"But many climate-change alarmists seem to claim that all climate change is worse than expected. This ignores that much of the data are actually encouraging. The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less temperature rise than expected."
So begins Bjorn Lomberg's WSJ piece "The Alarming Thing About Climate Alarmism/Exaggerated, worst-case claims result in bad policy and they ignore a wealth of encouraging data."
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
४८ टिप्पण्या:
But are humans going to change their habits?
No.
"The latest study from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that in the previous 15 years temperatures had risen 0.09 degrees Fahrenheit. The average of all models expected 0.8 degrees. So we’re seeing about 90% less."
It's beginning to look like they have the climate sensitivity wrong (Climate sensitivity is the equilibrium temperature change in response to changes of the radiative forcing.)
A real scientist weighs in. Will the faux UN scientists working for propaganda purposes now refuse to allow him to speak?
The Warmist Propaganda has faked the data, faked the reasoning from the data, and faked the authority that their Politicized Clown Science has over governments to enact treaties that change the weather.
"Encouraging data" provide no opportunity for vast schemes of social and economic control.
Re a decline in Hurricane Deaths
The dramatic decline is mostly due to economic development that helps nations withstand catastrophes.
The author ignores the dramatic increase in tropical cyclone observations/forecasting skill, and I have to wonder why. Maybe it's because he's trying to advocate for Economic Growth?
A hurricane/typhoon will kill a lot more people if it is unexpected.
MM: Aren't the actual number of hurricanes down?
"solar and wind energy are simply expensive, feel-good measures that will have an imperceptible climate impact."
But, but there are lots of government grants !
The author also cites a J. Climate article by Weinkle et al. to support his claim that landfalling tropical cyclones have decreased in the Philippines. I don't see anything like that in the article. Fig. 2 shows only the typical multi-decadal oscillation. The article even states that there is no trend.
@OMike, I am always wary of long-term studies about hurricane intensity/numbers, as satellite data weren't used routinely 'til the 1960s.
The last two Atlantic Hurricane Seasons have been quiet. While the Atlantic was very quiet this past year, the eastern Pacific was not. That's an argument that an El Nino is progress, although SSTs in the far western Pacific don't support that observation (that's an interesting area of study -- why have SST anomalies remained high there?).
@MadisonMan
Maybe he's thinking that its not just the forecast, its the ability of third world nations to respond to the forecast in a meaningful way which is a result of economic development.
It is 10 degrees in Chicago this morning. That might have a bit to do with the increasing skepticism the alarmists are seeing.
That plus all the examples of fiddling the data and always to make it warmer.
We'll find that not only has the raw temperature record be "adjusted" to conform to the warmist view, but CO2 measurements are likely similarly adjusted to aid the narrative.
Kinda a catch-22 here for those claiming anthropogenic climate cooling/warming/change/etc. The first world, esp. the U.S., has been cutting their CO2 emissions, through use of natural gas, etc., while the developing world is greatly increasing such. Setting limits by the 1st world does essentially nothing to mitigate the alleged problem. But, death tolls overall, and for weather related fatalities, are dropping for the developing world as their energy usage, CO2 emissions, and wealth increase. Forcing them to cut back on CO2 emissions would result in numerous deaths over the next couple of decades as a result. So, why should the first world sacrifice so greatly, when it won't noticeably affect the outcome?
That of course ignores that the models are abject failures, the warmists routinely fudge the data, and that global warming is probably overall a good thing, not a bad one, etc.
Climate Change Science ("Now even MORE proven!") is the new Lysenkoism. The state cannot retreat from it without admitting the fallibility of the state, no matter the cost, fiscal and human.
Man is having an impact, it is almost imperceptible, the change is within historical range, and nothing the alarmists propose will make a darn bit of difference.
And a warmer world is better for human life. If the seas are rising, then adapt or move. Like humans have always done.
The author ignores the dramatic increase in tropical cyclone observations/forecasting skill, and I have to wonder why. Maybe it's because he's trying to advocate for Economic Growth?
Coastal development is huge and getting bigger. Think of the Tsunami. There just isn't any trend in land falling hurricanes in the US for example. One of the few statistic that can be compared across eras accurately.
The insurance companies seized on this forecasts to jack up rates. Whatever, I don't blame them. We are required to buy the insurance so they are going to stick it to us.
Renee: tell ya what, I'll change my habits an order of magnitude less than you want me to, in accordance with the data.
This guy does not seem to be a denier; still says warming is a problem.
Telling:
"...we have to recognize that it is less about cutting carbon emissions than it is about pulling them out of poverty."
Is not the proper conclusion from the data cited that without the elevated CO2 levels, the average global temperature would have declined over the last 15 years? Assuming the climate sensitivity is within an order of magnitude of what the models assume, of course.
I believe in anthropogenic climate change. I also believe most predictions are total crap.
Sidenote: I'm an economist and I will say the same thing about economic predictions. Qualitatively the science is very good. But 95% of the point estimates are garbage. People like running the calculations and getting approximations to see if they pass a smell test. That's all the numbers are good for.
I demand that the World Governments acting under a UN mandated treaty control the Sun Spots now.
There, I am a noble idiot too.
traditionalguy said...
A real scientist weighs in.
Well, not really, but he has apparently overcome his miseducation in political "science".
He was subjected to a major PC witch-hunt for not toeing the line.
Lomborg is a heavy hitter on climate change issues and with the UN, helping them prioritize global spending on social projects..
A sensible one at that.
MadisonMan said...
Re a decline in Hurricane Deaths
The dramatic decline is mostly due to economic development that helps nations withstand catastrophes.
The author ignores the dramatic increase in tropical cyclone observations/forecasting skill, and I have to wonder why. Maybe it's because he's trying to advocate for Economic Growth?
A hurricane/typhoon will kill a lot more people if it is unexpected.
Hurricanes and typhoons have been detected and tracked by satellites for about 50 years. It takes time for a tropical depression to build up to hurricane strength. There's no way one can suddenly spring up and hit people with no warning. Even with decades of satellite observations and multiple computer models, no one can accurately predict exactly where a hurricane will hit land more than a couple days out. The computer models used to predict climate change are no where nearly as accurate as those hurricane models, nor do they have nearly as good input data. Garbage In, Garbage Out most definitely applies for those models.
I'm all for global warming. I'd like to see the temperatures continue to go up, throughout my lifetime.
Global cooling on the other hand? No thanks.
Is not the proper conclusion from the data cited that without the elevated CO2 levels, the average global temperature would have declined over the last 15 years?
Yes, and if you extend out the hockey stick without the blade, we are in another little ice age and maybe the French are chopping off the heads of their leaders because they are starving again do to crop failures.
Suggesting that makes one a "denier."
hawkeyedjb said...
"Encouraging data" provide no opportunity for vast schemes of social and economic control.
You've broken the code! Burn the heretic!
Strange how the proposed cure for global warming (reduced emissions, massive government programs, and wealth control) is exactly the same as back in the 1970s when they were predicting a coming ice age. Frankly, an increase in global temperatures by a few degrees is much preferable to a decrease in temps.
richard mcenroe,
"Climate science…is the new Lysenkoism."
Oh yes.
I know a climate scientist rather well. I once read a paper draft of hers. The intro stated that it's universally acknowledged by climate scientists that the world is warming and that anthropogenic CO2 is a major driver. The body of the paper absolutely tore into a set of crap models and crap predictions that were well received in the field. Just shredded them.
I pointed out that she sounded to me like a Soviet biologist saying, "Of course Comrade Lysenko's theories were correct, but…" before offering some fractional, incremental criticism.
She had to show she's still on the right team, you see. Without that ritual obeisance in the introduction, no one of consequence would pay attention.
It's a chaotic system by virtue that is incompletely characterized and unwieldy. This is the hard partition that motivated development of the scientific method, and that "scientists" routinely ignore.
We seem to be passing through a moral and intellectual reversal.
Make abortion, not life.
Larry, 'a couple days out' for hurricane forecasting is a huge improvement over the 1980s.
Track forecasting now is pretty good at 3 days. (Intensity forecasts aren't as skillful).
Your pathetic little life experience does not matter much in a climate cycle of 120-140,000 years peak to peak.
100,000 years from now, the ice will again be 2 miles thick over where Chicago used to be.
JPS,
It's the big but of research funding.
"As we all know, the sky is falling... However.."
"In short, climate change is not worse than we thought. Some indicators are worse, but some are better. That doesn’t mean global warming is not a reality or not a problem. It definitely is. But the narrative that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse is unhelpful alarmism, which prevents us from focusing on smart solutions."
Or maybe it's an indication it's a solution in search of a problem...at least in terms of CO2.
And a warmer world is better for human life. If the seas are rising, then adapt or move. Like humans have always done.
It would be nice if we were allowed to talk about this possibility without being labeled a 'denier'. (which of course is a stupid label now that everyone is using 'climate change' in lieu of global warming. Since it hasn't been warming much if at all lately.)
MadisonMan said...
Larry, 'a couple days out' for hurricane forecasting is a huge improvement over the 1980s.
Track forecasting now is pretty good at 3 days. (Intensity forecasts aren't as skillful).
Yes, and getting those models to be that good took decades of hard work. Those models are fed by the most accurate data from satellites and buoys. And with all that, they take the weighted predictions from multiple models to try and determine 2-3 days out where a hurricane will strike land.
Contrast that to the climate models. They have not been validated against the real world. The input data aren't nearly as good (tree rings aren't exactly precise), don't factor in things like solar variability and clouds, and we're supposed to believe they can accurately predict global mean temperatures decades from now. If your model doesn't reflect the real world, it isn't the real world that's wrong.
Burn the nonbeliever! No, damn, carbon-neutral, carbon-neutral....stone him!
I wish he'd have tossed in a sentence or two on ethanol/biodiesel/most other biofuels as they're currently used. The problems there make wind and solar look positively brilliant by comparison.
Larry J said...Those models are fed by the most accurate data from satellites and buoys. And with all that, they take the weighted predictions from multiple models to try and determine 2-3 days out where a hurricane will strike land.
Contrast that to the climate models. They have not been validated against the real world.
I think it was Talib Nassim in a talk with Russ Roberts who talked about the difference between the expected accuracy of abstract models vs. predictions based on direct observation--with weather forecasting much of the improvement we've made is due to the fact that we can simply see better now (with satellites) than we could in the past--our sat. data is more comprehensive, updates more frequently, and so on. When we can see what's going on in a reasonable timescale our predictions are usually pretty good. When we're dealing with unobserved variables with unknown magnitudes, unaccounted-for feedback loops, etc, our predicitve ability drops off pretty quickly.
MadisonMan said...Maybe it's because he's trying to advocate for Economic Growth?
I'm not sure one can fully separate our increased predictive ability vis a vis weather events from ideas about the value of economic growth--we're only able to predict better now due to technological advancements (and spending) that were possibly only because of increased wealth generated by...economic growth. A society (and planet!) that's wealtier will have the ability to buy all sorts of nice things, better weather predictive ability among them.
In the current era, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is heavily dependent on fossil fuel use. Linking that increase to something as difficult to measure as long term global temperature trends is very difficult. In fact we do not know how well we are able to link the concentration of atmospheric CO2 to global temperature trends.
This is indisputably true, but it is enough to get you marked as a "climate heretic" by the emerging political aristocracy and their sycophants.
A lot of climate truthers won't read this piece because it's written by Lomborg.
Without that ritual obeisance in the introduction,
Back in the day, I found some translated Chinese science journals in the library and read them out of curiosity. The articles typically began with praise of Mao's thought and the guidance it offered. Heh, not much has changed over the years in science overseen by the left.
I may be wrong, but I thought limestone was created by CO2 being absorbed in the oceans and then settling out of warm shallow seas during periods of warm world climate with lots of CO2 in the air?
And these periods are remarked upon as being very favorable for abundant plant and animal life?
retail lawyer,
Can you say "Fallen Angels"? I know you can... ;-)
richard mcenroe said...
Climate Change Science ("Now even MORE proven!") is the new Lysenkoism.
Oh, I dunno about that.
Lysenkoism was “politically correct” (a term invented by Lenin) because it was consistent with certain broader Marxist doctrines. Marxists wanted to believe that heredity had a limited role even among humans, and that human characteristics changed by living under socialism would be inherited by subsequent generations of humans. Thus would be created the selfless new Soviet man.
Surprising close to the current Lysenkoism.
When's the last time the bastions of PC - NYT, fed gov't, etc - didn't ignore the fact that human intelligence and personality are mostly determined by genes rather than by environment when they're discussing things like education, crime, poverty and "diversity"?
cool website (excuse the pun)
http://www.isidewith.com/poll/734977926
@Fernandinande
IIRC, Lysenko was also responsible for deep plowing and close planting. I dont know where deep plowing came from, but close planting was based on the idea of species solidarity, which I suppose was something like international proletarian solidarity. The plants were suppose to *help* each other. That despite the observable fact that the most intense competition is often between members of the same class or between animals exploiting the same ecological niche.
Lysenko also considered himself a Darwinist, but he was not a believer in modern genetics. Darwin left the mechanism of variation and inheritance up in the air, and so Lysenko could make that claim in good faith.
It is a truth universally acknowledged that a libtard possessed of a data point must be in want of a tax.
Plants/plankton use photosynthesis to turn CO2 & sunlight into food. Neither animal nor blade of grass would exist absent Carbon Dioxide. Increasing CO2 lengthens growing seasons & encourages plants to move higher in altitude & Latitude; just as it shrinks deserts, plants using water more efficiently. Rising temperatures lengthen growing seasons, help babies of nearly every species, increase net rainfall and save lives; because cold kills. The Earth is greener, more fertile and life sustaining than it was 30 years ago.
Why is the link to a Google search page instead of the actual article?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा