Guest essay by Bjørn Lomborg
The current climate models are running way too hot.
Over the past 30 years, they are at least predicting 71% too much heat. Maybe 159%. (see graph)
This should make us greet the next climate panel report somewhat smarter. Yes, there is a problem, no, it doesn’t look like the end of the world.
Let’s fix global warming without the fear.
Here is my latest Project Syndicate column: http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/realism-in-the-latest-ipcc-climate-report-by-bj-rn-lomborg
The cat is well and truly out of the bag now, and has been for some time. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out.
it would appear that those so called experts who are driving the GCM buses not only have
faulty rear view mirrors, but also faulty headlights which need to be re-aligned.
“Let’s fix global warming without the fear.”
What’s to fix? If many people’s prognostications* are correct, we will be shovelling ‘global warming’ off our properties in large quantities this winter. I don’t call that fixing, I call that dealing with it.
* Word used in an attempt to forestall inane posts about ‘predictions’ or ‘projections’. 😉
Yes, there is a problem, no, it doesn’t look like the end of the world.
NO, nobody has yet shown any proof of it being a problem, The correct sentence would be “Yes, it is happening, no, it doesn’t look like it is a problem”.
Bjorn, if I may ask: You say ‘let’s fix global warming without fear.’ I quite agree that No fear is needed, but, doesn’t it seem like ‘fixing’ the climate, would be a matter of decades, if not a century or more? Even with everyone making a big push, which most are barely even attempting, and some, going hard in the opposite direction.
Lomborg goes on to say:
The European Union will pay $250 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for 87 years. For almost $20 trillion, temperatures by the end of the century will be reduced by a negligible 0.05ºC.
Two of my favorite Feynman quotes apply:
“Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.”
and
“It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
Bah !
Should be:
“Yes, it might be happening but our data to date is so bad that we really can not tell.”
Between the surface data “Adjustments”, lack or replicates / random sampling with both surface stations AND satellite data, bullcrap statistics, how would you discern such purported temperature changes from noise, limits of observation, or bias ?
HarryReadMe ??? corruption is us…
CO2 vs Temperature Trends:
http://tinyurl.com/ove6euy
http://tinyurl.com/pnplx3n
http://tinyurl.com/py68qh5
http://tinyurl.com/oo3c7a8
http://tinyurl.com/naa26qb
fah i don’t think they did any experiment, climate science is not experimental science,simulations are unavoidable, but , they just claim their hypothesis were right…they didn’t even wait to check if their forcasts were right…it is a new paradigm ; a model can make an hypothes become a truth and don’t ask why because it is soooooooo complicated that you can’t understand.
The problem is not being right or wrong because may be what they assume is right and the hidden heat will come back one day but how come they can be sure of that?????? I still refuse to beleive that real scientists endorse the claim of 90 or 95% of certainty has any logical meaning at all.
The Left -leaning media in Australia simply are not reporting the news. They continue trumpeting the fry-and-die line. Just how do you get through to these “true believers?” They are becoming as hard-line as radical Islamists.I may well laminate and mount the front page of “The Australian” newspaper to put up as an inspiration.
@fah “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”
A very good and true Feynman quote, however, where the climate alarmists go wrong, is that in looking for another identical and pristine earth, by which to use as a control, and with which to experiment, they made the mistake of thinking that they could use models as a tool to extract accurate experimental data. What is actually happening is that there are lots of models, all coded with variants of the CAGW hypothesis*, which in reality are only providing demonstrations or explanations of the hypothesis’ prediction, rather than being experiments upon on the hypothesis, or tests of the hypothesis.
Testing by running a model, which has been biased with a variant of the hypothesis can ONLY tell you what the hypothesis predicts. It CANNOT test the hypothesis to validate if the hypothesis is correct or not. This is where the climate scientists have gone badly wrong in putting any faith whatsoever in the model being testable, by running the model.
Too many scientists seem to claim that what the model is doing is testing the hypothesis and producing a positive agreement that the hypethisis is correct and then they appear to be puzzled that the real earth is behaving differently to how ALL the models predicted it would behave.
The only scientifically valid way to test the CAGW hypothesis, is to observe and measure the real planet and gather accurate, consistent empirical data with which to compare to the data derived from the modelled hypothesis. If the empirical measured real world data matches what the hypothesis based model predicted, then the hypothesis remains a valid hypothesis which has not yet been falsified. If the empirical measured real world data does not match the modelled hypothesis data, then either the model is wrong or the hypothesis is falsified or both.
More and more empirical measured real world data reveals that the ALL models are wrong and I claim that this is because the hypothesis at the heart of all of them is WRONG.
I believe that the hypothesis has been falsified. The Atmosphere is not as senstive to CO2 as the CAGW hypothesis claims.
* CACW hypothesis posits that a doubling in atmospheric CO2 will result in n degrees C warming by the year 2100 based on a climatic sensitivity to CO2 at X and that this warming will be catastrophic.
Dr Lomberg, you are a dreamer if you think that we can”fix” the climate. Compared to the sun, the real climate driver, we are powerless. To claim that reducing the production of CO2 will do anything when CO2 has no input into increasing temperature is completely idiotic.
Looks to me from those graphs that the globe has fixed itself.
Not much point is our fixing something that aint broke, best to let nature take its course.
It is the models that are the problem that needs fixing, politicians should decide whether it is worth throwing billions to do this or spend the money on something useful.
.
“Although the IPCC is not perfect – it famously predicted that all Himalayan glaciers would be gone in 2035, when the more likely year is 2350 – its many experts generally give us the best information on the fractious issue of global warming.
*
*
*
“The new report’s fundamental conclusion will be that global warming is real and mostly our own doing. . . . As climate scientist Andrew Dessler of Texas A&M University tweeted: “Summary of upcoming IPCC report: ‘Exactly what we told you in 2007, 2001, 1995, 1990 reports…’
*
*
*
“Yet these sensible and moderate findings. . . .”
Dessler? Really? Sensible and moderate? Really?
Frankly, I’m appalled at how credulous Lomborg remains about the science. If he can’t exercise a little judgment on the science, he shouldn’t have spent so much of his article discussing it. Instead, he should have dedicated more column inches to backing up the money passage: “The European Union will pay $250 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for 87 years. For almost $20 trillion, temperatures by the end of the century will be reduced by a negligible 0.05ºC.”
0.05ºC? Where did that precision came from? (From the error margin of the sensors?) When many measure points only have 0.1ºC resolution, it’s like “science” found in some Hollywood movies and tv series (ref. to their magical picture “enhancement”). It should be expressed with the same precision as the sample with the lowest precision. It’s bad math otherwise.
@Ken Hall. Concur completely. I read “theory” to mean “the models” and “experiment” to mean better and better data about the actual earth. The trouble with pinning down the rejection of the null hypothesis here seems to be that the “hypothesis” has never been well constructed and keeps squishing around as more and better data becomes available, in addition to assumptions as to effects of uncontrolled variables. The hypothesis that something will happen by 2100 is hard to test in the meantime.
How long did it take the believers in the Phlogiston Theory to admit their mistake?
A couple of decades?
Expect the same from CAGW cult fanatics.
In a world with a growing population to feed more heat does not appear to me to be a problem but lets fix the problems with the particulate pollution from coal mining and burning and maybe get back to some real environmental goals such as sustainable forestry, better technology for resource recovery and education that is not indoctrination.
The whole idea that the atmosphere with a thermal capacity equal to that of 3 meter water can warm the Earth including the oceans up to 2km deep or so is pretty ridiculous imo.
There is a much better explanation for our presently still pleasant temperatures.
But we are on an 80 million year cooling trend and there is no sign that it is bottoming out or reversing, so we should be worrying about cooling iso warming.
The deep oceans lost already 17K in the last 80 million years !!!
Yes, there is a problem, no, it doesn’t look like the end of the world.
Let’s fix global warming without the fear.
What problem?! There’s nothing to fix. The Romans thrived when temperatures were much warmer. More people die from cold than from heat. More heat means a longer growing period for plants and more land available for agriculture. More CO2 helps plants grow better and faster.
Pick a climate sensitivity that frightens you, and then calculate how cold we would now be without the influence of AnthroGHGs.
Note how the higher the sensitivity, the colder it would now be. When you get into the range of catastrophically high sensitivites, we would now be catastrophically cold without human input.
We’d better hope that natural processes dominate.
===============
What problem? It has never been the end of the world when co2 in the atmosphere was 10 times higher. Global warming looks like it fixed itself with over 16 years of a global surface temperature standstill with some predicting cooling ahead. It they are right then there really was never a problem and the IPCC should be disbanded. They have contributed nothing for the planet, just pain and energy poverty for the poor.
Ahhhhhh, now I see the problem. We are doomed. Is there no good in co2?
lemiere jacques says: @ September 16, 2013 at 2:25 am
…. I still refuse to believe that real scientists endorse the claim of 90 or 95% of certainty has any logical meaning at all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They don’t. That is why you find websites like:
http://judithcurry.com/
http://drtimball.com/
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/johnkehrbio/
http://wmbriggs.com/blog/
http://www.climateaudit.org/
http://www.co2science.org/
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/
That is why 31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs The Petition rejects the Global Warming Agreement that was written in Kyoto Japan, December 1997 and any other similar proposals….
You NEVER hear about that in the MSM except when they declare it a fraud. Otherwise you only read about the throughly debunked ‘97% Scientists’ agree numbers.
Cook’s 97% climate consensus paper crumbles upon examination
About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
What else did the ’97% of scientists’ say?
More articles on the ‘CONSENSUS’ can be found HERE
The information on how those ‘consensus’ numbers were ‘extracted’ from the real data is enough to tell ANYONE this is a bogus scam by politicians and corrupt* scientists for picking the tax payers pockets.
* Sorry mod.s that is the only word fit to print that describes people willing to lie or bury their heads in the interest of a big paycheck and acceptance by their peers.
A computer model is a system of equations that supposedly represent mathematically all the actions of a system. Different model runs are done using different input parameters. If you do not know what all the possible actions of a system are either because you have not identified them at all or because you have identified them but cannot express them mathematcally (including statistical methods), your model will not contain all the necessary information. Then, no matter how many times you run the model varying input parameter values your model will not reflect reality. This is elementary.
Modelling is a really useful technique to cheaply investigate systems which are well-defined; usually these are systems we have built ourselves which are, while often complex, limited in scope and function with a limited, if random-appearing action.
The climate models have not falsified the GW/AGW/CAGW hypotheses since there are many actions of the global weather system which are understood poorly or not at all and therefore cannot be included in the climate-models. In fact there are known climate-drivers that are deliberately omitted. There are also likely to be some climate actions which have yet to be identified at all. Until we have all these things correctly expressed mathematically we cannot meaningfully model them. At the present state the models even if correct as far as they go could, at best, give only very rough approximations. However these climate-models are not even correct as far as they go since even the effect of CO2 on climate, as expressed in the models, does not reflect reality.
“Jimbo says:
September 16, 2013 at 4:11 am
Ahhhhhh, now I see the problem. We are doomed. Is there no good in co2?”
So do I. If the vegetation keeps growing it will reach a tipping point and will then suck all the CO2 from the atmosphere and we will all freeze to death. Man the space ark now.
If one looks at just the graph it is apparent we have seen some warming. The problem is attribution. We know we had a +PDO which creates more +ENSO events starting around 1975. This changed around 2005 and that is when the graph shows a switchover to cooling. As far as I can tell there is no evidence in that graph that any part of those changes were due to man made emissions which means there’s nothing we could do to change it.
There was also similar global warming between 1910 and 1940. Even if Warmists are right there is nothing we can do about it. India, China and most of the rest of the world will do what they have to do to survive and co2 increases will continue.
No, there is not a problem, yes, it does look like the end of the world for every activist, pseudo scientist, journalist or politician who ever promoted or sought to profit by this inane hoax.
There is no net radiative green house effect on our planet. CO2 is not a GHG, it is a radiative gas. CO2 both absorbs and emits IR. The net effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.
Radiative gases emit IR to space from the upper atmosphere, allowing subsidence of air masses. This is critical to continued strong vertical convective circulation below the tropopause. Without tropospheric convective circulation, gas conduction would cause the atmosphere to trend isothermal, with its temperature set by surface Tmax, not surface Tav. This would result in an atmosphere far hotter than present. In such a stagnant non-radiative atmosphere, gases at altitude would be subject to molecular super heating from the small amount of UV,SW and IR N2 and O2 absorb, just as in the thermosphere. Without radiative gases most of our atmosphere would boil off into space.
Quite simply climate pseudo scientists are totally and utterly wrong. There are two critical errors in the “basic physics” of the “settled science”, their calculations did not acknowledge –
1. Downwelling IR in the 15 micron band does not slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. (surface Tav under a non radiative atmosphere would not be as low as claimed)
2. Increasing the concentration of radiative gases increases the speed of tropospheric convective circulation and the mechanical transport of energy away from the planets surface and increases the amount of the energy so transported that is radiated to space from the upper atmosphere. (the net effect of these gases is atmospheric cooling not warming.)
It light of that there is something that Bjørn Lomborg should consider –
The lukewarmer position is no more excusable than the alarmist position.
Since the dawn of the computer age, the expression GIGO has ruled. Not because of the force of wills of computer scientists, but because of the basic truth of the matter. GIGO.
Once the “team” started monkeying with the historical data, any models built using that data became just like computer programs. GIGO. By trying to deceive the public, they are destroying any chance they have to create relevant accurate climate models. GIGO will not be denied.
JoNova has nailed my thoughts on Bjorn ;
“Bjorn Lomborg covers up for dodgy science” :
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/09/pr-wars-ipcc-fights-for-relevance-halves-warming-claims-to-be-95-certain-of-something-vaguer/
Yes, there is a problem; a big, big, problem. But, it isn’t “global warming”. The problem is Climatism, which has overtaken the world like a cancer. It is based on the biggest lie in history, that man’s CO2 emmissions are harming the earth when in fact the opposite is true. Untold damage has been done, and continues to be done to human society, to science, and to freedom. It is a scourge of humanity and needs to be eradicated.
Ken Hall says: @ September 16, 2013 at 2:34 am
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Accurate, however I would add to your asterisk.
The ‘Climate Scientists’ get that high CO2 climate sensitivity by making water a FEEDBACK of CO2 and therefore multiplying the actual CO2 climate sensitivity threefold. This is the heart of the BIG LIE. They swap cause and effect. Water (ocean temperature) drives CO2 as seen by the known few hundred year lag in the ice records. Instead the scammers are saying CO2 increased DRIVES water vapor increases and dance around the fact CO2 levels FOLLOW the temperature increases.
The present day data shows the lie too. CO2 has steadly increased while NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor
Here is the ‘BIG LIE’ straight from NASA:
Andrew Dessler has a great career ahead of him as a used care salesman.
The Longborgian line has been to “Trust the IPCC” and keep thinking critically As Joanne Nova notes the many reasons FOR outright distrust, I can do no better than to tell Bjorn “Don’t be an idiot!” We should not trust those who betray our trust so egregiously.
Or, as Reagan famously said about the Soviet Union – “Trust but verify.” Lomborg simply doesn’t even do the verify part.
chris moffatt says: @ September 16, 2013 at 4:17 am
A computer model is a system of equations….. the models, does not reflect reality.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
EXACTLY!
The IPCC really does not have a scientific leg to stand on, yet like a zombie it rises again and again to suck-up taxpayer wealth and kill the poor.
Sasja L:
“it’s like “science” found in some Hollywood movies and tv series (ref. to their magical picture “enhancement”).”
That’s one of the things that has me yelling at the set nightly – you can’t take information that isn’t there and make it appear – if a license number is a blob on the screen, all you can get is a bigger blob — but it makes a nice plot advancer, sort of like the convenient “no service” on the victim’s cell phone!
Let’s fix global warming without the fear.
Oh, turn it off already. “Fix it,” indeed. Might be less alarmist but it’s still arrogant nonsense.
GIGO is indeed correct. However there is another side to the issue. If your algorithms constituting your model are incorrect or incomplete it doesn’t matter if your inputs are correct – you will always get garbage out anyway.
Let’s fix global warming without the fear.
====
just fix the temp record….then there’s nothing else to fix
“Let’s fix global warming without the fear.”
What do you mean by the term ‘global warming’? are you referring to anthropogenic global warming or naturally occurring global warming?
if you are referring to anthropogenic global warming you will find in your own words how flawed this theory is “the climate models are running way too hot” therefor there is nothing to fix.
if you are referring to naturally occurring global warming then you’ll find that there is actually nothing to fix or can be fixed.
By what means are we supposed to ‘fix’ an overly exaggerated problem? with an overly exaggerated solution?
“What we need is investment in research and development to reduce green energy’s cost and boost its scale.”
I’m all for that IF you mean PRIVATE investment by free market capitalists – not more of my tax dollars to line the pockets of the crony capitalist variety as Obama and other thieving radical liberals have done.
Give the money back to we the people because we have a reason to be frugal with our own money – government does NOT.
I still don’t get it. What do we need to fix? Earth was doing fine without us humans and it will be fine when we are gone. When was the ideal temperature anyway? Suppose we have a thermostat, who will control it? We are the “Higs Bosson” particle of the universe, how arrogant to think we matter and are able to control the earth.
It’s ideology. The Greenpeace and other planet savers are using scare tactics because they are looking for the money of the sinners. Saving humans is not so sexy, so they tell us they are busy saving the planet. It is humans fault and we must pay for it. Preferably to Greenpeace and government.
Lomborg is just soft peddling the ignorance and dishonesty of the IPCC and the climate change political movement. Sorry, the time has passed for playing nice with these hacks, it is fruitless. They have truly earned our disdain, scorn and ridicule. Call them out, let these frauds and opportunists reap what they have sown.
No, wrong. Look at their projections and compare them to actual, observed temps. There is a divergence.
Jo Nova lays in:
@chris Moffatt
I agree with your comments about modelling, which I think are very sensible. I have tried to get to grips with the NCAR.Com3 model to try to understand how these models are constructed. I guess it take a very long time to get to an understanding of the model so as to say what effects poor representation of the physical processes and poor parameterisation/homogenisation have on the output. My feeling is that a lot of high grade mathematical and physical thought has gone into the construction of the model and I am loathe to dismiss it out of hand.
Nevertheless, while the models are clearly not producing results that conform to measurements, I think it is an important question as to whether it is possible to model climate using current knowledge. Is the physics so off beam that any model is doomed to fail? Can models be constructed that have an adequate mesh spacing? In other words, does climate modelling have a future?
Lomborg makes the ridiculous statement “Let’s fix global warming”. Lomborg is no better than all the other CAGW gravy train and kudos seeking academics. He just hides his nonsense in a thin veneer of realism in order to fool everyone. Bait and switch.
“Let’s fix global warming without the fear.”
Umm, how about this. It’s not a problem, it’s a “thing”. I think that is the misunderstanding, the interpretation. It just how the difference is framed. Climate changes, weather changes. People and civilization should adjust, adapt. What concerns me is why the fear mongers seem to get their way.
Soon, there will be nobody who ever claimed it would warm at all. We always predicted hiatus, Oceania has always been in war with Eastasia.
Fact is, climate does exactly what it did in late 40ties: three decades of cooling follow three decades of warming.
“Let’s fix global warming without the fear.”
Most experts feel that the affects of warming up to 2C will be on net positive.
And when you add in the positive affect CO2 has on plants.
What’s to fix?
This is one of the best graphs I’ve seen in quite a while.
It shows quite clearly the root of the problem. Behind all the arguments and flim-flam, the modellers have simply been doing what people always do – assume that what has been happening in the recent past will continue to happen in the future. This almost always works in the short term, and almost always fails in the longer term.
The red, modellers’, line just projects the trend for the late 20th century in a near linear fashion. In practice, temperatures stopped rising around the turn of the century. The difference between the surface and satellite measures is hardly worth commenting on – it’s only a tenth of a degree.
There is no problem Lomborg, except for the fact the Climate Liars (global warming fascists ) are morons.
Where’s Leif? Leif, I found a graph showing trends of model temp, surface temp and satellite temp going all the way back to 1980’s. (At least my graphs went back to 1875).
RE: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/13/like-the-pause-in-surface-temperatures-the-slump-in-solar-activity-continues/#comment-1416308
Perhaps Lomborg is trying the psychological approach on The Warmish? Get them to think they’ve ‘fixed’ global warming and they’ll shut up and move on to saving puppies or kittens.
Juraj V, I can see that you are an Inner Party member. You have not allowed the teachings of Goldstein to affect your thinking. You are free of thought crimes…
No, the problem is the repeated use of the completely meaningless “Global Average Temperature”, which gives the ignorant the false impression that temperature rises and falls the same everywhere.
@Joe Born
Lomborg isn’t necessarily accepting the scientific claims.
His position, roughly speaking is that even if one accepts the IPCC conclusions, they do not justify the expensive “solutions” such as the carbon tax schemes.
Many readers of this site are interested in challenging some of the claims by the scientists, and that is a worthy endeavor, but one can challenge the public policy proposals without even having to disagree with the IPCC conclusions.
Fix the problem…
The only problem is the sinister agenda behind The Cause: depopulation, deindustrialisation, dedevelopment and sending mankind back to the dark ages, with the upperclass having it all, leaving the rest in poverty and misery, while struggling for 40 long years and die.
The only solution is to Vote Them Out. Since we in Europe have no means to do so anymore, my only hope is that you in the US will do so.
@Jeremy
Lomborg makes the ridiculous statement “Let’s fix global warming”. Lomborg is no better than all the other CAGW gravy train and kudos seeking academics. He just hides his nonsense in a thin veneer of realism in order to fool everyone. Bait and switch.
Are you seriously saying that you are unable to distinguish between Lomborg and Hansen?
I can. It isn’t that hard.
The climate models work exactly as designed.
1) The modelers don’t have a good understanding of the climate system and how all the various parts of the system interact. The models are too heavily focused upon the atmosphere, but they need to consider the hydrosphere, the biosphere, the cryosphere, the lithosphere, etc., etc.
2) The modelers over-estimate the warming effects of CO2, the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere and and climate sensitivity in general. This is partially due to #1 above, but also can be attributed to the fact that this is the only way they can make the climate models give the results they want to models to output.
Alvin says: September 16, 2013 at 6:39 am
…What concerns me is why the fear mongers seem to get their way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The Fear Mongers own the news media. They own the politicians, and even owned the former chair of the IPCC.
What does more than half of the temperature rise is due to humans mean? E.g. 51%, 75%, 99%? Could it be that less than half of the temperature rise is due to humans? Time will tell.
This is a most wonderful observation. It made me smile.
Scarface says: @ September 16, 2013 at 7:57 am
Fix the problem…
The only problem is the sinister agenda behind The Cause: …..
The only solution is to Vote Them Out. Since we in Europe have no means to do so anymore, my only hope is that you in the US will do so.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Unfortunately we get choice A who is the same as choice B. Anyone who is not the same gets savaged in the press. Example
One does not even have to work in the field of science to understand the fraud taking place here among the climate modelling CAGW junk scientists. As a retired computer programmer analyst in the insurance field, I know perfectly well that you cannot accurately simulate a system or solve a problem with a coded program if you do not fully and accurately understand the system or problem involved. It won’t matter what your input to the program is, your output will be garbage (yes, GIGO) if the problem or system has not been fully and properly represented in the program code. ANYBODY who works in the I.T. or computer science field should know that. This is why observations and empirical data are currently the only things that make sense in the climate science field, if anything does.
If indeed there is still much that we do not understand about the Earth’s climate and what drives it, then it is a waste of time, effort and money trying to model it in a compute program. What really boils my blood is the fact that we have squandered billions of this country’s tax dollars trying to do that exact thing anyway. Stupid! When we couple this with the exaggeration of the climate’s sensitivity to CO2’s GHG effect, the junk science alarmists don’t have a leg to stand on.
And I would be one of the last ones to give them crutches to get around with.
Lomborg always sounded reasonable in acknowledging global warming while trying to address the tremendous costs, and futility, of trying to stop it, rather than just preparing to live with it while researching, rather than subsidizing, alternative fuels. On the whole, I respected that approach. So did many conservative media outlets, which is why we know of him today.
Given the political environment until very recently, by acknowledging global warming he was increasing the odds that people, and especially the politicians, would listen to what he had to say about the economic aspects of the issue. After all, even here, most contributors and commenters acknowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that it’s presence in the atmosphere has increased, and that some amount of warming can be attributed to that increase.
However, I don’t think he was planning on a 15+ year hiatus in warming, and he certainly isn’t prepared for a cooling trend, since his acknowledgement of AGW all those years would then render his suggestions for mitigating the damage much less relevant. In other words, he, too, has staked his reputation on AGW, just not on C(Catastrophic)AGW. He might, of course, be correct and this might be just a pause that lowers the long-term averages, rather than the beginning of a cooling phase.
And so many politicians have now finally been browbeat into accepting not just AGW, but CAGW, that he might find a receptive audience among them as they seek to climb back off of that limb without appearing to completely reverse their positions (something politicians really dislike doing, as reversals provide fodder for commercials by their future opponents.) He is being chopped up here pretty soundly in the comments, but I suspect a lot of politicians will soon be inclined to fall back to his long-held position of exploring alternative fuels while avoiding the subsidy approach that is threatening the economy of several nations today.
In other words, I respect what Lomborg has tried to accomplish and hope that he continues to be one of the voices that politicians heed. We could do worse, much worse, as we’ve seen.
Let’s face it; a large portion of the US population is made up of nitwits. And they vote… as demonstrated in the last two presidential elections. Their immediate reaction to bad or unusual events is either;
Its Bush’s fault or
It’s because of Global Warming.
If there is no snow its because of global warming. If we get record snowfall as happened along the East Coast in 2010 it’s because of global warming.
Anthony, My comments seem to be getting stuck somewhere in your moderation system. Could you look into it for me please, and let me know what the problem is?
TIA
Long time follower but first time commenter here.
I’m not a scientist or statistician, but it occurs to me that there is a very low tech and simple way to determine with far more accuracy whether global warming is occurring or not. I propose climate change thermoscopes. These would be massive containers of sufficient thickness that would prevent it from registering actual ambient temperatures, but would only show the accumulation or loss of heat since a certain point in time. Think of hollow concrete columns, lined with an impermeable material, filled with water and a means of observing its level. The only statistical technique required would then be periodically (once a year or so) adding together the displacement in water levels from locations all over the globe. At any point in time the containers and the liquid itself would be unalterable proof of warming or cooling since time 0.
The ipcc lied . When a witness lies on even one fact his whole testimony is disregarded. The ipcc
Has lied (climategate for one) the policies being shoved down our throats are the real
Danger. They are now a runaway train. All this over ,8 ° c In 150 years. Total joke.
Jimbo:
At September 16, 2013 at 8:16 am you say and ask
Yes, it could be “less than half” because the leaked draft IPCC AR5 statement does NOT say “more than half of the temperature rise is due to humans”.
The leaked statement says the IPCC is “95% certain that human activities are the major cause of the temperature rise”. This is being interpreted as meaning “more than half” but it could be said to mean ‘human activities are the largest single cause of the rise’. So, if the other and various causes total more than half of the cause then human activities would be less than half of the cause.
Think of it this way. If your pocket contains small change to the value of a pound (i.e. £1) then a 20 pence coin would be the major single cause of the pocket containing a pound if all the other coins were smaller than 20 pence.
Richard
I have to go now, need to take test on energy efficiency so I can renew my builders licence
Thank you epa.
Is Bjørn Lomborg simply another Climate Agnotologist* just doing his job?
* Climate Agnotologist- One who knowingly induces culturally induced ignorance or doubt, through the promulgation of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.
Nice chart. I can’t say your conclusions hold any water:
“This should make us greet the next climate panel report somewhat smarter. Yes, there is a problem, no, it doesn’t look like the end of the world.
Let’s fix global warming without the fear.”
I can’t see evidence that anything is a “problem”, nor is there anything that needs or might be expected to respond to “fixing”.
The real failure of global warming in the graph given in the above article is not that the models are some 71% higher than the measured data but that the green line (surface temperature) is above the blue line (satellites). If global warming had any validity at all, the mid tropspheric temperatures that the satellites are measureing should have warmed more than the surface temperature. I am told that this is climate scirence 101.
Lomborg certainly is accepting the “science” of the ipcc liars. He said:
“Yes, there is a problem”
and
“Let’s fix global warming”
When it comes to the actual science though, he is an ignoramus and should just shut up about it. Also, if we needed to “fix” global warming, that would most certainly have policy implications, and those resulting policies would be wrong-headed.
A neat bit of deconstruction!
Bjorn Lomborg, Peter Huber and Philip Stott clobbered Hunter Lovins, Oliver Tickell and Adam Werbach in the classic Intelligence Squared debate, “Major reductions in Carbon Emissions are Not Worth the Money”, available in ten minute snippets on YouTube.
I can’t imagine how using a century old physical model could result in a climate model running too hot. /sarc
Jimbo; “What does more than half of the temperature rise is due to humans mean? E.g. 51%, 75%, 99%? Could it be that less than half of the temperature rise is due to humans? Time will tell.”
IPCC is saying more than 50% is very likely. Most the current research is split between slightly more than all of the warming being anthropogenic (i.e. natural factors are cooling) and slightly less than all (i.e. natural factors are warming, but are one or two order of magnitude weaker than the anthropogenic factors).
Scott Scarborough says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:59 am
===========
100%
Scott Scarborough says:
September 16, 2013 at 8:59 am
Satellites have always shown less warming than surface stations, even before the “adjustments” made to the latter. Of course if CACA were correct, the troposphere would warm sooner & more than the surface, but just the opposite is the actual case.
CACA required adjustments to the satellites & their data, too, but even after every defensible change was made, the discrepancy remained, although reduced.
Bjørn Lomborg,
Thank you for directly contributing to the IPCC and AR5 discussion.
You have for a long time been consistently an accepter of the ideas that are the basis of the view that there is significant AGW from burning fossil fuels.
By continuing to accept them in your essay, aren’t you begging the question when you discuss the IPCC’s assessments?
The begged question is whether there is objectively sufficient science in the ideas.
John
Graph caption:
11-yr running mean, adjusted to zero 1979-82
Say what?
Someone better kick out a good explanation of that and why it was done, to show those really are the real differences. As it is I can already feel a disturbance in the Farce, the SkepSci kids are preparing their rebuttal showing how Those Silly Deniers fiddled with the zeroes to churn out another false graph.
Bruce Cobb says:
September 16, 2013 at 4:58 am
Yes, there is a problem; a big, big, problem. But, it isn’t “global warming”. The problem is Climatism, which has overtaken the world like a cancer. It is based on the biggest lie in history, that man’s CO2 emmissions are harming the earth when in fact the opposite is true. Untold damage has been done, and continues to be done to human society, to science, and to freedom. It is a scourge of humanity and needs to be eradicated.
No, Bruce – humanity is a scourge that needs to be eradicated…..
Lomborg is in denial. They all are.
Looks like Knut Johan Angstrom was correct.
Amended for accuracy.
Lomborg takes the middle of the road, which is seldom a safe place to be.
But I agree with him. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and as a first-order approximation an increase in CO2 should increase global temperatures. Furthermore, the recorded data is broadly consistent with this hypothesis.
The real debate is over the amount of feedback, or “sensitivity”. There is increasing evidence that this sensitivity has been overstated. It is even plausible that negative feedbacks are strong enough to nullify much of the temperature change directly due to an increase in CO2. We should be strong enough, however, to admit that at this point we don’t know.
Any amount of climate shift should be looked upon with consternation. We are not wise enough to know the full ramifications of humans changing the climate, so we should seek ways to avoid this. Lomborg’s point is that we need not panic. We have the time to avoid stupid mistakes — such as eviscerating the economy — which could well make everything worse in the long run.
It would appear the the science is irrelevant
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
“EU policy on climate change is right even if science was wrong, says commissioner”
– – – – – – – –
If Lomborg were instead to follow in the intellectual footsteps of Naomi Oreskes (Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California) then he would say something like the IPCC assessment of future man-caused warming is dangerously too conservative because it has been influenced by the fossil industry; namely the current climate models are running alarmingly too cold.
If Lomborg were instead to follow in the intellectual footsteps of the ubiquitous pagan Earth Goddess GAIA (Professor in the Environmental Studies Program at Every University) then she would say something like the problematic climate model runs are interesting from a science perspective, however, no matter because we should just reduce burning fossil fuels anyway because it would be inherently good to do so for important non-climate reasons.
If Lomborg were instead to follow in the intellectual footsteps of Michael Mann (Professor of Meteorology at Penn State University) then he would say something like I talked to that single Yamal tree in a certain persuasive way and it listened to me, so let me teach you modelers how to use that same kind of persuasion while talking to your misbehaving climate models.
John
Mr Ljomborg, ever heard of Ockham’s or Occam’s Razor?
Ron Hansen:
Is Bjørn Lomborg simply another Climate Agnotologist* just doing his job?
If doubt and uncertainty unsettle you, science isn’t your calling. If you would rather crawl across broken glass naked then speak the words “I don’t know” then take up politics. You’ll fit right in.
We’re stuck with global warming climate disaster alarmism until the next big (imaginary) global crisis comes ’round. In the USA, we’ve already seen declining interest among the citizens, leaving only the political class, the media and the zealots to still squawking about it. Soon, they’re going to tire of being ignored and come up with something else to wail about and all these worries about the climate are going to go away.
So what’s the next big thing going to be? Can we use some Google search analytics to discover what’s next?
Heck, if we catch it just right, we could take a minor issue and make it into the next big thing. Being a prophet can be very profitable.
Lets face it Lomborg is what I would call a pragmatic warmist.
“Lets face it Lomborg is what I would call a pragmatic warmist.”
There is nothing pragmatic about recommending we try to “fix global warming” – this is an extremist position!
Like King Canute, Lomborg could just as easily have said we should fix the tides!
The emperor has no clothes!
It seems unbelievable to some, perhaps, but this is actually the simple truth:
The Other Phil: “His position, roughly speaking is that even if one accepts the IPCC conclusions, they do not justify the expensive “solutions” such as the carbon tax schemes.”
I will agree that the main thrust of his comments over time has been, as you say, that measures we’re taking make no economic sense despite CO2 emissions’ risks. But I also agree with those others who see the language quoted above–and things he’s said in the past–as largely accepting the IPCC Statements for Policymakers positions with regard to attribution and consequences.
That graph notwithstanding, his comments betray no critical analysis of the science. So his gratuitous support for the “science” is irresponsible.
By the way, in saying, as I believe I’ve seen him say elsewhere, that we should spend just a little on C02 suppression, he has not been consistent even in the economics. Nowhere I’m aware of–although, admittedly, I’m sure I’ve missed some of his writing–has he established that the marginal effect of even just the first few million worth of CO2 suppression justifies its expenditure.
dp:
At September 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm you claim
Perhaps you would be willing to say what you what “would be inherently good” about that?
Please note that I do not accept the resulting billions of dead “would be inherently good”.
Richard
Ooops! ‘think’ not “what”. Sorry
Dp says, “It seems unbelievable to some, perhaps, but this is actually the simple truth:
(John Whitman from just above) …the problematic climate model runs are interesting from a science perspective, however, no matter because we should just reduce burning fossil fuels anyway because it would be inherently good to do so for important non-climate reasons.”
Why would it be good? What simple truth are you on about?
Are you saying that the prosperity enjoyed by the West should not be made available to China, India and the rest of the world? I find it morally repugnant to demand that all others use bicycles or walk while a Western Elite enjoys fossil fuels! If the rest of the world is to enjoy a higher standard of living then of course fossil fuel consumption will rise (in the absence of some magic alternative).
Off topic but topical:
JAXA arctic sea ice extent seems to have turned the corner, with minimum 5.00M on September 12th. Wot no thread on this yet?
Rich.
more soylent green! says:
September 16, 2013 at 11:33 am
So what’s the next big thing going to be? Can we use some Google se
Heck, if we catch it just right, we could take a minor issue and make it into the next big thing. Being a prophet can be very profitable.
——————————————————–
What about a campaign to change every street or monument named after an aggressive, warlike leader into one named after a civil rights leader or a gay person ?? It could culminate in having Elton John (I mean a statue of course) atop Nelson’s Column, and so on and so forth. It could also cost $10 trillion, but it would keep them busy for another 20 years without doing quite so much damage to humanity.
It also fits nicely into the concept of digging ditches and filling them in. They like that kind of stuff (as long as they’re getting paid for it, and can tell their peers and grannies how nice they are).
Let’s fix that problem without the fear.
richardscourtney, Jeremy, et al – Who here denies it would be good for the world if we were to reduce atmospheric pollution? I lived in Los Angeles in the early 1950s and remember well the choking smog. We’ve cleaned that up to a degree. We have more to do around the world to bring those places up to what is only now becoming tolerable in California. I live in Seattle now where pollution is not a factor but that can’t be said for much of India, Eastern Europe, and China, for starters.
Don’t presume I mean to see this done with the same idiocy the alarmists are bringing to the table. I’m for death to wind turbines, no food for fuel, and the UK needs to stop burning our trees to keep warm. Let’s get some clean fuels (gas, for instance) and nuclear power going as alternates for coal. We can do this without destroying economies, draconian regulations, and forced societal behavior modification, and certainly without scams like cap and trade. In fact we already are doing this in some parts of the world.
You surely cannot be against a rational program to minimize the damage we do to our world. I do anticipate finding politicians who are capable of accepting rational programs vs the tax schemes being proposed, but a guy can hope. Hell, even the IPCC is backing down. There are surprises left in the world.
I have jusr read that the EU Climate Change commissioner, one Ms Connie Hedegaard, has jsut stated that it doesn’t matter if the science is wrong, the EU should continue with their current decarbonisation policies and push for renewables because the world is on the point of running out of fossil fuel. What on Earth can one say? (Except leave the EU).
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/10313261/EU-policy-on-climate-change-is-right-even-if-science-was-wrong-says-commissioner.html
Ms. Hedegaard is one of those nutters we’re never going to be rid of.
dp:
I am replying to your post September 16, 2013 at 2:05 pm.
Everybody here wants “to reduce atmospheric pollution” and would oppose doing “damage” to “our world”. But that is NOT what you suggested.
You said it would be good to “reduce burning fossil fuels”, and I asked you what would be good about it. You have not told me anything good about it. In fact, you have said the opposite!
Your reply says we should use gas. But gas IS a fossil fuel.
And you say you want to reduce “pollution” and “damage”. But reducing use of fossil fuels would increase both of those. The reason for this is that fossil fuels provide cheap energy..
The use of fossil fuels reduces fuel poverty so increases riches. People demand sewers and a clean environment when they can afford them. Poor people cannot afford them.
And people who are fuel poor burn forests and dung for fuel. So, you are arguing for forests to be damaged.
The use of fossil fuels has done more to benefit human kind than anything else since the invention of agriculture. And part of that benefit is a cleaner, healthier environment.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
dp,
Thanks for the comment.
Actually I was making fun of the GAIA worshipers who populate Environmental Studies Programs at every university.
It is the fossil fixation syndrome.
John
I suppose that I should have read the Project Syndicate article first, before liking this article.
You note that the warming at the end of the seventies was a natural cycle and that it has now stopped. I fully agree with that. Then you finish that statement by saying “” but that has slowed or stopped global warming now.””. What has slowed or stopped global warming? Are you saying that the natural warming slowed or stopped global warming? This is mildly confusing.
You then finish with “” Global warming is real, but it has probably been exaggerated in the past, just as it is being underestimated now.””. I am curious. Who exaggerated global warming in the past and who is underestimating the warming now? I do not remember ever reading about a proof that co2 is over 50% of the overall warming. I would think that something like that would have been discussed here on WUWT.
richardscourtney – I never mentioned fossil anything. I’m advocating least polluting fuels some of which are fossil fuels. In my first post on this I simply quoted in whole the OP’s comment. I’ve differentiated (I thought) myself from the complete post by advocating going to cleaner fossil fuels. Fossil fuels as used by the OP is too broad a brush. I think we can all agree there are very dirty fossil fuels and less dirty fossil fuels, and I’m a big fan of the cleanest fossil fuels our economies can accept. You have read too much into what the OP said and too little of what I said.
Read carefully.
@ Bjorn Lomborg…renewable energy will be a wonderful tool once someone figures out how to store the energy efficiently and cheaply.
dp:
You begin your post at September 16, 2013 at 2:42 pm saying
and you end it saying
Say what !!!?
Your statement at September 16, 2013 at 12:51 pm that I disputed said
I asked you WHY “it would be inherently good to” “reduce burning fossil fuels”.
Think carefully.
Richard
Tez says:
September 16, 2013 at 2:44 am
It is the models that are the problem that needs fixing, politicians should decide whether it is worth throwing billions to do this or spend the money on something useful.
—————————————————————————————
There is a strong probability that it is the politicians that need to be ‘fixed’. The models can be thrown away or scavenged for any useable data, if any.
@dp, pollution is a separate issue, having absolutely nothing to do with the “global warming” issue. It is a red herring, and one that the Warmists love to throw out to confuse things. Being against coal may make you feel good but the fact is that we still need it, and will for many years hence. The EPA in its’ infinite wisdom wants to punish coal because of CO2, which they consider “pollution”. Fancy that.
Richard – I will ask a question as a test of reasonability. Can you think of any common fossil fuels that are harming our environment and which we can replace with less polluting fossil fuels and which would not break the bank to do so? If not we have not point continuing this conversation and can agree to disagree.
btw, this:
was not my statement – I quoted it. It was written up page by John as part of a joke involving Gaia.
dp:
re your weasel words addressed to me at September 16, 2013 at 3:02 pm.
No! That will not do!
1.
You said “we should just reduce burning fossil fuels anyway because it would be inherently good to do so for important non-climate reasons”was true.
2.
I asked you to justify that outrageous statement.
3.
You replied with a ridiculous load of nonsense.
4.
I explained it was nonsense.
5.
You now claim you did not say what you did and you try to change the subject.
Enough! I shall ignore anything more you write about this.
Richard
– – – – – – – –
Jeremy,
Although I was just poking fun at the many environmental program professors who are closet GAIA acolytes by those words, the idea is sometimes part of some lukewarmers’ positions.
Another thought separate from lukewarmerism, I vaguely recall hearing Roger A. Pielke Jr express thoughts similar to my words. Maybe I am wrong. Does anyone remember him doing so?
John
Years ago, I thought that Lomborg was intelligent and an impartial observer. Hhowever I soon realized that he was hiding his Warmist beliefs in a thin veneer of scepticism. He has now emerged as a full-blown Warmista and makes ridiculous statements about fixing global warming. Lomborg is just another CAGW gravy trainer
Time to turn up the heat and intense scrutiny of the enriched circumstances of those that have supported and encouraged this scare promotion, for these will be the people that will be and should be linked to the fraudulent use of science as an activist tool to destroy the economic base of the very countries who do more to alleviate the suffering of others worldwide than the handful of fellow travellers that latched onto this meme. In doing so we must be careful to be objective rather than vengeful, the truth needs to be sheeted home to the individuals, they made it, they wear it, there is no room for apologists and mealy mouthed excuses. IMHO!
ntesdorf says. “Lomborg is just another CAGW gravy trainer”
Absolutely! Lomborg just says anything that he thinks will make him be perceived as a wise sage – blustering what he thinks is wisdom but is in fact total nonsense. He is just talking through his hat. Lomborg clearly has no idea what he is talking about when he recommends we should just “fix global warming”.
The problem with any and all “fixing” prescribed to date is that if it is effective at all, it may well be exacerbating the “problem”, which is now looking likely to be excessive cooling.
Elegant, cheap and simple. Let’s do it.
Hmm. This is a truly unfortunate shift of position from Lomborg’s proclaimed objectives in “Cool It”. See,a discussion of his “Feel Good (e.g. Kyoto) Vs. Do Good” chart.by NY Times columnist John Tierney here http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/11/science/earth/11tiern.html?_r=0
My take-away from that book was that the precautionary principal does not translate to global warming very well; more to the point,,there are common-sense adaptations for helping humanity overcome the same problems which are less costly and much more effective.
In my opinion, even if there is warming related to CO2, it is minuscule, and there are known benefits to both CO2 as well as a warmer climate. This piece makes clear that Lomborg has abandoned this point in favor of the more facile effort to mollify alarmists with wishy-washy language which adopts their position. Sad.
Bill Parsons;
Not to worry. The fundamental “Adaptation” sequence is 1) Get wealthier 2) Cope with whatever comes.
This utterly derails the Precautionary Take-Over agenda.
Great comment