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
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.
“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.
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
The science is settled. CO2 is not the big bugaboo.
Sadly, the spin goes on…
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.
“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)!
http://cherokeetribune.com/bookmark/16484699-Science-panel-Get-ready-for-extreme-weather-
Kimosabee IPCC speak with forked tongue!
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.
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.
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
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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….
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
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.
“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?
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).
Here’s Bloomberg’s alarmist take on it:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-15/temperature-extremes-virtually-certain-to-rise-un-draft-says.html
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”.
“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.
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
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.