The most prominent hand wavers in the additional warming by trace gases farce are preparing the ground for a retreat, covering the rear end, tantamount to an admission that the climate is unpredictable. (The IPCC and Hansen left to swing perhaps.)
Well, being British we already knew the weather was unpredictable so it's really no surprise the climate is too!!
The question that will remain unanswered is would they have come clean without the cooling trend?
Governments should beware of organizations that heed unvalidated and highly criticized hypotheses.
Dr R Pielke (snr) commented;
Now, from an unlikely source (Real Climate) have come the statements
"A scenario only illustrates the climatic effect of the specified forcing - this is why it is called a scenario, not a forecast. To be sure, the first IPCC report did talk about "prediction" - in many respects the first report was not nearly as sophisticated as the more recent ones, including in its terminology. "
“One should not mix up a scenario with a forecast - I cannot easily compare a scenario for the effects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data, because I cannot easily isolate the effect of the greenhouse gases in these data, given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.”
Real Climate states that the scenarios can
“….. become obsolete, and….. cannot be verified or falsified by observed data, because the observed data have become dominated by other effects not included in the scenario.”
This is the definition of a sensitivity experiment! In other words, policymakers are being given global and regional multi-decadal model results by the IPCC which are not predictions but sensitivity model runs since a variety of important first order climate forcings and feedbacks are not included in the models! [e.g. as reported in Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties]. Real Climate now has finally reported to us this serious limitation to the interpretation of the results from climate models.
My 2p worth.
I don't know for sure but I'm pretty much convinced, in the volumes humans can produce, trace gases are not guilty of significant influence on the additional climate warmth. Water in its various states governs the temperature range, by virtue of volume, in which minor influencers, albedo, aerosols etc. operate. Affect WV and climate is affected. The co2 driver theory postulates that it is through forcing WV that T increase near ground level occurs. I'm happy to go along with the WV bit, I just object to co2 as the cause. I think forest has a much larger part in the h2o circulation process and by their extent and location, being above water, much in tropical areas, are more responsible for climate regulation. So basically I'm in agreement that humans are responsible for causing an increase in weather variation but I object to co2 being elected as the culprit when a more logical and satisfying answer is found in deforestation. I think it is sad so much resource and energy has been devoted to proving co2 is a driver of additional warming and so little has been done with regard to studying the effects of deforestation and effects due to areas of depletion and areas of increase changing weather patterns.
I've held this opinion for a while now and have seen nothing to date that changes it. Science doesn't always get it right.
However they play down the figures, the levels of deforestation are both remarkable and frightening.
Food prices have risen an alarming GBP800 and that is likely half the story as supermarkets do their best to absorb the increases. Rising transport costs due to gov'ts increasing fuel tax as a fop to eco-nuttism make a large contribution to the price hikes already caused by the sky-high crude oil price.