With all the interest in climate sensitivity, it was perhaps inevitable that the activist arm of the global warming consensus would continue to wail and gnash its collective teeth. I'm not entirely convinced that people are going to be persuaded by the latest contributions though.
In the first of these, Dana Nuccitelli continues his long struggle to become the least reputable person upholding the IPCC consensus (and heaven knows it's a strong field). In his latest contribution to the pages of the Guardian he continues to tell his readers that there is only a single study pointing to low climate sensitivity.
...when we put all the evidence together, we can be confident that average surface temperatures will warm between about 2 and 4.5°C in response to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. It's also important to remember that this range is based on a large body of evidence using several different approaches, which all give us about the same answer. No single study is going to overturn that vast body of evidence.
I have already reviewed the evidence behind this claim here, so I'm now struggling to think of a more blatant mispresentation of the facts than this. The depths to which the Guardian is willing to go these days never ceases to amaze. When you are losing as much money as they are I suppose a decline in standards is inevitable.
Meanwhile, Justin Gillis, the dark green blogger at the New York Times seems to be struggling with the whole mathematics thing:
...several recent papers have offered best estimates for climate sensitivity that are below four degrees Fahrenheit, rather than the previous best estimate of just above five degrees, and they have also suggested that the highest estimates are pretty implausible.
Notice that these recent calculations fall well within the long-accepted range [of 3-8 deg F] — just on the lower end of it. But the papers have caused considerable excitement among climate-change contrarians.
3-8°F is 1.7-4.5°C, which is, of course, not the same as the "likely" range for AR4, which is 2-4.5°C. These "likely" figures are the ones that are usually quoted and discussed. So in fact the new estimates are outside the accepted range.
And when Gillis says "below four degrees F, readers should note that he actually means "three degrees F", which is pretty much where the modes of all the new low estimates of ECS are falling.