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
“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: @ur momisugly 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: @ur momisugly 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.