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.
The news media seems to believe it is their job to push the extreme AGW paradigm by selectively reporting weather events.
In the past when the sun changed from a very active set of magnetic cycles to a Maunder minimum the planet cooled, It will be interesting to see how the issue of extreme events plays out if there a series of extremely cold winters.
http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/57992/alaska-brutal-cold-reaches-his.asp
Alaska’s Brutal Cold Reaches Historical Status
Frigid temperatures are not uncommon in Alaska this time of year, but the brutal cold currently gripping Fairbanks has reached a historical status. Never before since record-keeping began in 1904 has Fairbanks endured such a streak so early in the winter season. The previous record was only two consecutive days in 1989.
Ron C.,
I tend not to believe anything comming from the IPCC. So, is this a trick?
Are they just playing dead?
SREX confirms my view on the last 10-years global temperatures, and forecasts 20-30 years more of real decline?
They also took heating and water scarcity out of their pictures with Afrika’s Sahel
zone, where Algore showed the dry burnt soil in his film……
So no more heat and so called “Water stress” (AR4) in the Sahel…
Further, the term “Global Warming” was meticulous eliminated, not once at all,
therefore “Global Warming” does not seem to exist, see yourself…
Henry@Dave Springer
You remember that thing we discussed some time ago?
You said that the oceans only gives up 20% of its solar heating which would explain matters with the CO2.
I did some checking and testing on this. It did not work out as you predicted.
I think you are wrong.
In the case of the leaf chart here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
I am finding an extraordinary correlation between warming in the red areas and actual cooling in the blue areas. In other words, if you pick a blue area, you will find mean temperatures declining,
if you pick a red area you will mean temperatures rising.
So, seeing that the overall chart shows more red (the earth is blooming) it explains the extra warming noted of the past decades. It is more vegetation that traps more heat.
The report is claptrap. Mother Nature determines what the climate in the future will be based on a criteria that only Mother Nature knows. There is an astounding arrogance in people that think they can predict the future based on the past, using data “arranged” to prove what they want it to prove. Let’s keep in mind that by the time their predictions are supposed to occur (at the end of the 21st century), the most accurate prediction is that most of those who write this tripe will be dead, and blame becomes useless.
If the IPCC-funded models report that their projections are too uncertain to be relied on for a century or so, it will mark the first time they’ve been accurate.