Natural Variability To Dominate Weather Events Over Coming 20-30 Years
Press Release
London: For many decades to come, and probably longer, mankind’s influence on the frequency of extreme weather events will be insignificant.
According to a preliminary report released by the IPCC, there will be no detectable influence of mankind’s influence on the Earth’s weather systems for at least thirty years, and possibly not until the end of this century.
The Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, is in stark contrast to other statements made by the IPCC. It shows that mankind’s influence on the weather is far smaller than natural factors.
If and when mankind’s influence becomes apparent it may be just as likely to reduce the number of extreme weather events as increase them.
Surveying the state of scientific knowledge IPCC scientists say they cannot determine if mankind’s influence will result in more, or fewer, extreme weather events over the next thirty years or more.
The IPCC report says:
“Projected changes in climate extremes under different emissions scenarios generally do not strongly diverge in the coming two to three decades, but these signals are relatively small compared to natural climate variability over this time frame. Even the sign of projected changes in some climate extremes over this time frame is uncertain”
“This shows the depth of our ignorance of this subject,” says Dr David Whitehouse, science editor of the GWPF. “Whilst it is always important to think about the future in the light of changes we observe to the Earth’s climate, in trying to draw conclusions so far ahead based on what we know, the IPCC scientists are speculating far beyond any reasonable scientific justification.”
Even making the questionable assumption that our computer models are good enough to predict what will happen in the future, for projected changes by the end of the 21st century, the uncertainties in those computer models, and the range of natural climatic variability, are far larger than any predicted human-influenced effects.
Extreme weather events have always been with us, and will continue to be so. It is the international community’s responsibility to make those likely to be subjected to them become more resilient.
Contact:
Dr David Whitehouse
T: 01252511656
E: david.whitehouse@thegwpf.org
Dr Benny Peiser
T: 020 79306856
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am not sure how this relates to this report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15745408
“Natural Variability To Dominate Weather Events Over Coming 20-30 Years”….
aaaaannnndddd pretty well all the years before. That is all, thanks.
Just like during the previous 4.5 billon years.
I was just watching BBC News, their report was just man made GW propoganda it is a disgrace!
[Using multiple screen names violate site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]
These masters of the new Lysenkoism shouldn’t be given an inch.They are trying to make it survive by going under water for a while until the idiots like Gore are forgotten.
The reality is that net CO2-AGW could even be slightly negative now and the real AGW has probably come from another direction, and has now saturated.
Remember, warming of the deep southern ocean starts 2000 years before any atmospheric CO2 rise: the mechanism is the same as governs the present Arctic 60-70 year oscillation.
Oldjim:
I would say that the contradictory nature of the two press releases from the IPCC show for certain just how settled the science really is (NOT).
To summarize, sometimes human influences dominate and sometimes natural influences dominate. But that doesn’t undermine AGW theory or in any way discredit the climate model “scenarios” presented by the IPCC.
Just because none of the model runs used in the previous IPCC reports didn’t show this natural variability to be dominate for the next few decades doesn’t invalidate them. No sir. Nope. No way. Sure, they got all the details wrong, but that doesn’t change the “truth.”
I hope this means ‘game over’ for the CAGW scheme. It is amazing how the truth and light can change ones view.
I did not read the actual report as 8 mb file was more than I wanted on dial-up at this time. But I can imagine the shrill screaming to come from the ‘Believers’ at Durban. A collapse of their religion and the end of the free money and exotic vacations as well as the loss of credibility, maybe safety netting should be placed on the balconys at Durban should they swallow any more green kool-aid. Well …. maybe free green gowns and bus rides to a cliff overlooking the ocean where they can prove their faith would be a better idea.
“there will be no detectable influence of mankind’s influence on the Earth’s weather systems for at least thirty years”
In other words: There is a consensus, the science can’t be questioned, but don’t ask for a testable hypothesis. The Great OZ has spoken.
I have great respect fro Dr David Whitehouse. He used to be the only objective science correspondent at the BBC. Their science coverage has become abysmal since he left. I shared a platform with David a couple of years ago. He really knows his stuff. It is obvious why the BBC only interviews warmists nowadays. If they came up against David they would be made to look the fools they are.
Oldjim, to me it seems as though that is a sensational headline compared to the actual content of the article.
From the article (emphasis mine):
Much of the rest of the article has little to do with the actual Summary for Policymakers of the Special Report on Managing the Risks of Extreme Events and Disasters to Advance Climate Change Adaptation, and instead focuses on other papers and previous IPCC ARs.
What happened at the IPCC? Someone finally throw all the Greenpeace and Fiends of the Earth, WWF and other eco-terrorists out?
I won’t hold my breath though, by now someone in the CAGW camp is preparing a Fatwa on the person who released this and a torrent of abuse from “The Team” will follow shortly …
I get it, they going to lay low while temperatures decline over the next decade or two and then when they start rising again they’ll say: “See! We told you the truth back in 2011 so now, this time fer shur, CO2 is gonna fry us unless we control your fossil fuel supply.”
The UN is a political organization and will remain a political organization. They lost their credibility among those in the science community at large so now they are forced to repair it before resuming Maurice Strong’s agenda.
This is the IPCC, right? On the face of it, this sounds like climate alarmism now hasn’t a foot to stand on. The only reason for Kyoto and government policies was to do with alarmism. Without alarmism, there IS no reason for any carbon policies.
In spite of Muller’s papers and the reports that “Skepticism is dead,” instead this plainly seems to state that “Alarmism is dead, instead.”
Did we win, then? Did the CRU scientists embedded in the IPCC see the light? Once they removed all the WWF pamphlet-isms, did they not have enough left to underpin the “Humans are evil” position?
The press release propogates the IPCC’s error of confusing “projections” with “predictions.” Predictions are falsifiable by reference to evidence while projections are not falsifiable. The climate models make projections NOT predictions.
Look carefully at SPM.3 on page 20 of the pdf.
They have colored everything under the shifted curve, rather than just the area between the two curves that actually shows differences.
Making more out of less seems to be the warmist’s way…
It may be hotter but it may be colder. There again it may not change. We may not see the effects of AGW for 30 years when everyone will have forgotten what we said. We will see more heat waves and more heavy rainfall but there again we might not. The truth is we haven’t got a clue after all this research but we are getting suspicious that the planet is going to cool down making us look like a bunch of idiots, so we have covered all bases. We will be right whatever happens.
When a pump begins to lose suction, the discharge pressure signal of the system, begins to vary wildly. The IPCC’s pump is beginning to lose it’s prime. GK
I see nothing in the IPCC Summary that is cause for alarm. I think they made some very good points about “low regret” preparations for climate change and weather, which is only common sense.
However, an alarmist (BBC) could pick and choose and amplify and arrive at a very different conclusion, which is apparently what they did.
The version we can see now is preliminary, and will likely (high probability, robust evidence) be re-written and take on a completely different flavor. Save a copy of the reports for comparison with the final versions.
$79B spent on climate change study. Conclusion: It might get hotter/colder/drier/wetter. We don’t have any idea. Brilliant. Obviously, we did not spend enough yet.
See how the very same report is reported in the alarmist Financial Times:
UN panel foresees wilder weather
By Clive Cookson and Pilita Clark
The world can expect more extreme weather events in the decades ahead, with an increase in heatwaves, droughts and floods, according to a report released on Friday by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change…Although the IPCC emphasises the uncertainties of climate predictions – particularly when it comes to regional changes – it expresses confidence that overall the world will experience more disruption through extreme weather as levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases rise.
I still say it was a better scam than the pet rock… not by much mind you save for the profiteering but to Gary Dahl’s defence on that issue, he hadn’t foreseen that using a “By Scientific Consensus” and a tearful “Think of your children’s children’s children!” would increase sales a hundredfold and more.
This strikes me as game-changing news, and worthy of being stickied. Or, what am I missing?
“To accurately convey the degree of certainty in key findings, the report relies on the consistent use of calibrated uncertainty language.”
After reading the summary, I certainly am more or less uncertain about which way the wind is blowing. Or is it?
kenboldt says:
November 18, 2011 at 8:19 am
Oldjim, to me it seems as though that is a sensational headline compared to the actual content of the article.
========================================
“It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.”
Amazing, I just read it and picked up the same highlights as you did. I hadn’t checked here before writing on my blog. The one above, is what I think as most noteworthy. The IPCC finally agrees with what many skeptics have been saying all along. Given the recent awards to Hansen and Mann, isn’t some sort of cash prize or medal due to Dr. Ryan Maue?