Not exact matches
«In the face of natural variability and complexity, the consequences of change in any single factor, for example greenhouse gas emissions, can not readily be isolated, and
prediction becomes difficult... Scientific
uncertainties continue to
limit our ability to make objective, quantitative determinations regarding the human role in recent climate change, or the degree and consequence of future change.»
Given that
uncertainty, I'd far rather see scientists produce 50 - year
limits, 100 - yr
limits, 150 - yr
limits, 250 - yr
limits — those are the kinds of
predictions that would be interesting, as they would give you an idea of how fast the approach to equilibrium might be.
Britain's Met Office, for example, while providing detailed climate projections on its website, acknowledges that such
predictions are «always subject to
uncertainty», thanks largely to the current limitations on scientific knowledge of how the Earth's climate system works and on the relatively -
limited amount of data available.
However, multiple sources of
uncertainty in the chain from climate forcing to impact model
limit confidence in specific
predictions.
It should be emphasized that solving (the solvable) problems of climate
prediction (or, just as important, making a realistic assessment of the ultimate
limits to climate
prediction set by the inherent
uncertainties within the system) requires the deployment and long - term maintenance of massively expensive observational satellite and oceanographic programs.
Also there is an irreducible
prediction limit arising from Heisenberg's
Uncertainty Principle (who knows where the next virtual particle pair will appear?)
And re-review the confidence
limits on the forecasts /
predictions / scenarios with a complete re-evaluation of the areas of
uncertainty and their impact on the models.