|
jshell wrote:
But, strangely, the IPCC said 2 weeks ago:
"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"
That admission that there is practically no discernable human influence in climate, and is unlikely to be any for 30 years is a far, far cry from: We’re all doomed and going to boil alive in our own juices of the AR4.
I'm sorry but you've totally misunderstood that statement. It does not say that there is no discernable human influence on climate!! What it says is the signal of climate extremes (that is floods and droughts - not average global temperature) are likely to be less than natural climate variability over a 20 to 30 year period (short time-span - do they go on to talk about 50-100 years? We don't know from that snippet). Anyway, I would certainly expect that conclusion to be the case for some regions but the statement you've given us there does not refer to a region so I can't comment on that. The statement will refer to a region because climate models are sufficiently sophisticated to focus on regional scales and it would be entirely non-sensical to make a comment like that purely about extremes at the global scale. Anyway, what that statement also DOES confirm to me is that they are investigating BOTH human impact and natural variability on climate response which is surely what you're arguing for is it not?
|
