Here’s the conclusion of Bjorn Lomborg’s paper in which he analyzes the effects of all current climate change proposals:
Based on climate model simulations, the emission cuts that have been proposed by the US, the EU, China and the RoW will reduce temperature increases by the end of the century, but almost all of the expected warming will still take place by 2100.
Because the climate policy impacts from individual countries are almost additive, they can be almost perfectly partitioned as is evidenced in Table 1. This shows that in the optimistic case, the EU and China each reduce mean global temperature by 2100 of about 0.05°C, and the US and the RoW each reducing a bit more than 0.03°C.
As Wigley (1998) found for the Kyoto Protocol, the emissions reductions promised until 2030 will do little to stabilize the climate and their impact will be undetectable for many decades. This clearly indicates that if we want to reduce climate impacts significantly, we will have to find better ways than the ones currently proposed.
which certainly supports what I said a day or so ago.
The Earth has not finished warming from the last Ice Age, and unless there is some plan to stop these oscillations, it is going to keep warming until it is time for the next Ice Age to begin.
The idea that humans will be able to eliminate summer is fantasy. Children may believe such nonsense, but adults should have outgrown it long ago.
Interestingly enough Bjorn Lomborg was in Paris during the climate summit, but was not allowed any credentials to attend. Like most of these like-minded confabs, dealing with climate change policies, it’s a closed system in entertaining any ideas outside their “settled science” beliefs. This even held true during the Pope’s exploration of climate change, resulting in the official declaration released earlier this year, where the only information allowed to be submitted was sanitized and free of any oppositional data.
Also, where AGW zealots take issue with Bjorn is his consideration of the negative economic impact most of these proposed climate change policies will have, especially in poorer countries.
@jan
The AGW debate is over until the AGW crowd can formulate another theory or rework the existing basis. The models are so broken they have to take good data and turn it into crappy data.
Global warming is occurring, has been occurring, and will be occurring until it is time for the next Ice Age, and then it will begin global cooling. Until then, there will be faster warming, slower warming, reversed warming (little ice age), and no warming (present warming pause).
Knowledge of the present warming trend comes from satellite and sea buoy data as opposed to ship engine intake data, and the satellite and buoy data is far more accurate than the ship engine data. It has taken the past 15-20 years to get dense world-wide coverage, but by 2010, the trend was unmistakable.
Originally, the more accurate data was normalized to the less accurate data because there was less of it, and this was justifiable. By 2005, it was less so, and by 2010, it was unjustifiable. Today, the less accurate data should be normalized to the more accurate data, but that leads to a big, huge, enormous, “holy f*ck” problem – everything reverses.
For years, they have been adjusting the historical data to keep it aligned with the theory, but if it were actually done correctly, it would throw everything out of whack.
Now, @steve, @Ben Wolf, and others will probably jump in to claim how I am wrong. So be it. I no longer need to argue with them. Their arguments will soon collapse. At one time, the idea that there was anything but an upward trend was sheer folly, but today, they need to defend against a pause. Their arguments are based upon wishful thinking.
At one time, the data sets were infallible, and the computer models were irrefutable. They argued enough rope into a noose to hang their theory. They would be in a lot better position if the computer models could be modified, but the entire theory is a house of cards. If you remove one piece, the whole thing collapses. This is why they argue so vehemently over the most trivial points.
Science is not about rigidity. At one time, birds were thought to be a separate branch, but now they are thought to be descended from dinosaurs. Biologists did not start destroying research notes because the theory of evolution was suddenly changing. When Einstein upended Newton, physicists did not start meddling in politics.
Make notes about who says what, and in a year, compare notes. I predict that the biggest argument is “4 out of 5 scientists prefer AGW”.
Tasty, the argument about climate change is less that people disagree about climate “changing,” and more about the root problems of these changes and what the results of said changes will be.
People of the AGW faith, have tunnel vision focusing on green house gases, a warming planet and rising oceans. Others (skeptics), though, think climate changes involve temperatures going down, the sun experiencing less solar activity with the possibility of a mini ice age in the making.
It’s almost laughable how diametrically opposed these climate speculations are. The sad part, however, is the closed mindedness of warmists in their default attitudes to belittle, discredit even a minor insertion of diverse opinions and data. There is simply so much intolerance from those who consider themselves open and liberal minded.
@jan
Sometimes, I use you or others as an opportunity to get to a larger audience or to lay down a marker. The AGW crowd has created a noose, climbed on a chair, and stuck its head in it. They are in the same position with their ‘settled science” as the Catholic Church with their “settled science”.
When your science is based upon your understanding of reality, your science must change when your understanding changes. Both the AGW crowd and the Catholic Church claimed that their reality was infallible. The Catholic Church now limits pronouncements regarding infallibility on matters of faith.
My markers keep building, but they are never resolved. The computer models still are not working, and they are getting worse – just like I said they would. The acidification of the oceans is not occurring as predicted, and the oceans keep increasing in importance – just as I said they would.
I am finished arguing with them. The science is settled. AGW based upon CO2 needs to be tossed upon the trash heap. I doubt it can be reformulated to work, but if they are honest, they can try.