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
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 Kirklin 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: @ur momisugly 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.