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
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).