text: Readers may recall that last December I published an informal climate sensitivity study at Bishop Hill, here . The study adopted a heat-balance (energy budget) approach and used recent data, including satellite-observation-derived aerosol forcing estimates. I would like now to draw attention to a new peer-reviewed climate sensitivity study published as a Letter in Nature Geoscience , "Energy budget constraints on climate response", here . This study uses the same approach as mine, based on changes in global mean temperature, forcing and heat uptake over 100+ year periods, with aerosol forcing adjusted to reflect satellite observations. Headline best estimates of 2.0C for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) and 1.3C for the arguably more policy-relevant transient climate response (TCR) are obtained, based on changes to the decade 200009, which provide the best constrained, and probably most reliable, estimates. The 595% uncertainty ranges are 1.23.9C for ECS and 0.92.0C for TCR. I should declare an interest in this study: you will find my name included in the extensive list of authors: Alexander Otto, Friederike E. L. Otto, Olivier Boucher, John Church, Gabi Hegerl, Piers M. Forster, Nathan P. Gillett, Jonathan Gregory, Gregory C. Johnson, Reto Knutti, Nicholas Lewis, Ulrike Lohmann, Jochem Marotzke, Gunnar Myhre, Drew Shindell, Bjorn Stevens, and Myles R. Allen. I am writing this article in my personal capacity, not as a representative of the author team.