In the IPCC AR4 conclusions, they used words like "unequivocal" and "very likely".
A new paper out seems to pour cold water on that:
Here is Professor Judith's Curry review of the paper (a highly respected climate scientist):
Separating natural and anthropogenically-forced decadal climate variability | Climate Etc.
The conclusion of the paper:
In other words "we don't know what's natural warming and what's AGW"
And here is what Judith Curry says:
A new paper out seems to pour cold water on that:
Here is Professor Judith's Curry review of the paper (a highly respected climate scientist):
Separating natural and anthropogenically-forced decadal climate variability | Climate Etc.
The conclusion of the paper:
The main conclusion drawn from the body of work reviewed in this paper is that distinguishing between natural and externally forced variations is a difficult problem
And here is what Judith Curry says:
The issues surrounding natural internal decadal scale variability are a huge challenge for separating out natural from forced climate change. The same issues and challenges raised for future projections remain also for the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century. Sorting this out is the key challenge. No more unequivocals or very likelys in the AR5, please.
Comment