Essay by Eric Worrall
When the observations disagree with the model, claim the model is right anyway?
World may warm by 25 per cent more than current projections suggest
Official projections for how much the world will warm are already catastrophic, and now it appears they significantly underestimate future warming
By Michael Le Page
19 August 2026Climate models projecting higher warming for a given level of carbon dioxide have been discounted as unrealistic, but a new way of assessing models suggests they are accurate.
…
How much the world will warm depends on how much more CO2 we put into the atmosphere and how the planet responds to that CO2. Different climate models vary in how much warming they project for a given CO2 level. For instance, some models suggest that a doubling of CO2 will result in the average global surface temperature increasing by around 1.6°C above pre-industrial levels in the short term. Others suggest it could be as high as 3°C.
…
Their results suggest that natural variability limited temperature rises between 1981 and 2014 – a period that includes the so-called global warming hiatus in the first decade of the 21st century. “It’s really exactly this period 1981 to 2014, which was used in the previous papers, where you see the strongest bias down,” she says. “It was really bad luck.”
…
“In my opinion, the filtering out of natural variability is a valuable step forward,” says Drew Shindell at Duke University in North Carolina, although he isn’t yet convinced that the short-wave and long-wave trends are a good way to assess models.
“I think it’s a plausible conclusion and a reasonable approach,” says Steven Sherwood at the University of New South Wales in Sydney.
…
Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2585248-world-may-warm-by-25-per-cent-more-than-current-projections-suggest/
The abstract of the study;
Recent Temperature and Energy Imbalance Trends Point to Higher Estimates of Future Warming
G. Gyuleva, E. Fischer, R. Knutti, S. Sippel
First published: 11 August 2026
https://doi.org/10.1029/2026EF008356Digital Object Identifier (DOI) VIEW METRICS
Abstract
Climate models simulate a wide range of 21st century warming for a given forcing scenario. Constraining this uncertainty is a central challenge in climate science because of its implications for climate policy and adaptation. The transient climate response (TCR) is a key idealized metric used to quantify future warming in response to an exponentially increasing CO2 concentration. Climate models span a range of 1.3–3 K for TCR. In attempts to constrain this range, emergent constraints on TCR based on historical temperature trends consistently pointed toward TCR values at the lower end of the range of models. However, recent evidence from trends in the short-wave and long-wave components of Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) at the top-of-atmosphere suggests that models with higher TCR lie closer to the observed EEI trends. Here, we reconcile this discrepancy and provide a revised range for TCR of 1.9–2.6 K. Using a statistical variability-filtering approach, we show that previous temperature-based constraints were biased low due to internal variability, according to our method. We then provide an EEI-based constraint and demonstrate that short- and long-wave EEI trends have a strong potential to constrain future warming, due to the much larger inter-model spread in EEI compared to surface temperature. When considering the recent 2001–2025 period, our results show that both surface temperature and EEI trends support higher TCR values than previously estimated. This result implies that it is increasingly difficult to exclude high climate sensitivity models from the plausible range of future warming.
Read more: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2026EF008356
Essentially what they appear to be trying to do is work out what warming should have been using measurements of global energy imbalance, apply known mostly ocean cycle forcings such as El Nino and La Nina, then tag whatever discrepancy is left as random “natural variability” which can be discarded for the purpose or predicting future global temperature. Unsurprisingly their conclusion is natural variability has suppressed global warming, and we can expect more warming in the future.
The scientists admit that their approach assumes they have identified all significant forcings, and their results would be wrong if they accidentally discard a true climate forcing by assuming it is random natural variability.
… We acknowledge that if a forced mechanism not represented by models is responsible for parts of the observed SST pattern, our statistical variability-filtering approach might alias it into variability, rather than a forced change. We therefore interpret our variability-filtering approach as an estimate of the variability contribution of recent warming patterns, conditional on forced pattern effects not aliasing into our model. As discussed in Section 1, literature remains inconclusive about whether the effect is caused by internal variability, a forced response not simulated by models, or even an artifact of observational products. …
The scientists admit the massive discrepancy between surface temperature based models and global energy imbalance based models, and that this might be due to observational error:
Emergent constraints based on raw historical GSAT trends for 1981–2025, and raw historical EEIPC1 trends for 2001–2025, produce very different TCR ranges (Figures 3a and 3b): 1.2–2.2 K for the GSAT-based constraint and 1.9–3.1 K for the EEI-based constraint. … This mismatch could have several reasons: (a) observational error, (b) internal variability …
They admit variability probably isn’t the explanation for this gigantic discrepancy between EEI (Earth’s Energy Imbalance) and surface temperature models;
Our results provide some evidence that variability is most likely not the main cause of the discrepancy between GSAT- and EEI-based constraints. If it is owed to a systematic bias in the GSAT-to-EEI coupling, then we should expect this discrepancy to persist regardless of the period in consideration. The fact that the discrepancy partly becomes resolved by aligning the two periods suggests that processes in the real world might have changed between 1981–2025 and 2001–2025 in such a way as to make higher future warming more likely. Even so, aligning the periods of the constraint to 2001–2025 does not fully resolve the discrepancy, so a part of it may still be owed to model biases in the coupling between surface temperature and energy imbalance, such as identified by Chen et al. (2026) and Olonscheck and Rugenstein (2024).
Let’s just say in my opinion this approach is unconvincing. Plugging in known forcings and being left with a huge unbridgeable gap between energy imbalance calculations and temperature models to me screams missing variable or bad observations. Going on to suggest the energy imbalance models are more reliable predictors of future temperature, despite them doing a poor job of explaining observations, in my opinion is just speculation.
The authors of the paper above have no idea what is happening to the alleged missing heat, any more than Trenberth did when he described the missing heat as a “travesty” in Climategate.
Even if the alleged missing heat is real and not just a long standing measurement error, there is no reason to assume we’ll ever see that heat again. A few warm years is not robust evidence global warming has suddenly reverted to some alarmist trend. If that alleged missing heat is being swallowed by the ocean depths, on any meaningful human timescale that heat is gone. The ocean depths have barely warmed since the last ice age, they have the thermal capacity to absorb thousands of years of excess surface heat with no noticeable impact on the ocean surface or near surface regions humans care about.
Kinda reminds me of a gorgeous woman looking in a mirror and asking her man if he thinks that she’s fat…. “too whateverBS comparison”?
Well regardless we’re dealing with people that simply can’t handle the truth….
On behalf of a friend….. Saying her sister looks fatter in a bikini is NOT the answer.
I suppose, applying the same logic, ignoring the sister is equally bad, just like ignoring the inconvenient weather data, or stating that it looks hotter.
Or saying that you like a nice plump posterior… not recommended 😉
Who are these “Officials” that are able to predict the future?
How do government employers interview and hire these “officials” to determine their ability to predict the future?
How many psychic people are currently employed by governments to perform predicting the future?
These officials are the new Priests.
They don’t only predict the the future but they also define and redefine reality –
and they are always right.
The biggest skill of the new priests(after politicians and journalists lost all credibility,
the scientists are the last remaining useful class for propaganda, before everything will be transferred to Ai)
is that they beat the odds all the – whenever there is a 50:50 chance for data to be adjusted up or down it always ends up in their favor.
In this case natural variability hid the real magnitude of warming,
instead of amplifying it.
Now I wonder if the 1998-2012 hiatus was result of the hiding or will the hiatus still remain cancelled out of the statistics.
And if it remains cancelled – where was the hiding?
UAH shows that for the periods between major El Nino events , there is basically no warming..
The zero trend period from 2001 to 2015 is still there, as is the zero trend in USCRN from 2005-2015.
So El Nino events generate new heat by… magic?
You have no clue do you? Why do you make fun of others?
Trade winds move warm surface water from the eastern Pacific to the western Pacific. It creates a pool of warm water near Indonesia and Australia.
Periodically, the trade winds either die or begin blowing west to east. The warm water that has been stored then moves eastward toward the east Pacific. This is NOT NEW HEAT! It is stored heat that is spread over the Pacific like spreading butter on bread.
Those, like you, who concentrate on CO2 created temperature view this as new heat created by increasing concentrations of CO2. It is why temperature is a faulty proxy for heat but warmests just can’t help themselves from creating a false narrative.
Once someone argues that “natural variation” hides the warming” he leaves on the table an equally pervasive argument that “natural variability” has CAUSED the warming.
Not ‘psychic’ but rather ‘psycho’…
They are the ones who use “a new way of assessing models”.
That’s what makes them “experts”, their ability to assess models in a novel way that just happens to align with what the globalist authoritarians who want to mandate complete control over the entire world want. Maybe that’s just a coincidence though?
“Claim: “Natural Variability” Hid the Real Magnitude of Global Warming Between 1981 and 2014”
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
A favorite quote:
IPCC AR4 Chapter 5 Page 387 pdf3
The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003,
global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the
surface to a depth of 700 m.
Climate scientists throw numbers and dates around and expect everyone to believe them.
On Edit:
A related issue, when asked about the Argo floats and pH Google AI says:
Yes, specialized floats measure ocean pH levels. [T]raditional Argo floats (didn’t record pH) modern floats equipped with chemical sensors track ocean acidification, the carbon cycle, and overall marine health.
There we go with bogus acidification again.
And it’s a good bet that they will find that overall marine health is declining.
The Great Barrier Reef apparently missed that memo.
The probity of climate “data” is shockingly abysmal.
Below “not fit for purpose”.
They have arctic satellite data only since 1978.
The Blinken administration had burned acreage data only since 1979.
But they have sufficientOcean temperature data from a depth of 700 m from 1961?
Despite the fact that 90% of the Oceans are still unexplored?
These dudes invented the car a million years before they invented the wheel it seems.
My next question would be – how is it possible that the few top meters of the oceans that get sunlight warm just as slow as the 95% that don’t get no sun at all?
“Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m. ”
I would love to see a map of where they “measured” this in a regular scientific way..
… and what thermometers they used that are capable of that accuracy over a 42 year period.. 🙂
How can they track something that doesn’t exist? The father of geochemistry, Stanford Professor Konrad Krauskopf, states in his text book on geochemistry that the oceans have probably never been acidic and never will be because of the (bi)carbonate and borate buffering. At best, some localized stagnant pools of hydrogen sulfide enriched water may reach neutrality (pH 7). If the oceans will never become acidic, it is grammatically wrong to refer to a lowering of pH as ‘acidification.’ If one doesn’t want to call it a “lowering of pH,” then the only reasonable alternative is to call it neutralization, albeit, neutralization will be rare and unrelated to carbonation.
Did they use the same speech writer Harris used ?
Internally they are “nutti “….
😉
Ok. So Happer and Wijngaarden are wrong. Would somebody please explain how that is so?
Where is Stokes when you need him?
More meaningless projections pulled out of where the sun don’t shine to which people are becoming immune to. As long as the Marxists have control of the media these projections will continue. Nothing will kill their propaganda machine, not even the truth.
“More meaningless projections pulled out of where the sun don’t shine”
which is why they are so crappy …
😉
Thankfully with the dumbing down of the population, the plebs won’t be reading the stories too often.
The choir is soon to be singing to an empty church.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/C7oBFPv4JAs
Reading this I thought of something that happened long ago. I was flying privately over San Luis Obispo Calif and was listening to the flight service station automated weather report. It was saying 10,000 overcast. It was actually severe clear. I thought to myself stick your head out the window and take a look.
These authors when reading this… just head over from the conjecture computer crap and take a look at the data, Look at things historically, read what others who are not keyboard climate scientists have to say. It’s not that hard.
“It’s not that hard.”
This reminds me of the scrolling marquis screensaver option in Windows 3.1 in the ’90’s at work. I entered “It doesn’t have to be this hard” and left it that way as long as the later updates to the Windows OS would allow it.
They will torture the data until it conforms to their precious models, no matter how far away from reality they must go.
Where do you think the thermometers that record the raw data are located? On a computer programme, perhaps?
No, they are on the ground.
Actually, they are not on the ground. They are at least two meters above the ground. And again, they are not really good proxies for heat absorbed from the sun. The actual soil and flora at ground level absorb the sun’s radiation. Some of that radiation is stored in flora by photosynthesis and some is stored in the soil. Consequently, not all of the insolation is radiated toward the atmosphere as it is received, some is stored.
You wouldn’t know this because I sincerely doubt you have ever looked at soil temperature data or papers describing the interaction between insolation and the actual absorbing surface.
So, climate models developed over many decades and claimed to be based on physics cannot model “natural variability”. Isn’t that exactly what climate models should be predicting?
Mr. c: The model developers made observations- they saw that the grant to model NV got denied, but the grant to model global warming “excluding” NV was approved!! The result of this system is that CliScis have been intentionally blind to NV and don’t understand it BY THEIR OWN DESIGN!
From the Abstract:
“Climate models simulate a wide range of 21st century warming for a given forcing scenario. Constraining this uncertainty is a central challenge in climate science because of its implications for climate policy and adaptation. The transient climate response (TCR) is a key idealized metric used to quantify future warming in response to an exponentially increasing CO2 concentration. Climate models span a range of 1.3–3 K for TCR. In attempts to constrain this range, emergent constraints on TCR based on historical temperature trends consistently pointed toward TCR values at the lower end of the range of models.”
However, let’s be reminded that NO ONE KNOWS that “increasing CO2 concentration” OPERATES as a “FORCING” at all. But it has been FRAMED THAT WAY from the outset of the entire modeling exercise.
That “warming” tendency, computed from radiative transfer modeling, cannot be isolated for reliable confirmation of any persistent physical influence on any trend within the circulating atmosphere or on the underlying land and oceans. It’s a needle-in-the-haystack, candle-in-a-hurricane, flea-on-an-elephant case of misguided investigation – i.e., looking for a clue only where you already assumed you would find it.
The modelers know this from the fundamentals of the mathematical representation of the general circulation. This is most readily demonstrated using the “vertical integral of energy conversion” hourly parameter from the ERA5 reanalysis.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1knv0YdUyIgyR9Mwk3jGJwccIGHv38J33/view?usp=sharing
More explanation here, with references and a time-lapse video to visualize the implausible nature of the core claim of a “forcing” characteristic.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1PDJP3F3rteoP99lR53YKp2fzuaza7Niz?usp=drive_link
Thank you for your patience.
Cue Warrne.
Bit it’s peer reviewed and published in a journal, so it must be correct, factual, and perfect. Anyone who disagrees is a denier.
Catnip at ready.
So much for peer review challenging a hypothesis. Anyone who questions the author(s) is automatically a denier. It is a sad state of affairs!
Likewise anyone who accepts on basis of appeal to authority every peer reviewed publication is an expert and anyone who doesn’t denies the “science.”
If “The Science is (was) Settled” back then, how could they be so wrong now?
They weren’t wrong. They were only drawn that way.
— with apologies to Jessica Rabbit
Some nice bell curves? 😎
Countless millions words are wasted on reporting junk science.
Waduya mean countless?
How many words all together have been published in the IPCC Assessment reports? LINK
While the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not publish an official cumulative word count across all its publication cycles, the individual reports have expanded significantly, bringing the total number of words published across all six Assessment Reports to roughly 20 to 25 million words
LOL. That is only the IPCC. Is it all of the assessment reports, all editions?
Does it include the listed references?
Does it include all media, all journals, life, the universe, and everything?
I suspect the real answer is 42, as in 42 quadrillion.
Or just maybe the models are wrong?
The old timers say: Models are always wrong, but sometimes they are useful.
Climate models are useful for what they were designed for..
PROPAGANDA. !
Models are always wrong, but some of them are very, very attractive. 🙂
“Official projections for how much the world will warm are…”
Based on junk computer output – and the desired outcome.
The answer is still 42
Is that the famous Heidi Heat sunbathing?
I think it’s Nikki Heat!
“The authors of the paper above have no idea what is happening to the alleged missing heat, any more than Trenberth did when he described the missing heat as a “travesty” in Climategate.”
The 396/333/63 BB Earth “missing heat” was a thin air calculated bookkeeping fantasy from day one.
“…people that simply can’t handle the truth…”
Well, that can’t be anybody around here!! sarc
I read your post 3 times and still do not know the point of your message.
Interesting and valid comments today. As the desperation increases, the ability to share cogent material quickly and easily becomes important. While this was built some 12 years ago, public and private pysudo scientist statements and slide 24 are seminal. This is a simple and clear roadmap from the 1970 era, to the real acceleration in 1992. So many are at 5th grade level in this subject, just trying to survive and feed kids etc, this powerpoint is not simplistic but geared to this time, as the evidence is now before the citizen like never prior:
Crimes against Humanity:
http://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/embed_code/27938724
This administration clawing bck the funding is the best that can be done as an alternative to internal conflict of magnitude. Be well everyone.
“.. an exponentially increasing CO2 concentration.”
I just checked the 2021 to mid-2026 monthly mean CO2 at Mauna Loa and fail to see “exponentially increasing“, so I just scheduled an eye exam. 🙂
The love of unverifiable untestable models goes on and on and on and on and on, this is straight pseudoscience bullpap!
> “It was really bad luck.”
Science!
I saw indications at aphelion July 6, 2026 of decreasing TSI. But since then the TSI started to rise instead.
TSI again rose by about 0.4W/m^2 in the last month. That is the reason why the average temperature of the Earth has also increased by 0.4 degrees Celsius in the last month.
When the solar radiation is so much above average, the temperature of the Earth will also rise for the coming months as well.
I don’t think climate scientists can explain the Earth’s ongoing rapid temperature increase with CO2.
They assume a mean earth orbital radius and a mean, unvarying solar temperature/emission.
Just a dumb game being played– I take your one polluted warming planet–
“Here, we reconstruct the past 200 y of Hg source–sink dynamics in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP), Antarctica’s fastest-warming region with the most pronounced glacier melting, by combining geochemical and isotopic records from 16 sediment cores collected across the AP shelf, with a developed observation-constrained multimedia Hg budget model.” Climate warming and atmospheric deposition jointly accelerate the Antarctic Peninsula atmosphere–glacier–land–ocean mercury loop. PNAS.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.26134721
And raise you the AMO collapse on a “slow ramp”—
van Westen, R.M., Börner, R. & Dijkstra, H.A. Failure to track a stable AMOC state under rapid climate change. Nat. Clim. Chang. (2026).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-026-02730-w
“ Our findings [..Using a slow CO2 ramp (+0.5 ppm yr−1) climate model simulation…] demonstrate rate-induced AMOC tipping and imply that limiting the rate of emissions is critical for reducing the risk of an AMOC collapse.”
And throw in for free, reference buried somewhere, an oyster seed model where you don’t need to count any oysters. I just hope that I didn’t educate any of these sorts of (plural noun??)
Antarctic has a lot of warming to do if it wants to get up to early Holocene temperatures. !
” then tag whatever discrepancy is left as random “natural variability””
If you remove the spike + step change associated with the major El Nino events, from the UAH data…
… there is no evidence of any warming at all. !
Attribution for the above?
“(a) Global annual-mean ENSO-aerosol-adjusted TLT anomalies during 1981-2024 for all datasets, along with their cubic and piecewise fits. (b) Residuals from the fitting models. ΔT in the legend represents the range of the time series (maximum in 2024 minus minimum in 1981) for each fitting model. The red dots in the piecewise model represent the changepoints, and the trend values in square brackets represent those for the first and second periods separated by the changepoints. The trends of the residual time series are zero for both fitting models and across all datasets.”
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/a-Global-annual-mean-ENSO-aerosol-adjusted-TLT-anomalies-during-1981-2024-for-all_fig2_403447620
Really, if you can’t identify the El Nino event spikes and the step changes they introduce into the UAH data.. no-one can help you.
ps.. I must I admit I find it hilarious how they “adjust™” the satellite data to get rid of the El Nino events before they do their analysis..
Classic climate scam methodology. !
Explain how your *graphs* are constructed then.
The explanation is on the graph. Do try to keep up.!
I asked, where did your “graphs” come from?
And would you accept the likes of what you posted from err, those on my side?
If you say yes then you are a hypocrite.
Most likely you’ll just ignore
And:
Really, if you can’t understand that an El Nino is not a source of heat of itself (just reservoir of solar energy), and is not magical, in it never escaping from the atmosphere once transefered to it from the Pacific … no-one can help you.
No you did not ask where the graphs came from.
You ask for an explanation of how the graphs were constructed.
You also are cllueless about El Nino.
ENSO is a naturally occurring event with no human attribution possible. It is a cooling process that removes stored heat from the surface of the earth.
Neither the sun nor GHG’s are the immediate cause of the temperature rise over a large area. The cause is the spreading of already heated water in the western Pacific over a larger area raising the temperature of the colder water to the eastern Pacific.
By examining temperature alone, one can be misled into thinking that a massive warming of the earth has occurred. However, what happens is due to the larger area at a higher temperature, thus more heat is lost from storage reducing the stored zettajoules of the entire Pacific. To properly assess what occurs in an El Nino, the joules of heat stored in the Pacific need to be assessed rather than just looking a temperature.
UAH complicates this by not adequately dealing with the shock introduced into the time series data. bnice2000 attempts to do this by removing the naturally occurring temperature rise from the data to examine temperature growth beyond the timeframe of El Nino’s. If the temperatures immediately return to little or no growth, then the natural El Nino is simply a blip that has no attribution properties for temperature rise.
Like it or not, the specific heat of H2O allows a massive amount of heat to be stored with little to no temperature rise. Temperature alone cannot adequately deal with this stored heat or its loss during an El Nino. Only an analysis of actual energy, i.e., joules can show what occurs.
“ENSO is a naturally occurring event with no human attribution possible. It is a cooling process that removes stored heat from the surface of the earth.”
I never said it wasn’t.
In case you’ve not noticed a certain bnice2000 thinks it is a magical heat source that is somehow raising global temps all on it’s own.
Despite the La Nina events between.
And not doing it in whilst in operation before the IR.
And despite that *theory* violating the 1st LoT that would mean we could have free energy.
How’s about you tackling him on that eh?
“”And despite that *theory* violating the 1st LoT that would mean we could have free energy.””
You haven’t addressed the issue at all. Heat storage and its release is real. You can’t adequately address the 1LOT without integrating over appropriate intervals You can’t use rates (flux), you can only do it with joules. You can send 10 j/s for a minute and I can release that at 1 joule/s for 10 minutes and the rates will never balance. Only total joules will balance.
I do not know, Jim. Do you think, perhaps, electro-shock therapy might help?
Nope, only education in heat, entropy, and radiation will help. For that, they will need differential equations and vector calculus. It could be learned even now with a little dedication but it is much easier to believe in what the snake oil salesman is pushing.
I’m not the one inventing free magical heat sources (CO2)
It is very obvious where the energy for El Nino events comes from.
An increase in absorbed solar radiation has given the energy for a pair of strong El Nino events since 2015.
(The second one “may” have got extra energy from a certain eruption)
The heat being stored in the western Pacific may have originated from increased absorption of insolation, but the increased area of ocean with higher temperatures originates from that stored heat and not recent insolation or CO2 back radiation.
It is like spreading butter over a piece of bread. The warmer water stored in the western Pacific is being spread over the Pacific. If all you look at is temperature, it is easy to misconstrue what is occurring and think that holy cow, the whole ocean is really heating quickly.
If one takes a water tank and puts an insulated divider in the middle, then heats one half there is increased heat stored in that side. Now lower the divider and let the warmer water mix with the cooler side. The total heat in the system hasn’t changed, but the cool side has warmed due to stored heat.
UAH and other satellites see that increased area of warmer water and create a temperature anomaly that looks like the earth has warmed. And honestly, the temperature of a large area has increased. But not because of increased heat retention, but because stored heat has been spread around.
It’s simply unbelievable to me that climate science can’t recognize this simple fact!
Doing data matching instead of actually attempting to formulate a functional relationship with time as a factor is the cause. It’s easier and simpler to just do data matching. But it doesn’t actually tell you what is happening in reality, only in the data matching algorithm.
Wait a minute. I thought that when the global temperature exceeded a 1.5C rise we were all going to be in big trouble. Yet we’ve exceeded that number already or come very close to it, so what’s the big trouble we’re supposed to be in? Has humanity’s population, life expectancies and agricultural output all declined? None of that has come even close to happening, so the alarmists have now concocted new numbers which are supposed to guarantee the next catastrophe, except the vast majority of the global population isn’t losing sleep over the issue which they’ve learned is just another phony scare tactic.
Do what they always do. Move the goal posts.
But, but, but, the 1..5 C has to be sustained for a tbd number of years!
Well, admitting natural variability exists is still a step forward. Of course, its use here is perverse. Models only wrong because did not include natural cooling!?!
My own fav IPCC ‘admission’ is AR4 WG1 SPM figure 4. While trying to say the warming from ~1975-2000 was AGW, they inadvertently used the indistinguishable warming ~1925-1940 for comparison while saying the earlier warming could not have been AGW—not enough anthropogenic forcing. The SPM writers were definitely not the sharpest tools in the tool box.