Bjorn Lomborg Declares “False Alarm” on Climate Hysteria

[Threegoofs]

I never defended the seven-figure claim. My target was the inaccuracy in #156.

Oh that’s right.

You don’t bother to address egregious lies from deniers.

Because you’re ‘objective’. [emoji849]

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh that’s right.

You don’t bother to address egregious lies from deniers.

Because you’re ‘objective’. [emoji849]

I conserve ammunition.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Lord, this was another example of how to deal with DATA. Not accounting (unless differentiating 6 from 7 is "accounting" in your world).

My point was actually deeper (but neither you nor Jack could probably catch it). Remember earlier when I discussed statistics ad nauseum and "data processing" ad nauseum? This was another example of it. Jack posted a figure of the average full professor salary at Ivies. I merely pointed out that that number represents only a sub-population of the larger population of faculty.

I certainly don't expect Jack to follow the point given his lack of even high school mathematics, but I should think YOU would.

How does it relate to CLIMATE? Glad you asked.

On a variety of occasions Jack has posted "single year" data or "local data" in some mysterious gambit to discuss climate (of course he never actually discusses it but one assumes he has a point). I have to keep reminding him that data doesn't work that way. That, in fact, you have to appreciate the data in the larger ensemble.

Again, I should think a man with your enormous IQ would have "caught" that bit. I know it was subtle but I certainly expect the higher IQ individual to have been able to draw obvious conclusions.

Why is Jack the topic instead of the climate debate?

Are you incapable of addressing the climate?

 

[istodolez]

Why is Jack the topic instead of the climate debate?

Ummm, I was talking to Jack at the time. Remember, this is going to be a shock: IT ISN'T ALWAYS ABOUT YOU.

Are you incapable of addressing the climate?

The fact that you continually act as if I haven't discussed the technical topic at length across this forum is disturbing in the extreme.

Are you INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting my postings?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Ummm, I was talking to Jack at the time. Remember, this is going to be a shock: IT ISN'T ALWAYS ABOUT YOU.



The fact that you continually act as if I haven't discussed the technical topic at length across this forum is disturbing in the extreme.

Are you INTENTIONALLY misrepresenting my postings?

So what do you think of the graphs in post 158, showing an increasing solar insolation?

 

[longview]

Good.

You verified what I said with a study. So why do you speak of the last 50 years of warming, when it starts at a point when we forced cooling from aerosols?

I don't like the way the used the data. Figure 1 shows a 1958 to 1985 trend, and a 1985 to 2002 trend. It appears to me the trends should have 1940 to 1976, and 1976 to 2002.

What do you think of this:

Do you disagree with this study that shows the sun is increase in forcing?

From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface

It appears to me the sun was still continuing to increase the earths temperature through 2001, at least.

Wow, I had been looking for data like this.
I think table 1 is most telling.

While the TSI was declining, the Solar energy reaching the ground was increasing!

 

[Threegoofs]

Wow, I had been looking for data like this.
I think table 1 is most telling.
View attachment 67295565
While the TSI was declining, the Solar energy reaching the ground was increasing!

LOL.

Reaches conclusion.

Finds data to support that conclusion.

Happy to finally have been given that data via anonymous internet poster.

That’s literally the exact reverse of how one should learn science.

 

[longview]

LOL.

Reaches conclusion.

Finds data to support that conclusion.

Happy to finally have been given that data via anonymous internet poster.

That’s literally the exact reverse of how one should learn science.

Since the alarmist position is that the warming cause from added greenhouse gasses is based
on subtracting out all the known causes of warming, and new causes of warming, reduces the amount
attributable to added greenhouse gasses.
The data is via a peer reviewed article published in Science.

 

[Threegoofs]

Since the alarmist position is that the warming cause from added greenhouse gasses is based
on subtracting out all the known causes of warming, and new causes of warming, reduces the amount
attributable to added greenhouse gasses.
The data is via a peer reviewed article published in Science.

Yes, and it confirms your pre existing belief.

And it’s probably paywalled for you, so you can’t even read it.

But it doesn’t matter! You already know what you want it to say!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Wow, I had been looking for data like this.
I think table 1 is most telling.
View attachment 67295565
While the TSI was declining, the Solar energy reaching the ground was increasing!

That's why I keep talking about the atmospheric opacity. It's a significant variable rarely ever discussed in any paper supporting AGW. It's probably also another reason why we aren't seeing cooling yet from the diminishing TSI.

We have a complex atmospheric chemistry. The indoctrinated only like to speak of the ones that affect thermal radiation, while the variables that affect the insolation of shortwave energy are every bit as important, or more.

 

[Threegoofs]

That's why I keep talking about the atmospheric opacity. It's a significant variable rarely ever discussed in any paper supporting AGW. It's probably also another reason why we aren't seeing cooling yet from the diminishing TSI.

We have a complex atmospheric chemistry. The indoctrinated only like to speak of the ones that affect thermal radiation, while the variables that affect the insolation of shortwave energy are every bit as important, or more.

You really should tell actual, you know, scientists about your groundbreaking discovery.

[emoji849]

 

[Lord of Planar]

You really should tell actual, you know, scientists about your groundbreaking discovery.

[emoji849]

Why are you like this? Do you think they don't know? Any scientist that rocks the AGW is blacklisted. Look at how Fred Singer is treated for example. It's not for any inaccuracies in his works. It's because he rocks the AGW boat.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The IPCC is the authority. If you dare challenge the agenda of the IPCC, you are doomed as a scientist.

 

[JoeyJoystick]

When I was a child, we truly feared on a daily basis we would vanish to the power of the mighty H Bomb and A bombs.

Today children cringe that they will fry to death in climate doom, all caused by man.

This is a good person to watch. Bjorn Lomborg has always taken a pragmatic approach to this.

Watch Greta Thunberg go wild over climate. She is as fearful as a 17 year old over climate as I was over the H bomb.

Well the H bomb has never fallen to destroy humans.

Climate will never fall to harm man either.

This is a Hoover institute public message.

I hope your right here mate.

The fear you describe was real and justified. The reason the bomb was never dropped (and oooh, we got very very close to that on several occasions) is because behind the scenes there was a lot of work done to avoid that.

So as long as people keep trying hard to reduce the impact of climate change, yes there is a chance that we may get away with it in the long run.

There is a major difference between the 2 though. If you make an agreement that you do not use the bomb, well the thread is gone. Provided you stick to the agreement of course.

But with Climate chance it does not work quickly like that. It takes many years before you see the first effects of climate change. We started chaning the climate 100 years ago or so. And this really accelerated about 60 - 50 years ago. We only start seeing the impact of climate change in the last 30 - 20 years. And we now are starting to act on this. So it will take a long time again before we see the results of this as well.

Climate change is real no matter how you look at it. Having said that, the likes of Greenpeace have also really screwed up on this subject over and over again.

A good read in this context is a book called 'The Skeptical Environmentalist'. As boring as it can possibly get, but he shows numbers and numbers and numbers. All illustrated and explained. Where we have to be careful, where we should worry less and what we have achieved until now.

Joey

 

[longview]

Yes, and it confirms your pre existing belief.

And it’s probably paywalled for you, so you can’t even read it.

But it doesn’t matter! You already know what you want it to say!

Nope, the full article is publicly available, which you would know if you had looked at it!
From Dimming to Brightening: Decadal Changes in Solar Radiation at Earth's Surface | Science
But lets look at some of the interesting portions!

Over the period covered so far by BSRN (1992 to 2001), the decrease in earth reflectance corresponds to an increase of 6 W m-2
in absorbed solar radiation by the globe (22).

The overall increase in the clear-sky fluxes, again estimated as an average over the slopes at the sites in Fig. 2B, is 0.68 W m-2 per year, comparable to the increase under all-sky conditions. The similar changes under clear- and all-sky conditions indicate that, besides clouds, changes in the transparency of the cloud-free atmosphere also contributed to the increase in insolation.

I am sure your pre existing beliefs, will not allow you to understand that an increase in imbalance of 6 W/m2 between 1992 and 2001
from increased solar isolation, would render the assumptions from the IPCC of 2.29W/m2 of total forcing since 1750,
rather meaningless!

 

[longview]

That's why I keep talking about the atmospheric opacity. It's a significant variable rarely ever discussed in any paper supporting AGW. It's probably also another reason why we aren't seeing cooling yet from the diminishing TSI.

We have a complex atmospheric chemistry. The indoctrinated only like to speak of the ones that affect thermal radiation, while the variables that affect the insolation of shortwave energy are every bit as important, or more.

I think all of the observed recent warming, could be attributed to increasing insolation,
but am still trying to reconcile, why CO2 might be causing a negative feedback.
Perhaps CO2 is a very effective 2nd harmonic generator, and the two 15 um dipole moments,
produce a 7.5 um photon, where no one is looking.
Second harmonics are rare in nature, but CO2 does have two 667 cm-1 states stacked right on top of each other,
so it is possible for CO2 to absorb 2, 15 um photons, and emit one higher energy photon.

 

[Threegoofs]

Why are you like this? Do you think they don't know? Any scientist that rocks the AGW is blacklisted. Look at how Fred Singer is treated for example. It's not for any inaccuracies in his works. It's because he rocks the AGW boat.

It’s a giant worldwide conspiracy. We know.

 

[Lord of Planar]

I think all of the observed recent warming, could be attributed to increasing insolation,
but am still trying to reconcile, why CO2 might be causing a negative feedback.
Perhaps CO2 is a very effective 2nd harmonic generator, and the two 15 um dipole moments,
produce a 7.5 um photon, where no one is looking.
Second harmonics are rare in nature, but CO2 does have two 667 cm-1 states stacked right on top of each other,
so it is possible for CO2 to absorb 2, 15 um photons, and emit one higher energy photon.

Well, I can understand what might be the reason it causes cooling. I have brought this up before.

The IR from CO2 is absorbed in the first few microns of water. That, along with the wind, makes the water more readily evaporate, and cool the ocean surface, and it absorbs ocean heat for the energy to change states. I don't know what the net temperature change is between absorbed IR and evaporation cooling, but this could also be a net cooling, except at times when there is little or no ocean wind.

The ocean is what really controls the earths temperature, because of the most massive of the variables that exchange heat. Variables that heat or cool the ocean are most important.

Now this water vapor does warm the atmosphere, as when it becomes rain, the heat is released into the atmosphere. However, more water vapor means a larger coverage of clouds, which in turn reduce the solar insolation to the surface.

The sun is the most significant source of heat in the earth system. This is why TSI and surface insolation changes are very significant. Tidal and radioactive material heat are insignificant. Greenhouse gasses just hold the heat in, not causing any heat themselves.

Just my hypothesis, but I'm on pretty solid ground there.

 

[Lord of Planar]

It’s a giant worldwide conspiracy. We know.

Do you deny that scientists who are openly skeptical about AGW being a threat, are not treated well by others the scientific community?

 

[vegas giants]

Do you deny that scientists who are openly skeptical about AGW being a threat, are not treated well by others the scientific community?

Awwwwww. Are their feelings hurt? LOL

 

[Threegoofs]

Do you deny that scientists who are openly skeptical about AGW being a threat, are not treated well by others the scientific community?

Some that are blithering idiots are treated appropriately, like, for example, Roger Pielke.

Kinda like how creationists are treated. Like your friends at the Cornwall Alliance.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Awwwwww. Are their feelings hurt? LOL

Maybe you can be serious for a few minutes, have an open mind, and read this:

Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry Resigns over 'the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.'

One passage:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.
​

 

[vegas giants]

Maybe you can be serious for a few minutes, have an open mind, and read this:

Georgia Tech Climatologist Judith Curry Resigns over 'the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science.'

One passage:

A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.
​

Good.


Anti vaxxers are not treated well by the science community either

 

[longview]

Well, I can understand what might be the reason it causes cooling. I have brought this up before.

The IR from CO2 is absorbed in the first few microns of water. That, along with the wind, makes the water more readily evaporate, and cool the ocean surface, and it absorbs ocean heat for the energy to change states. I don't know what the net temperature change is between absorbed IR and evaporation cooling, but this could also be a net cooling, except at times when there is little or no ocean wind.

The ocean is what really controls the earths temperature, because of the most massive of the variables that exchange heat. Variables that heat or cool the ocean are most important.

Now this water vapor does warm the atmosphere, as when it becomes rain, the heat is released into the atmosphere. However, more water vapor means a larger coverage of clouds, which in turn reduce the solar insolation to the surface.

The sun is the most significant source of heat in the earth system. This is why TSI and surface insolation changes are very significant. Tidal and radioactive material heat are insignificant. Greenhouse gasses just hold the heat in, not causing any heat themselves.

Just my hypothesis, but I'm on pretty solid ground there.

I like the idea of the micro evaporation, the only issue might be that CO2 almost never gets to the point where it would emit a 15 um photon.
Long before that would happen, it would pass it's energy off to some other atom or molecule via contact.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Good.


Anti vaxxers are not treated well by the science community either

I pity you. Your hate blinds you.