Good climate news is never actually good news.

Actually, the article reports that the researchers predicted an even higher climate sensitivity than IPCC.

From the linked article, when the researchers use all of the data from 1750 to the year 2000, they get 3.7 degrees C.

"When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7degreeC, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis."

The only way to get the 2 degrees C (1.9 C) is to ignore all of the data before 2000 and just model the one decade of 2000-2010.

"But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a "mere" 1.9degreeC."

Using that short period of time isn't valid for predicting a long-term trend any more than using any other short period of time.

Since the blog didn't give us a link, or even the title and location, of the study on which they report, it is impossible to tell if the blogger just did a crappy job of reporting or they misunderstood the researchers or the researchers didn't explain their findings very well. That is why we can't rely on bloggers for information and must go to the actual study.

Apparently the research hasn't been published yet. It will be interesting to see the peer review given the obvious faulty reasoning of extrapolating a short-term value to long-term trend. Especially when we all know that the energy is building up in the oceans and will likely surge again.

Once they publish it the scientific community will evaluate their "novel approach," which obviously gives results different than more than 90% of all other results. That's how science works.

Of course, the denialist industyry doesn't care about science. They'll simply declare one poorly written press release of unpublished work, even with its obvious flaws, somehow makes all the other millions points of actual peer-reviewed research go away. This idea is, of course, patently idiotic. And why, of course again, denialists rely on dishonest blogs by anonymous bloggers repeating many times debunked falsehoods. It tells you a lot about the veracity of people who are repeatedly and intentionally dishonest.

In any case, the press release for this non-peer-reviewed work notes that even these researchers admit that the increasingly warming planet is largely human induced and that "Climate issues must be dealt with."

Furthermore, from the actual (poorly written) press release:

"Terje Berntsen emphasises that his project’s findings must not be construed as an excuse for complacency in addressing human-induced global warming. The results do indicate, however, that it may be more within our reach to achieve global climate targets than previously thought.

Regardless, the fight cannot be won without implementing substantial climate measures within the next few years."

Again, given that this non-published work is counter to 90% of all other peer-reviewed research, it will be interesting to see if their findings hold up to scrutiny. If they do, then they will still be in the vast minority at that low sensitivity.

Hmmm,
Not one iota of validation in your post Chris.

" (compared to a lot of other climate modeling studies that arena whole lot less optimistic)"

"Latest Empirical Evidence: The Abysmal Prediction Failure Of Taxpayer Funded CO2-Based Climate Models"

Except for the fact that all of those "climate modeling studies" failed to even come close.

"Over the past thirty years, scientific studies attempting to predict the damage from global warming have almost always ended up underestimating the actual damage. Sorry, but it is a fact."

Nope Chris it isn't a fact...It's made up!

Here just a small example that counters your assumption:

Increase In Severe Tropical Cyclones Does Not Materalize Per Predictions

Predicted Increase In Wildfires From Global Warming Did Not Happen

IPCC Model Temperature Predictions Confirmed To Be Wrong

The Numerous Predictions That Govt Sponsored "Green" Projects Will Succeed...Have Massively Failed

New Study Confirms Himalayan Glaciers Expanding - Opposite of IPCC Climate Model Predictions

Global Cooling Since 1997 - The IPCC Global Warming Prediction Due To CO2 Emissions Was Wrong, Spectacularly

Climate Doomsday-Religion Fanatics Predict Severe Winter Storms For U.S. East Coast - Oooops...Empirical Evidence Refutes That Prediction

Why Have Climate Model Predictions Of Global Temperatures Been So Terrible?

Another Study Pours Water On Predicted Heavy Precipitiation Events Due To Climate Change

IPCC Predicted That Global Temps Would Rapidly Increase Due To Climate's High Sensitivity To CO2 - Evidence Counters That Prediction

Prediction That Melting Greenland Will Soon Flood NYC Is Without Merit

Ocean Acidification Will Destroy The Oceans' Plankton - Another Doomsday Prediction Proven Wrong

IPCC Climate Models Predicted Increase In Severe Weather Events - Not Happening

Predicted Higher Ocean Levels Has Not Happened For Islands In The Middle Of The Indian Ocean

Dan,
You would not expect a CAGWART to report something like this would you?

From Phys.org

" When the researchers at CICERO and the Norwegian Computing Center applied their model and statistics to analyse temperature readings from the air and ocean for the period ending in 2000, they found that climate sensitivity to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration will most likely be 3.7°C, which is somewhat higher than the IPCC prognosis.

But the researchers were surprised when they entered temperatures and other data from the decade 2000-2010 into the model; climate sensitivity was greatly reduced to a "mere" 1.9°C.

Professor Berntsen explains the changed predictions:

"The Earth's mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.

"We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now."

The head of Whole Foods released a P.R. vid this week that included his acknowledgement of global warming, but expressing that he doesn't think it will be all that bad.

Jo Jo the Dog Faced Boy here on Gather suggests stop exclaiming and wringing our hands about it - since there's not much we can do given human nature. And instead prepare for it, and learn to roll with the punches.

While comforted by such sentiments, I like the maxim: Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Including: plan to reduce our GHG emissions.

Some scientists speculate that our oceans - which have been rising in temperature - will in some future years begin releasing that heat into our atmosphere.

Ian,
Simply put, the environment is just too complex to model accurately.

"While comforted by such sentiments, I like the maxim: Hope for the best, plan for the worst. Including: plan to reduce our GHG emissions."

Hyper,
Do you have any information (facts, research) that suggests that reducing human produced C02 by the fractions that a carbon tax would bring, will reduce global warming?
And as far as the warming of the planet being hidden in the ocean I'll put forth this article:

"The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat"

It's an NPR article from 5 years ago....But from my understanding the global warmists quit using the data because it didn't validate their theory that the "missing heat" was hiding in the ocean.

Hyper Intellect finds it amusing and interesting that most claiming concern about AGW continue supporting political stupid quo. Including various financial rewards for human reproduction.

May you live in interesting times.
- old Chinese curse

I used to be disgusted; now I try to be amused.
- Elvis Costello

I try to be amused to, but it ain't easy. :).

The headline on one denialist blog reads "global warming downgraded to a sultry afternoon." So idiotic!