparison with the predictions in all the IPCC reports.



  • Pzatchok

    Well if the main stream media never questions them then they can say anything and never be wrong.

    Just wait, as soon as AGW can’t be proven they will claim that their great environmental laws and forced changes to industry were what saved us all.

  • mpthompson

    Didn’t some AGW yahoos just come out two days ago claiming that we’ll see a 4C to 7C increase by the end of this century? Something about the clouds thinning or some such nonsense. I guess they didn’t get the memo.

  • M D Mill


    in a similar line…
    The available satelite observations (RSS and UAH) of average global warming of the lower atmosphere from 1979 to 2013 is about .3 C, and is by far the most reliable…especially given the “adjustments” recently by GISS and HADCRUT.
    The co2 concentration during that time changed from 336 to 395 ppm. Even if we assume all that temperature increase was due to co2; and if we assume a nearly logarithmic relation of temperature change to co2 (which is well known); then a little algebra yields a sensitivity of 1.28 C per doubling of co2! At the current rate of co2 increase it would require about 200 years to double co2 from the current level. [And the atmosphere washes out half of the co2 emmitted by man every year (ie, the co2 level does not “like” to be moved from its “natural” level), so i don’t forsee a great increase in the rate, even as more countries burn more hydro-carbon.] When I start to see reliable observable evidence that the rate of global temperature increase is much greater than this I will reasonably begin to take the alarmism seriously. Does even a wild enviro-zealot see a flaw in this reasoning?…especially given the IMMEASURABLE advantages of using this energy source. It boggles the mind of the sane.

    [P.S….even using the 1950 to 2013 HAdcrut data(questionable?) from figure 9 (delta T=.68 C); and 310 ppm co2 in 1950; yields a sensitiviy of 1.95 C per doubling co2…over 200 years at current rates.]

    regards…M D Mill

  • Edward

    Excellent video. I have sent it on to my friends and family who deny that anthropogenic CO2 is a minor influence on global climate change.

  • Lois Johnson

    Yes it is a good video. CERN is going to test the model of the effect of supernova explosions on cloud formation (which affects global warming/cooling).

  • Cotour

    Both good, substantive videos, thank you.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *