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.
So CO2 has raised global tempertures for the last 30 odd years?…now its influence has waned and will continue to do so for the next 20-30 years despite the year on year rise in global emissions!
how is this scienitifically possible?if its there in the atmosphere and if its such a powerful green house gas surely it should continue to do its continued warming,is it not stretching the laws of physics…. too far.
and if 390ppm+ will not have an affect on the climate then how can they say that the last 30-40 years of warming were caused by CO2..game over??
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.
To a large extent, widespread failure to understand this, is the root of the problem.
And, this is where the projection, prediction confusion comes in. The modellers know that the outputs of their models aren’t valid scientific predictions. That would require the models to be wholly based on well articulated physical hypotheses, which none of them are.
So they call the model outputs, projections. Which means they have no scientific validity. Irrespective of whether these projections are correct or not.
The latest in extreme weather:
http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/16470974/article-Record-Fairbanks-cold-continues–air-quality-warnings-issued?instance=home_news_window_left_top_3
I’m having a running fight with Peter Fimrite who wrote that all of the SF Bay areas marshlands will be drowned by rising seas! This is his comment about the ‘500 year FUD’ about rising seas.
” Hogwash. The evidence shows that the sea level has been rising steadily, is now rising faster and will continue to rise regardless of the occasional small variation, according to NASA and all of the most eminent climate scientists in the world. The question is how much and fast it will rise in the future. But don’t talk to me, talk to the scientists. “
Lets not get carried away, this is just a draft, which means it has not been through the “rigours of peer review” and as such is only “voodoo science” and we can “consign it to the dustbin.”
Just wait until Choo Choo Pachahoroo and his hand selected political reviewers go through it, the conclusions will then be “robust.”
They did it in 1995 to “discern” mans influence, they’ll do it again.
Sing it with me
“Do it to us one more time,
Once is never enough,
For a scam like this.”
I think Theodore@10:18 has neatly summed things up.
So after they wrap up this report, the IPCC can promptly disband, and no sooner than 20 years later the UN can decide if they want to reform it if there is enough of a detectable and troubling anthropogenic climate signal to warrant an update. Provided there still is a UN. Sounds good to me!
.
The IPCC now realises that nothing dramatic will happen in the next couple of decades, so they are deliberately kicking ‘warming’ into the long grass. That way, they can still keep up the scare stories going, and the funding coming in, but just point towards the far future in three or four decades from now.
Its a bit like those US religious zealots who predict the end of the Earth. The further in the future the Apocalypse the better, because then you don’t get found out quite so quickly (like Pastor Harold Camping did recently.)
.
Climate alarmists will still manage to make use of this IPCC flip flop. When weather patterns fail to get more extreme in coming years, they’ll say: “See, I told you so. This is consistent with AGW.”
#
#
Nick Shaw says:
November 18, 2011 at 10:38 am
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.
_____________________________________
Of Course they will.
It has always been about money and control. We just have to watch for the next scam.
Food and Famine are my guess. I have been watching it unfold for the last five or so years. Getting Used to Life Without Food, Part 1: http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-engdahl/2011/06/29/getting-used-to-life-without-food-part-1
This report is a feeble attempt by the IPCC bureacracy to salvage its tattered reputation. Better to retreat and live to fight (i.e. propagandize) another day then to see the entire organization wiped away by a tsunami of mounting criticism.
By the way, I note that the report continues to assume that mankind’s piddly CO2 emissions have the extraordinary capacity to change the earth’s climate. It’s an hypothesis that’s never been proven, despite the indefatigable attempts of the most creative computer modelers and crystal ball gazers on the planet.
Natural Variability To Dominate Weather Events Over Coming 20-30 Years:
IPCC SREX Summary for Policymakers
Approved Text – Subject to Copy Edit
18 November 2011
D. Future Climate Extremes, Impacts, and Disaster Losses
“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.”
From IPCC SREX Summary for Policymakers (18 November 2011, pg. 9)
See Climate Change Weather Effects Unknown: IPCC Report (The Global Warming Policy Foundation – GWPF)
Posted (with links) to http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChangeBW.htm
http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index.cfm/go/news.display/id/23171
IPCC confirms link between extreme weather and climate change
To the BBC and Guardian Statements of True Belief above, add the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/un-predicts-more-rainfall-and-heatwaves-6264600.html
“UN predicts more rainfall and heatwaves” … Yeah, yeah, whatever …
Anyone who thinks this is the end of the game just hasn’t understood the script. No…really!
This is exactly what the ‘end of the worlders’ do – it’ll happen on such and such a day … it is written. It didn’t happen? Ah well, no matter we still need to introduce carbon taxes and blow on windmills and all the rest of the rubbish – “It hasn’t happened yet….. BUT IT WILL HAPPEN!)
The Dudley Do Right s have simply pulled the well tried postponement manouver. Can’t prove ’em wrong because they’ve put it off so far into the future that no-one can check.
The weather has allways been extreme here in the British Isles,just go and peruse this site to find out how chaotic it has allways been. http://booty.org.uk/booty.weather/climate/histclimat.htm
“For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in various places.” Matthew 24:7
I can remember studying this part of the bible as a child and saying to Brother Alban that it seemed to me that the whole of history had had wars and famines etc. His reply has stuck with me to this day:
“If you want to successfully foretell the future you forecast the coming of the already commonplace. And then say it will be worse than it is now. That way you can’t be wrong because “worse” is difficult to judge.”
The BBC reported this with great flourish and glee but did not mention the uncertainties to the extent that the IPCC state. The BBC version is 66% uncertainty whereas the IPCC version is lower.
Mycroft says:
November 18, 2011 at 1:02 pm
So CO2 has raised global tempertures for the last 30 odd years?…now its influence has waned and will continue to do so for the next 20-30 years despite the year on year rise in global emissions!
how is this scienitifically possible?if its there in the atmosphere and if its such a powerful green house gas surely it should continue to do its continued warming,is it not stretching the laws of physics…. too far.
and if 390ppm+ will not have an affect on the climate then how can they say that the last 30-40 years of warming were caused by CO2..game over??===========
Thanks, you saved me typing 🙂
set and match.
I went through this SREX SMP and discovered, 1. the term “Global Warming” does not exist anymore……!!?? 2.) AGW is scaled down from previous “very likely” to only “likely”, instead of
upscaling, as promised many times to “virtually certain”, and also down to “medium confidence”, 3.) instead of AGW, now only remains part of it, the ACC (anthropogenic climate change”) – up and down – instead of only “up” as in TAR and SRES (2001)……
Amazing…..
JS
hmm, whys the ENSO meter gone down? does it need a kick again? surely we didnt cop a sudden reversion in a matter of days..
wonder how they plan to tax us on an ENSo Tax…
oh yeah rainfall taxes, Australias copping them already as well, a tax on the rain you save( in a dam.) from becoming nasty damaging runoff, and keeping plants growing longer,
then a tax for any country with a volcano or a massive bush fire or dust storms…
the fire scenario was used already, the french chap ??said that after Aus had huge bushfilres,
I also noted that the Texas fires didnt get any similar stupidity
you note the comment re counties needing to plan for “events”
so the money they planned to be going 3rd world for the Excuse of AGW, will now still be demanded, but maybe the banksters cut for all the carbon derivatives trading, will now be gained by processing of assistance fees? and the sale at profit of all the companies their loans and compliances sent broke?
ie the Liar of carbons tax. gillard, desperately needs the carbon Tax income to bail the govt budget out of hole,
same as every other country right now
Ever since the first report in 1995 when the scientists said that man had no discernible influence on climate was later altered by Ben Santer to read the opposite, intelligence has taught us to ignore what the IPCC prognosticates. It is not easy to see why so many people have been fooled for so long. It is simple to describe it as wishful thinking but that may do them an injustice.
The time between publishing the Summary for Policy Makers and the full report seems to be increasing. Soon we will no longer need the full report, just the spin – sorry, SPM
I just shot off an email to the Daily Telegraph, though I don’t suppose they will print it (actually, they did print one of my letters about climate change five years ago):
Ref. November 14, page 13 “Millions at risk from climate-change heatwaves, UN warns”
Sir,
Here is an actual quote from the recent IPCC report:
“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”
In other words, they don’t even know whether climate extremes will get larger or smaller. I would suggest the Telegraph headline is an exaggeration.
The Telegraph report also says: “It is also difficult to attribute an increase in tropical cyclones to climate change because of the complexities of the global weather system”. It is difficult for a very simple reason: the overall intensity of tropical cyclones has been falling for the last few decades and currently we are experiencing very low levels. Again the Telegraph mentions sea level rise. Of course, sea levels have been rising since the last ice age and there was no acceleration in the last century. For several years there has been no net sea level rise and in 2010 sea levels actually fell around 6 mm. Finally, actual data shows that deaths from extreme weather events is at a historical low.
After 150 years of global warming mankind has prospered. I suggest that people, including Telegraph reporters, should ignore the doom-mongers such as Al Gore and look at the actual data. History shows that the doom-mongers are always wrong. Having said that, I believe that climate change does pose a great threat to the wellbeing of mankind. The real danger is that, because of the climate change delusion, governments around the world may squander trillions of dollars in a doomed attempt to solve a problem that almost certainly does not exist.
Chris Wright
Our carbonaceous companeros have decided to go on vacation during the cold half of the 60 year climate cycle. Vindication for Scafetta.
There’s a saying regarding advertising: “The large print giveth, the small print taketh away.” The same can be said of this IPCC report.
If you are a parrot or a cheerleader, you just mindlessly mouth the headlines. If you are actually a journalist or an analyst, you have to read the fine print and think about the implications.
For instance, consider some statements down in the fine print:
Climate extremes, exposure, and vulnerability are influenced by a wide range of factors, including anthropogenic climate change, natural climate variability, and socioeconomic development.
Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use.
The uncertainties in the historical tropical cyclone records, the incomplete understanding of the physical mechanisms linking tropical cyclone metrics to climate change, and the degree of tropical cyclone variability provide only low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences. Attribution of single extreme events to anthropogenic climate change is challenging.
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. For projected changes by the end of the 21st century, either model uncertainty or uncertainties associated with emissions scenarios used becomes dominant, depending on the extreme.
Many headlines are being attached to this report. For example, of these two which is the more accurate (spins less, is less biased)?
1) Climate change key driver of extreme weather
2) Natural Variability to Dominate Weather Events over Coming 20-30 Years.
Inquiring minds need to know, and dare not trust others to do the work.