This tells us at least two things:
1. The high-carbon-sensitivity models which produce the IPCC’s projections of 3-6°C temps must have been carefully selected.
2. When doing their own work, for publication, the leading scientists at USA’s top Government institutions prefer to work with models which assume realistic (ie low) carbon-sensitivity.

There is, of course, a less worthy explanation. The NASA scientists might have preferred a low-sensitivity model so that the negative feedback they identified would have a low absolute value. But, whatever the absolute value, this new feedback accounts for a handy 15-20% reduction in alleged greenhouse warming.

It’s well worth keeping information like this current. there’s so many stories already written and they need to be dusted off even if they are a few years old. This one is exactly what should be front-of-mind but I’d forgotten about it already.

I’ve got my head in one that was written before IPCC AR4 2007 “New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming?” by Dr. Theodor Landscheidt, that I think is the best article I have read that expounds the alternative natural climate change hypothesis, Gleissberg cycles and the solar influence on climate change.

http://bourabai.narod.ru/landscheidt/new-e.htm

It is interesting that although it has been proven to be skillful in prediction, the actual cause and effect relationship has not been completely established yet.

All brushed over by the IPCC of course but it shows that we really should be looking at what we already have and that it is scandalous just how much has been ignored for decades to perpetuate the “process”.

My “Topics for posting” folder is populated too well! All right, it’s overcrowded.