The GWPF Responds To New IPCC Report

Global Warming Policy Foundation

Image via Wikipedia

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

E: benny.peiser@thegwpf.org

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Mark S

[Using multiple screen names violate site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]

Oldjim

I am not sure how this relates to this report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15745408

Scott Covert

“Natural Variability To Dominate Weather Events Over Coming 20-30 Years”….
aaaaannnndddd pretty well all the years before. That is all, thanks.

Urederra

Just like during the previous 4.5 billon years.

Grumpy Pete

I was just watching BBC News, their report was just man made GW propoganda it is a disgrace!

Mydogsgotnonose

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.

Mike Davis

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).

More Soylent Green!

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.”

eyesonu

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.

Taphonomic

“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.

Phillip Bratby

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.

kenboldt

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):

The summary stated: “Extreme events are rare, which means there are few data available to make assessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity.”
However, it added: “There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions.”
On the possible change to hurricane patterns, it said: “Average tropical cyclone maximum wind speed is likely to increase, although increases may not occur in all ocean basins.
“It is likely that the global frequency of tropical cyclones will either decrease or remain essentially unchanged.”

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 …

Mike M

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.

Steve Garcia

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.

Old Water Dog

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…

Kelvin Vaughan

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.

G. Karst

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

Downdraft

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.

Colin in BC

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?

Jesse

Here is Seth Borenstein’s take on everything.
http://news.yahoo.com/science-panel-ready-extreme-weather-104156773.html
If you talk to enough people, you’ll eventually find someone who says what you want.

higley7

“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.”
They do not mention that they have no clue what will be happening 90 years from now. Natural variability includes climate warming and cooling in cycles and, being overdue for an ice age, it is more likely that we will be in a cooler state than now. This is recognizing the fact that each event from the Holocene Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period (WP), Roman WP, Medieval WP, and recent WP have successively been colder peaks—it’s a downward trend no one wants to note, but we should.

G. Karst

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…

Unfortunately, this is true if we are entering a cooling period. Cooling will cause catastrophic weather. Warming is a pleasant walk in the park.
Cooling increases air density and increases equatorial/polar delta T, hence delta P, and therefore MORE extreme and dangerous weather. Pray that warming continue! GK

Mike Smith

The science is settled. CO2 is not the big bugaboo.
Sadly, the spin goes on…

SSam

eyesonu says:
November 18, 2011 at 8:05 am
“… maybe safety netting should be placed on the balconys at Durban should they swallow any more green kool-aid…”
Then you are just asking them to come back like a bad rash. Let ’em go, be done with it.

Alan the Brit

“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.”
So the previous reports that said they could see the significant effects of human influence on climate (it is an amalgam of weather systems) were bollocks then? They have just effectively admitted that all previous reports were wrong by default! Can they not see what they doing, are they that stupid, or more importantly, do they think we’re all that stupid? I just love the way none of it can be proven or disproven because it is so far away! Brilliant! 🙂
Meanwhile, over at Bishop Hill you have an intersting interview by BBC Newsnight with Myles Allen of Oxford University, he of “we can predict the future brigade”, ex-UNEP bod, privately educated, muddle-class, (why do all the eco-nutters come from such well-healed backgrounds) against a somewhat changed Mike Hulme, of University of East Anglia (yes that one subjected to three whitewash reports all purporting to review the science of climate change & each passing the back by saying it was not in their remit)!

Honest ABE

If this is true then it makes me wonder how many of these people are aware of the problems in the temperature record prior to the sat data.
They obviously are predicting that the PDO will dominate the climate.
Seems like a desperate ploy to keep the gravy train going for a few more decades.

P L Wilson

Like Phillip Bratby I want to put on record my respect for Dr David Whitehouse whose writing has always been informed, thoughtful and scientific in outlook. He was the best science correspondent the BBC ever had and since I believe he is still reasonably young always wanted to know why he left the BBC (or perhaps the BBC left him.) I would also praise the gentlemanly and restrained way he conducts his work.
It seems with this IPCC report he hasn’t “cherry picked” a few quotes out of context as someone said, rather he has, again, zoomed in on the very heart of the matter and the central logical flaw in their argument. Isn’t this what journalists should do.
Read for example the dreadful piece by Damian Carrington in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/damian-carrington-blog/2011/nov/18/ipcc-climate-change-extreme-weather
Where does Mr Carrington even mention the key fact from the IPCC report, that it will be 20 or 30 years before any human signal is seen above natural variability. This is partisan, incompetent journalism.
It is a shame some in the press deride thee GWPF as being against climate science. In fact, they are one of the few sources that actually deals with the science, unlike the BBC and the Guardian.

Gail Combs

G. Karst says:
November 18, 2011 at 9:18 am
…..Unfortunately, this is true if we are entering a cooling period. Cooling will cause catastrophic weather. Warming is a pleasant walk in the park
____________________________________
I was just thinking the same thing. The weather patterns seem to have done a shift and we may see more stuff like Russia’s blocking high: http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Extreme_2010_Russian_Fires_and_Pakistan_Floods_Linked_Meteorologically_999.html

SteveSadlov

It’s the other way around, the weather and ultimately the climate will have an EXTREME influence on the activities of Mankind. Mother Nature bats last, but my notion of that at-bat has nothing to do with warmth.

Theodore

“The Gray Monk says:
November 18, 2011 at 8:20 am
What happened at the IPCC? Someone finally throw all the Greenpeace and Fiends of the Earth, WWF and other eco-terrorists out?”
No but they now know that every assertion they make will be dissected with a fine tooth comb by the skeptical blogosphere. Which means false and unsupported assertions will be proven to be false and make it easy to undermine the report. So now they have to retreat to the global warming will kill us all if we don’t act today, but we won’t be able to find proof for a few more decades. It lets them claim that the nonexistence of warming is not evidence that warming isn’t happening. So it is worse than they thought, but natural variation is making it look like warming is not occurring so believe their models not the thermometers.

jtom

I don’t know if the following observation should be made on this site or an economic site. I originally wondered why so many governments were so eager to implement a taxes so severe and all-encompassing that it would result in reducing consumption and standards of living.
Now we have governments being forced to implement higher taxes and austerity programs to pay for the irresponsible spending programs of those governments. Same consequences, different reason. Could the political class have foreseen the coming debt crisis and tried to solve it through fear of climate change? That would have left them in power (hey, it’s not MY fault, it’s YOURS for driving your cars) despite higher taxes and austerity programs. If that was so, it failed, and those politicians are being booted out.
I hesitate to believe that any politician was intelligent enough to see the coming economic crisis a decade ago and try to shift the blame to climate change, but the coincidence that higher taxes and austerity plans are possible solutions to both manmade climate change (if it existed) and irresponsible government spending is suspicious.

When the temperatures go up, that’s manmade, but when they don’t go up, or go down, that’s natural variation. Beautiful.

Nick Shaw

I don’t get it. After years of screaming that it’s our fault that CO2 is causing the earth to warm, now despite the abject failure of Kyoto to control CO2 emissions and the exponential increase of those same emissions, which will continue for quite some time yet, suddenly they tell us, “Nevermind!” for the forseeable future!
I thought our deadline was 5 or 12 years max before we reached the point of no return! Algore was yelling this in my face and everyone else’s!
These people have no conscience or soul! It was all for the money and control. Nothing more.
They’ll be back. Mark my words.

Reed Coray

Terry Oldberg says: November 18, 2011 at 8:25 am
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.

If true, I have a question: Exactly what good then are the ‘climate models’?

Seems to me we are witnessing the machinations of an organization whose raison d’etre has been whisked out from beneath them in the manner of a tablecloth whisked out from a banquet setting: nary a stem-ware toppled nor napkin unfurled, but suddenly not quite so glamorous, yet the maitre d’ insists that nothing has changed….!
The end draweth near….

Joachim Seifert

This is amazing: The Skeptics have WON: Its the Nature! The human “footprint of the Yeti”, (AGW) cannot be detected for the next 30 years, so the Yeti is about to die…..he is not around on the climate scene anymore …….
I looked for “GLOBAL WARMING” , as my book ist called “The end of global warming”, but this new SREX detects neither Global Warming by CO2 nor the End of it…..no more of it…..
How can + 2 C be achieved by the year 2100, if there is no more warming….? We will be below
this envisaged goal of climate protection…..maybe we should emit more CO2?
All CO2-freaks make a lot of waves but their underlying trend is in question, because the trend
is purely natural and has nothing to do with man&woman made AGW….
The poor Trenberth and Hensons, the two Yetis…. no more footprints… their skeletons will be
found frozen, as the Alpine man…..with a paper in their hands: “It was the CO2…..”
JS

Theo Goodwin

Reed Coray says:
November 18, 2011 at 10:43 am
“If true, I have a question: Exactly what good then are the ‘climate models’?”
They are good as analytic tools. Solving a computer model generates a simulation which can be inspected for clues about the consequences of the modeler’s fundamental assumptions, the assumptions about climate that are at the heart of the model. But this is analysis.
The great error was in using computer models as substitutes for sets of physical hypotheses. Unlike physical hypotheses, computer models have no predictive power.
Let me anticipate the question: What if your physical hypotheses are embedded in the computer model? The answer is that the models serve as analytic tools to aid in discovery of assumptions in the physical theory that have not been recognized. The model is always and only an analytic tool.

Neverjog

“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.”
So does this mean that the danger point for CO2 accumulation is above 600 ppm. Will 350.org become 600.org?

Roger Knights

First, this report doesn’t back down from the claim that the world will continue to warm. This report is only from a subcommittee dealing with weather, not climate.
Second, this is nevertheless a positive “black swan” (unexpected good news). It will put a damper on the alarmists who are “clutching their pearls” about Irritable Climate Syndrome (erratic weather).

Roger Knights
Hugh Davis

Following the total annihilation of the IPCC’s credibility by Donna Laframboise in her recent “The Delinquent Teenager who was … etc, etc”, why is anyone even bothering to report, consider or comment upon anything put out by this ludicrous organisation?
As she clearly demonstrates, “The IPCC was established by politicians, its experts are selected by politicians, and its conclusions are negotiated by politicians. A predetermined political agenda has been part of the landscape for the past 20 years”.

Jim G

“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.”
So, we can no longer judge the warmists visa vi what actually occurs. How convenient for them. They can just go on making things up to support their idiotic ideas and simply tell us that all the bad stuff that is going to happen is somewhere in the future. This, while they destroy the economies of the “free” world. The goal, of course, being the end of what was at one time the free world. Australia is still bothering me, can’t say anything bad about a government policy–carbon tax. I guess the old saw about people getting the government they deserve is true. We have Obama and they have whoever is running that show.No real democracies have lasted very long since the Romans, and their intermittant more intelligent dictators probably kept them going for longer than the republic could have sustained using any democratic principles.

Joachim Seifert

Good thought, Jim:
the warmists will keep their AGW approach but shift the goal posts into the future after we have died and only the next generation is able to verify it……Great, they dont have to take anything back….they stay how they are…..no need to self-criticism…..
JS

Philip Bradley

The summary stated: “Extreme events are rare, which means there are few data available to make assessments regarding changes in their frequency or intensity.”
I see the IPCC hasn’t got around to hiring a statistician.
However, it added: “There have been statistically significant trends in the number of heavy precipitation events in some regions.”
As reported here a few days ago, we know this is due to aerosols.