Global warming downgraded

Wing-nuts move quickly in this day and age. An inaccurate story about the forthcoming IPCC fourth assessment appears in the Telegraph, mistaking climate sensitivity for expected temperature increase by 2100, among other faults. Tim Lambert explains:

The Telegraph report is obviously wrong. The IPCC report just summarizes the scientific literature. There has not been any paper published that would justify reducing the estimate. The reporter has confused climate sensitivity (how much warming you eventually get from doubling CO2), with predicted warming in 2100. In the third assessment report the top end of the range for sensitivity was 4.5, while the top end for warming by 2100 was 5.8. These numbers haven't changed in the new report, all that has happened is that the reporter has mistaken the 4.5 number for sensitivity as a new estimate for warming and reported it as a reduction from 5.8.

The Association of British Drivers takes this to mean:

"We Got It Wrong" says the IPCC

In fact, as the IPCC and other scientists have previously acknowledged there is no human signal in the data above the noise of natural variation.

With significant climate cooling widely expected from about 2012 there's plenty of time for the climb-down to minimise the egg on politicians' faces. Before then, since man-made climate change is being officially reduced, we expect fuel duty and all King Canute mobility taxes to be officially reduced as well.

Detailed references, State of Fear-style, are provided.

But why-oh-why is it not going to get as warm as ounce thought? The Telegraph explains:

It (IPCC) also says that the overall human effect on global warming since the industrial revolution is less than had been thought, due to the unexpected levels of cooling caused by aerosol sprays, which reflect heat from the sun.

Aerosol sprays like under-arm deodorant?

Tomas Lifson of American Thinker spots yet another Green eco-conspiracy:

I remember when many aerosol sprays were withdrawn from the market. Now, it seems that they have been helping.

Here was me thinking aerosols were simply tiny particles suspended in the air, 90 % of which are natural and originate from volcanoes, dust storms, forest and grassland fires, living vegetation, and sea spray. I thought the human 10 % came from activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and the alteration of natural surface cover. ( ref. Earth Observatory).

One would think aerosol sprays as such would have a fairly negligable effect.

Clearly this is not the case.

In a 2-for-1 deal for the environment, I’m going to stop wasting precious Australian water by bathing each day, and resort to the good ‘ol shower-in-a-can.