«In a way similar to that in which medieval astronomers rationalized planets» being in the «wrong» position as they orbited the Earth, it can be argued that global warming has continued but that its effect has been temporarily
offset by natural variability.
Not exact matches
It just strikes me that given this history, adaptation is the only viable strategy but also that there are large
natural variability things with negative and positive short term feedbacks that are constrained
by nonlinear effects and other
offsetting feedbacks.
A physicist is no more likely than a sociologist to know what human emissions will be 50 years from now — if a slight warming would be beneficial or harmful to humans or the
natural world; if forcings and feedbacks will partly or completely
offset the theoretical warming; if
natural variability will exceed any discernible human effect; if secondary effects on weather will lead to more extreme or more mild weather events; if efforts to reduce emissions will be successful; who should reduce emissions,
by what amounts, or when; and whether the costs of attempting to reduce emissions will exceed the benefits
by an amount so large as to render the effort counterproductive.
KR, so what you are saying to Ryland is... that % 100 of all warming is due to human CO2 forcing which is
offset by tiny amounts of
natural cooling... in other words the main driver if climate, using your reasoning, is
offset by blips in
natural variability... that again, naturally occurring blips cancel out that warm feeling we're all looking for.