Top Swedish Climate Scientist Lennart Bengtsson Says Warming So Small, Not Noticeable Without Meteorologists!

BegnstLennartA major Swedish online daily has an article about what one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists, Lennart Bengtsson, has to say about the global warming hysteria.

Blogsite Dave’s Musings here has excerpts in English. Here are a few:

We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified…there are no indications that the warming is so severe that we need to panic.

‘The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.’

The Earth appears to have cooling properties that exceeds the previous thought ones, and that computer models are inadequate to try to foretell a chaotic object like the climate, where actual observations is the only way to go.”

More and more we are seeing the alarmists being increasingly marginalized. As the data pours in, their science is looking more and more preposterous.

Hat-tip: Reader Henrik Mahlberg who comments:

This is the first time ever that a real climate scientist is interviewed in a major Swedish newspaper (or TV/radio). In the past they have only interviewed alarmist with little or no scientific climate background. This is really astonishing from a Swedish perspective!

================================

PS: Some of Lennart Bengtsson awards:
2007 Rossby Prize 2007 by the Swedish Geophysical Society (SGS)
2007 Elected Honorary Member of the American Meteorological Society (AMS)
2006 International Meteorological Organization (IMO) Prize of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
2005 Descartes Research Prize
1999 Fellow of American Meteorological Society
1998 Umweltpreis 1998 der Deutschen Bundesstiftung Umwelt
1998 Member of the Finnish Academy of Science
1996 Milutin Milancovic medal by the European Geophysical Society
1995 Member of the Nordrhein-Westfälischen Wissenschaftsakademie
1993 Member of the Swedish Academy of Science
1991 Honorary Member of the Swedish Meteorological Society
1990 Doctor honoris causa, University of Stockholm
1990 Förderpreis and the Golden Rosette for European Science by the Körberstiftung, Hamburg
1989 Member of Academia Europea
1986 Julius von Hann´s Gold Medal by the Austrian Meteorological Society

Publications: http://www.mpimet.mpg.de/en/staff/lennart-bengtsson/refer.html

Photo credit: Max Planck Institute.

 

93 responses to “Top Swedish Climate Scientist Lennart Bengtsson Says Warming So Small, Not Noticeable Without Meteorologists!”

  1. Henrik Mahlberg

    This is the first time ever that a real climate scientist is interviewed in a major Swedish newspaper (or TV/radio). In the past they have only interviewed alarmist with little or no scientific climate background. This is really astonishing from a Swedish perspective!

  2. Doug Proctor

    Since the Arctic is clearly warmer, the ice cover is clearly diminishing (relative to 1979), and the continental US is clearly warmer the last few years than before, I fear that what this professor is saying is that “global” warming is actually regional warming, and the global part is just an artefact of mathematics.

    The planet has a 22 W/m2 TSI TOA difference between Jan 7 and July 4th (or around those days, I forget exact perihelion and aphelion dates), with the warmest time during the Antarctic summer. Yet the Southern Hemisphere is 2C cooler than the Northern Hemisphere on an annual basis. Paradoxical.

    The solution to this paradox is that the Earth is a huge energy redistribution machine. A global 3.5 W/m2 is said, by the IPCC, to generate a 3C temperature rise, a relationship that applies to a room or a planet. So the 22 W/m2 TSI TOA, if it were not moderated (at a 26% albedo) would create a 14 W/m2 heating element, generating by IPCC theory, a 12C temperature rise (they like linearity).

    Instead of 12C up, we have 2 down, or a 14C counteraction.

    Lovelock is not wrong when he says the planet works hard to maintain a livable environment. (The biofeedback part I part ways with.)

    There is a huge heat redistribution system working all the time. The idea that at some time or other the system might make the planet 1C or less warmer or colder is like saying I should never expect my radiator’s thermostat to occasionally allow the engine to overheat or fail to keep it warm enough.

    Good grief.

    1. Juergen Uhlemann

      And the Antarctic is clearly cooler, the ice cover is clearly increasing (relative to 1979). What’s your point?
      http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/S_timeseries.png

    2. John Marshall

      Southern hemisphere cooler because there is more ocean than land. Water requires more heat per degree C rise in temperature than land.

      1. Brent Buckner

        Does that help your case? The relevant term was “cooler”, not “less warm”.

        If the southern hemisphere is cooler now than in 1979, then because its ratio of ocean to land is greater than that of the northern hemisphere, then your argument suggests that the southern hemisphere being cooler now than in 1979 is more important than the northern hemisphere being wamer now than in 1979.

      2. Juergen Uhlemann

        As Brent Buckner says: The relevant term was “cooler”, not “less warm”

        You, John Marshall, actually argue that now the ocean is taken more heat away from the Antarctic then 1979. What’s about Australia, South-America, Southern Africa? What a logic?

    3. J4zonian

      You are exactly right. Saying “the global part is just an artefact of mathematics” is like saying 4 is just an artefact of adding 2 to 2.

      Knowledge is an artefact of science. That’s how we know the Earth is heating, it’s caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases, and it has dire implications for human civilization and millions of other species. Add in the likely response to food and water shortages, hundreds of millions of refugees and threatened group identities and nations’ survival: 850 ppm? 1100? plus nuclear winter and massive fallout. Would Gaia survive that? No one has studied it. Are you really willing to risk that much because you’re ego is threatened with having to change its ideology a bit? I’m astounded and amazed and horrified by what I read here.

      Read the science. Get into therapy and develop some empathy.

      1. jcbmack

        Are you kidding? You just accused people here (indirectly) of being psychopaths. Develop empathy? What “science” do you refer to… Realclimate, Skeptical science?!?

        Do you have any idea how much science exists now showing the errors in the approach you are discussing? Have you read the Climategate emails?

        Yeah charge the poor and the middle class into a downward spiral of increasing poverty–there is an answer to non-existent AGW.

      2. DirkH

        “Knowledge is an artefact of science. That’s how we know the Earth is heating,”

        I thought we use thermometers for that. Um too bad I missed that one, J4zonian is probably gone already…

  3. Henrik Mahlberg

    Lennart is also a member of Swedish royal academy of science (Geosciences). http://www.kva.se/en/contact/Members/Geosciences/

    He was also a part of the IPPC together with the Swede Bert Bolin.

  4. Henrik Mahlberg

    Here is a QA with Lennart Bengtsson at a Swedish blog. I hope you can translate it with google:
    http://www.theclimatescam.se/2013/02/03/fragor-och-svar/

    Example: About Jim Yong Kims, the World bank , “It’s just no shortage of people in high positions who makes strange statements.”

    1. John Silver

      Language selector in the upper right corner.

  5. Doug Cotton

    Long term warming is about 0.05C/decade, but should reach a maximum within 50 to 200 years, after which 500 years of cooling will begin. The reason carbon dioxide has nothing to do with it is explained below.

    Some time back I asked people if they could explain how the required thermal energy gets into the surface of Venus. At least 98% of all incident Solar radiation is absorbed by the thick atmosphere there, so the Sun does not heat the surface significantly with direct radiation.

    No one on any climate blog has provided the correct answer, so I guess it’s time to explain what does happen.

    The thermal gradient in an atmosphere evolves even in still air. We have proof that it does in over 800 experiments by Roderich Graeff, and it is logical that it would if you consider my thought experiment about a cylinder divided into three sections. If the top and bottom sections are a vacuum and then gas is released from the middle section by removing the dividers, then, at thermodynamic equilibrium, there has to be a cooler temperature at the top and warmer at the bottom. If KE were homogeneous, then the extra PE in the molecules at the top would cause a general propensity for some gas to move downwards gaining KE as it does so. After all, each individual molecule has mass, and thus has KE (as we know) and also PE. So it must obey Newton’s laws in free flight between impacts.

    The Venus surface would not be as hot if all convection moved away from the surface. If that happened we have no explanation as to how the required energy gets into the Venus surface. Because IPCC and cohorts could not conceive this heat transfer by convection, they postulated that back radiation could do the job of raising Earth’s surface 33 degrees, and the surface of Venus by about 500 degrees. But 10W/m^2 of direct solar radiation reaching the Venus surface could hardly produce much back radiation anyway! Surface bound heat transfer by convection is the missing link which we have all been looking for, and no one it seems has previously described this as being the only explanation.

    We must understand that diffusion of KE (even in still air) sets the gradient of the thermal plane in an atmosphere. Then any additional heat absorbed from the Sun (such as when night becomes day) will spread out over that thermal plane (moving away from the source in all 3D directions) just as if it were the level surface of a lake receiving rain (extra water) in some section of the lake. This is the only way we can explain how energy moves up the thermal gradient and into the surface of Venus. Radiation cannot transfer heat from the cooler atmosphere, but non-radiative convection can flow towards the surface over the thermal plane whose gradient is set by diffusion of KE in a gravitational field.

    1. John Marshall

      Venus has an atmosphere composed almost entirely of CO2. It is some 70Km deep. compared to earth’s 15 or so to the tropopause. The venusian atmosphere is very dense at the surface, some 90 atmospheres. This gives a high surface temperature due to adiabatic compression. Insolation at the surface of venus is lower than ours because the albedo of venus is more than twice ours so despite getting twice our insolation at TOA the surface gets less. Kinetic temperature does it.

    2. Bob Armstrong

      Venus’s surface temperature cannot be explained as a “runaway greenhouse effect” . ( Nor does static pressure enter into the equations for heat . )

      By very basic Stefan-Boltzmann & Kirchhoff computations , for Venus to have a surface temperature 2.25 time that of a gray ball in its orbit , it would have to be 10 times as reflective as aluminum foil in the IR . See the calculations at http://cosy.com/y12/NewsLetter201212.html#PlanetaryModel .

      The thick CO2 atmosphere is unquestionably very insulative , however the mean temperature of an externally radiatively heated opaque object is determined by its spectrum as seen from the outside .

      Venus must have internal heating — which also explains why it is just as hot at the end of its 121 day night as it is at the end of its day .

  6. J4zonian

    And if we didn’t have economists measuring economic indicators we’d never know when we’re in a recession–in fact we usually don’t until after the fact. Yet no one is claiming recessions aren’t real. These are large, complex, rather abstract-seeming systems where both local and short-term noise typically obscures the global, long-term signal, no matter how strong it is.

    It’s either militantly ignorant or cynically manipulative to imply otherwise, and people who do so should be ashamed of themselves, for whichever reason they do it.

    1. MikeB

      Yes. Economists can’t forecast recessions. They are always surprised.

    2. DirkH

      J4zonian, do you want to say that we should believe the warmists even though it’s not warming and their models failed to predict the non-warming just because their theory sounds nice?

      Even though they made the most outrageous claims about catastrophes to come for more than 20 years now?

      Personally, I’m sick and tired of them. I want them all fired and defunded. I want the government to stop wasting my money on these high earners that do nothing but make false claims.

      1. J4zonian

        No, what I actually am saying is that we should believe the 97% of climate scientists and virtually every scientific organization in the world when they say Climate Catastrophe is happening, human-caused, dangerous and yet still probably mostly preventable–at least the worst effects. (Which will be horrific, by the way. Unimaginable if we don’t change our ways soon.) Read the science.

        It is simply beyond reason and out of touch with reality to believe otherwise at this point. Read the science.

        But I’m certainly with you on firing all those who do nothing but make false claims. We could start with James Inhofe, continue on with most of the Republican party, half the Democrats and the entire staff of the Heartland, Free Enterprise and other rabid right wing PR firms. I’m glad we’re in agreement and sick of them all.

        Read the science.

        1. DirkH

          Happy to debunk you.
          97 % are 75 of 77:
          http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/#ixzz1A5px63Ax

          They didn’t even ask whether CO2 plays a role:

          1 When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
          2 Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

          So 75% of climatists answered that with yes? Heck I would have answered that with yes, and I won’t take any crooked GCM serious – of COURSE human activity has an influence on temperature; ever heard of land use change or UHI?

          Try something better next time, you’re welcome.

          1. J4zonian

            No, happy to debunk you, my dear sir.

            A denying delayalist carping about cooked stats???? Good one. And citing the peer-reviewed climate science journal The Financial Times???

            As with all good science, and no Denialitiism, there is not one study but many. This from Skeptical Science:

            “Several subsequent studies confirm that “…the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009).”

            “In other words, more than 95% of scientists* working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

            We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. ”

            *[in the margin of error I believe, and the 97%, even 98% figure shows up again in other good studies.]

            Many of these studies are from years ago, and incontrovertible evidence has vastly strengthened the argument since. There is no longer any reasonable doubt. Global climate catastrophe is real, happening, human-caused and dangerous, and we must take dramatic steps now to avoid dire changes in the biosphere and civilization.

            1. Ed Caryl

              OK, that’s the Gospel according to St. Gore. Now give us of that Incontrovertable Evidence you keep talking about. Explain why climate sensitivity can’t be be determined.
              Explain why there has been no warming for 12 to 22 years depending in which organization’s data is used. Note please that there is NO global data set that says there has been any warming in the last 12 years.
              Explain why changes in CO2 level follows temperature changes and not the other way around.
              Explain the increase in Antarctic ice.
              Explain the decrease in global cyclone energy.
              Explain why weather extremes were greater in the 1930’s than now.
              Explain why the temperature increase in the early 20th Century was greater than in the late 20th Century.
              Explain the Medieval Warm Period. The Roman Warm Period. The Holocene Cimate Optimum.

            2. DirkH

              “A denying delayalist carping about cooked stats???? Good one. And citing the peer-reviewed climate science journal The Financial Times???”

              I sure wouldn’t cite the Financial Times. But besides: Why are you attacking the messenger instead of telling me how the columnist of the Financial Post erred?

              You didn’t; so I take it that the stats from the oft-cited 97% paper are indeed crooked in your opinion.

              Why did you then cite them? Why is climatism in need of cooking the books if it’s solid science?

              The fact is that it is an example of a pathological science.

  7. John Marshall

    A bit of common sense at last. Well said sir.

    1. Harry Dale Huffman

      It is not common sense, it is a false syllogism, having a false premise (” if we didn’t have economists measuring economic indicators we’d never know when we’re in a recession”) and a false analogy (equating marginal-at-best global warming with gross economic dislocation).

      1. J4zonian

        I’m impressed you know some terms from logic and rhetoric. It’s too bad you don’t know the climate science. If there’s anything false in my post, show it.

        Anyone who does know anything about science and statistics and climate and well, anything, really, would both know and admit that large, complex systems are hard to keep track of without said science and statistics–even flipping a coin 10,000 times, a monstrously simple experiment compared to global ecological studies, would be impossible to keep track of without counting. That’s what climate scientists do: count. The necessity of doing so to track exact changes is not evidence that those changes don’t exist, and to say it is, is specious, dishonest, amoral, and at this point in the crisis, absolutely insane. Look outside your door. Depending on where you live, either storms, floods, droughts, fires, ecological disruptions like bark beetles, heat waves or other natural phenomona are making it ever more clear that the Earth is heating. Science makes it clear why. The evidence is so strong in so many fields, proven and vetted by so many scientists that it is virtually incontrovertible now.

        I will admit, however, I shouldn’t have said “never.” Never say never.

        That people are taking this analogy literally, too far, arguing with it rather than the points at hand, and attacking me for saying it is just more evidence that the Denialati have nothing. Their arguments are as logically and scientifically bankrupt as they are morally bankrupt, and they should accept what scientists say virtually unanimously, and join the rest of humanity in making the needed changes in our energy supplies and ways of life.

        1. Ed Caryl

          Back to the Stone Age? Or just to Bronze?

          1. J4zonian

            Excuse me?

        2. DirkH

          J4zonian
          26. Februar 2013 at 17:19 | Permalink | Reply
          “even flipping a coin 10,000 times, a monstrously simple experiment compared to global ecological studies, would be impossible to keep track of without counting. That’s what climate scientists do: count. ”

          You can count what your model does as long as you want to; when the model is wrong the result is wrong.

          (See Phil Jones, top IPCC climatist: “All models are wrong… not got enough low clouds…”)

          1. J4zonian

            Everything humans do is flawed; it is all imperfect. Nevertheless….

            The vast overwhelming majority of scientists and every major scientific organization in the world agree: the evidence is overwhelming–more than 13,000 published studies showing climate catastrophe is real, happening, dangerous and is caused by humans. Not one major scientific organization has come out on the other side; not one peer-reviewed study has suggested any other reasonable, evidence-based explanation for the observed warming and its effects. Not one. The science is settled. Stop trying to push the river uphill. You can’t succeed, and you’re likely to drown.

  8. Steve Case

    “The warming we have had the last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have had meteorologists and climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all.”

    Not true everywhere, winters are definitely warmer (rather nice actually) in my neck of the woods, and I didn’t need anyone to tell me so.

    I object to folks on my side of this climate scare debate making argument that are easily shown to not be true. We really don’t have to. Let the other side dig the holes.

  9. Bob Armstrong

    Richard Lindzen has been stressing this point for years . His comparison with Boston spring climate , http://cosy.com/Science/Lindzenlineplot800.gif , is one of my favorites .

    We are about 3% warmer than the 279k of a gray ball in our orbit having generally said to have warmed from about 288k to 288.8 ( 0.3% ) since before the industrial revolution . But NoTrickZone had an excellent post a while ago showing the expert talking heads don’t even agree on the 288 base within a degree .

    1. J4zonian

      Harry, Steve, Bob,

      I understand that the idea of climate catastrophe can cause fear, denial and rage. But all the scariest events—tyranny, chaos and economic collapse—will be much worse if we continue on as we are. There’s help for the fear; no help if we don’t change direction very soon.

      The science of climate change is accepted by a virtually unanimous scientific community. Every link in the chain of causality is firmly established through reams of peer-reviewed research. Global warming is real, happening, and with very likely social and political responses, threatens to destroy civilization and cause an unparalleled mass. Only a tiny few are arguing otherwise, willing to sacrifice the entire planet for a few more years of their own power and privilege. They’re guilty of the worst possible crimes against humanity and the Earth, helped by those they’ve been able to fool by spending billions of dollars. According to the best science, the worst effects can still be avoided if we act quickly and massively to stop burning fossil fuels, switch to clean energy and local low- or no-meat organic permaculture while we reforest the world and start living ecological lives. If we do it now we can all—all—be comfortable sustainably.

      I’m concerned because your spreading of lies, intentionally or un-, is likely to have a devastating effect on your physical and emotional health. It certainly will cause an unimaginable amount of suffering for us, our children and our grandchildren. Please don’t allow yourself to be used by people who care so little about you. Learn all you can about the truth of climate catastrophe and how to avoid it. Here are a few places to start:

      Above all, this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ Pascal’s wager applied to our decision so you don’t even have to accept our argument or know if global warming is real.

      ClimateProgress.org
      http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics
      http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
      Climate Cover-Up, James Hoggan
      Realclimate.org (sometimes more technical but excellent)
      Tim Flannery, The Weathermakers, and videos:
      http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/25/leading_australian_scientist_tim_flannery_on
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r60Wh_YIiJM

      1. J4zonian

        That should have said “cause an unparalleled mass EXTINCTION” Sorry for the excision.

      2. Ed Caryl

        Who pays you?

        1. J4zonian

          My clients pay me; I’m a health practitioner trained as a psychotherapist, science educator and permaculturalist. I’m here because it’s important to me that civilization survives the next century, and many people here seem determined to keep that from happening.

          Did you think it was the massive and wealthy weatherstripping industry behind me?

          Who pays you?

          1. Ed Caryl

            Social Security.

            Without adequate energy, and the GDP that goes with that, we regress to an earlier age of civilization. Biofuels, windmills, and solar panels, will not produce adequate energy. The Green approach will condemn millions, perhaps billions, to poverty and death. That is your approach. Not mine.

            1. J4zonian

              Name your sources and cite your references for this absurd, ridiculous lie.

          2. DirkH

            “My clients pay me; I’m a health practitioner trained as a psychotherapist, science educator and permaculturalist. ”

            A psychotherapist as science educator? This is getting better and better.
            http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html

            1. J4zonian

              I keep coming back again and again to the same phrases and thoughts dealing with you folks. This time it is once again, “ARE YOU KIDDING???”

              Marx, Freud and Adler? You know, we have done a little science in the last century.

              Let me refer you to a tiny portion of the list of people you should read: Daniel Stern, Margaret Mahler, Jessica Benjamin, Gregory Bateson, (especially his work with the Palo Alto group on systems theory/ family therapy and his ideas on addiction but also of course the brilliant green weft of ecology that runs through his work). D.W. Winnicott, John Bowlby, and thousands of others. Science requires the patient and painstaking observers and recorders—the Tycho Brahes, Copernicuses and Keplers; it also requires, absolutely, the visionaries and eloquent communicators, activists, synthesizers, reachers and apparent prophets—the Galileos, DaVincis, Freuds, Jungs and Batesons…who are sometimes so far ahead, the measurement techniques don’t even exist to confirm their knowledge—like the example of Einstein—or of Freud and Stern—or Arrhenius. Occasionally those are found melded in one person, like Rachel Carson (despite the cynically dishonest industry-fueled attacks on her and her science since it was formulated), but unified or separate the whole range of functions is needed in science.

              Not satisfied with Marx, Freud and Adler? I should hope not. Neither am I. Far from it, though I’m grateful for their contributions. The first 2 at least were revolutionaries but as humans always are, especially as individuals, were flawed and limited. Part of their problem was their culture’s skewed child development, the same problem that, intensified, has led to this dire climate crisis and keeps you in willful ignorance of the horrific effects of the actions you collaborate with. Those actions delay what we should have started decades ago at least, to prevent planetary cataclysm. (We never know if denying delayalists are lying or ignorant but they amount to the same thing in the larger picture and they both play a part in the system of attack on science, reality, and survival.)

              You want to argue the differences, including the different but equally profound value of “hard” and “soft” sciences? That would make a great topic for another time. Now we’re talking about hard science: physics, chemistry, atmospheric science, palynology, geology, biology, entomology, botany, ornithology, mammalogy, interdisciplinary climate science, geophysiology, and on and on. People have, both as a natural part of the pratityasamutpada of science and because of the wealth-warped political system that has distorted and endangered our society, tried to falsify climate science and have utterly failed, thus helping to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
              But since you mentioned it, I’ve found that the overwhelming majority of those who disparage psychology and psychotherapy are among those who need it the most, because they’re the most wounded and thus the ones most afraid—and most unaware—of their own shadows, to speak in Jungian terms. They’re also the ones who we most need to be healed, with the help of those around them with enough love and wisdom to do it. You should look into that before you post again.

            2. DirkH

              “tried to falsify climate science and have utterly failed, ”

              I don’t think so:
              http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss

            3. DirkH

              “to speak in Jungian terms”

              Ah yeah, first you say we made so much progress since Freud yet then you fall back to the father of Orgon energy…

              Psychotherapy, always New Lies For Old… just like Marxism-Leninism.

            4. J4zonian

              Dirk

              [-snip, too childish – please present some data, results or facts instead of this low-level silly taunting]

      3. DirkH

        “I understand that the idea of climate catastrophe can cause fear, denial and rage. But all the scariest events—tyranny, chaos and economic collapse—will be much worse if we continue on as we are.”

        Well, for once you are right, if we continue to replace cheap abundant sources of energy with expensive unreliable ones like wind and solar, collapse is a certainty.

        But that wasn’t that hard to see.

        1. J4zonian

          Don’t you get tired of dreaming up lies and cutting and pasting outrageous talking points from the genocidal/suicidal-maniacs-are-us website?

          After all the accumulated and ongoing subsidies,( 3/4 of a trillion $/yr globally) and even with the massive fortunes their owners have extorted from captive audiences, fossil fuels are losing ground to solar and wind, strong technologies whose time has come. Despite the subsidies the price for fossil fuels is constantly going up* while solar and wind prices are going down.

          Wind and solar each typically grows by 30% per year.

          100% of US energy added to the grid last month was renewable.

          Wind power is now cheaper than coal in Australia, and close to it all over the world, including the US.

          Efficiency is the cheapest source of energy of all.

          Germany is forging ahead of the US with solar installation, especially rooftop solar, because government policies, business profits and social attitudes there support it. (Not because, as Fox News reported, it’s sunnier in Germany, which is so laughable even the notoriously and constantly wrong Fox News had to retract.) The price is lower, it competes with all other sources, and will soon be the way Germany is powered. Not so the US, where the oil, coal and gas corporate chokehold on government won’t allow such sensible things to happen nearly as much.

          *although there’s some noise in the data. You know about noise in data, right? Things not going up the graph in a straight line, but wiggles and wobbles that just the same don’t change the fact that the trend is clear? It’s the noise-in-the-data fallacy that’s the main problem–well, one of the problems–with the 16-year nonsense.

          I actually had citations for each of these facts but figured you’d just find fault, even though there is none. So you can search for them by phrase; there are scores of citations at least, for each one. Take your pick. There are also hundreds more similar facts showing how absurd your lies about energy sources are.

          1. Ed Caryl

            “100% of US energy added to the grid last month was renewable.”
            No it wasn’t. Natural gas was probably 60%. And, last months figures will not be available for several months. For the figures projected, see here:
            http://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_04_05.html

  10. Peter

    My Google Translator of the article is different to what you post.

    It reads: “We create a great anxiety, but it is justified, and it does not lead to any action”

    Also there is no mention of the chaotic nature of models or that observed measures are “better”.

    I don’t know Swedish but they seem pretty big differences to what you have posted??

  11. So Long, Farewell, Auf Wiedersehen, Goodbye « American Elephants

    […] top Swedish climate scientist, Dr. Lennart Bengstrom, just pointed out that the warming we have had is not noticeable. The warming we have had in the last 100 years is so […]

  12. Ingemar Nordin

    Peter, your Google translator does not seem to work. On the contrary Lennart Bengtsson does not see any justification for the anxiety or the alarmism that is spread by the media.

    Here is a much longer interview with LB
    http://www.katterno.fi/assets/Publikationer/Katterno_1_2013_SE_6.pdf

    A citation (translated by me):
    “That our planet is exposed to an insignificant warming, which hardly anyone would have noticed unless the meteorologists had mentioned it, can not be a cause for a radical and untried change of the global economy.”

  13. Henrik Mahlberg

    A qoute from the link in Ingemars reply about politicians and climate models “It’s kind of like giving grandchildren loaded rifles and hand grenades to play with”

  14. IPCC Confirms CO2 Is Not A “Thermostat” & Global Warming Is Not “Dangerous” » Infowars Wexford

    […] the world’s citizens, the experts and pompous political elites and elected officials have been egregiously […]

  15. J4zonian

    I posted a response to Steve, Bob et, under Bob’s post. It hasn’t appeared. Maybe it’s just delayed.

  16. J4zonian

    Ed, Dirk,

    The science is clear. The biosphere is heating. It’s caused by humans. It’s going to be disastrous if we don’t stop what we’re doing very soon. The solutions are: efficiency, solar and wind energy, democracy, reforestation, low-meat local organic permaculture, and other smaller contributors. Everything we need to do we know how to do. No breakthroughs or miracles are required. We can do this if we simply start doing it now and move at a pace that’s in touch with the reality of physics, chemistry and ecology.

    You have a lot of questions; most of them involve statements that just aren’t true. Obviously I can’t answer them all here. Fortunately there are several place you can get your questions answered and your misconceptions corrected. I don’t know if you’re lying yourself or being lied to by others but either way it’s amazing to me. The science is so overwhelmingly, absolutely clear; more scientists agree on climate catastrophe than almost any scientific question still being investigated. (For example, more agree that fire is hot but very few studies have been done on it in the last 3 or 400 years. It’s not, if you’ll pardon the expression, a hot topic.)

    While we know everything we need to know to act, we should keep working out the finest details of climate change and observe—how fast is it happening, what effects do we have to mitigate and what can we still avoid, what tipping points have we passed and which ones are we coming up on…? and like a person ages and has to simply watch the body break down, we need to observe the unraveling of our world self, the biosphere we’re all part of. Everything that is scary about climate change is going to be made worse by not acting fast enough—tyranny, chaos, privation, division, conflict, collapse… Literally every week more science becomes available that makes the connections, directions and meanings more clear. Find it, read it, pay attention.

    See skepticalscience.org, climateprogress.org and grist.org/article/series/skeptics. Lots of explanations of the science and links to the science itself Also realclimate.org for more details.

    I understand how much fear, grief and rage come up over that; you and we need to get past that and accept the science. So many lies are being told here, consciously or not by those who posted them; we all need to find a community that will support us in getting past the impulse to deny reality so we can start to do what we need to do.

    1. Ed Caryl

      J4…
      Yeah, I know, resistance is futile…

    2. DirkH

      ” The biosphere is heating.”
      Not in Germany.
      “It’s caused by humans.”
      What part of “temperatures have been flat the last 15 years” don’t you understand?
      “You have a lot of questions; most of them involve statements that just aren’t true. Obviously I can’t answer them all here.”

      Answer just one: What data tells you that the planet is warming? Notice I said data. Global Warming Model output is not data. Data as in Measured.

      1. J4zonian

        Not in Germany? What in hell are you talking about? Do you have the vaguest notion of anything about climate change at all? What part of GLOBAL warming do you not understand? Repeat after me, please, LOCAL, GLOBAL, L-O-C-A-L, G-L-O-B-A-L… Some parts at some time get colder (often because of changed weather patterns caused by GLOBAL warming, sometimes not) but that does not change the fact of the ongoing warming of the Earth , which is not LOCAL, but GLOBAL. See the difference? They’re not the same thing, because one is LOCAL and the other is GLOBAL.

        What part of “cherry picking” do YOU not understand? Read the science.
        http://climatecrocks.com/2013/01/10/skeptical-science-on-the-16-years-nonsense/ Read the science.

        And one more piece of advice: READ THE SCIENCE.

        Or in this case, watch the science videos. (2 videos, don’t miss the escalator)

        1. Ed Caryl

          I read the science all the time. Data from GISS, NOAA, Hadley Center, UAH, NASA, and hundreds of peer reviewed papers. I quote that data in my articles here. I do NOT read the warmist blogs because they do not look at the data. They just parrot themselves.

          1. J4zonian

            Reading science selectively to cherrypick propaganda to confuse and mislead people is not useful. Nor is it honest or honorable. Read the science and learn from it.

            Tens of thousands of scientists, at least, have looked at the whole picture, have eliminated, disproved or dismissed exactly the arguments you’re trying to use to confuse science-ignorant people. They know that the Earth is warming, that it’s caused by humans, that it’s dangerous, and that we can stop it.

            Why don’t you?

            Why do you continue to deny and ignore the overwhelming worldwide scientific consensus on global warming after the lies you’re spreading are pointed out and refuted?

            Why do you continue to lie?

            Why do you continue to collaborate with the most evil people in the experience of humanity, those willing to destroy civilization for the sake of a few more years of profits and to avoid having to face their own emotions?

            I’m sorry, I’m through with you. Until you’re willing to speak as responsible adults society has no use for you. With all due respect, grow up.

        2. DirkH

          J4zonian
          5. März 2013 at 10:16 | Permalink | Reply
          “Repeat after me, please, LOCAL, GLOBAL, L-O-C-A-L, G-L-O-B-A-L… Some parts at some time get colder (often because of changed weather patterns caused by GLOBAL warming, sometimes not)”

          J4zonian, please don’t stop the Prozac. You’re a psychotherapist, you know what the next psychotic break will do to you.

          Oh, and why is it that the CO2AGW scientists have never made a prediction that says: It will get colder in Germany while some other place is warming. Really, they never did. And it would of course have been laughable. What with conduction. Handwaving and pointing to weather patterns?

          See, the entire globe is not warming, is that global enough for you:
          http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss

          1. J4zonian

            How come you’re posting as if you know something but don’t understand the most basic things about statistics, complex systems, or data from trends? How come you don’t know anything about climate change but are acting as if you do? Or are you just lying? You need, and we desperately need you to explore the reasons you’re doing this.

            I explained the answer to your disingenuous questions, as did the climate scientists, and the IPCC, and the models, decades ago. We all keep explaining it because denying delayalists, either shills for or dupes of [-snip… please get away from this childish name-calling].

  17. J4zonian

    Intentionally or not, this is what you’re doing: http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47 It’s a misleading misuse of cherrypicked statistics, trying to make statistical noise seem like signal. It’s dishonest and manipulative and counts on people’s ignorance, otherwise it doesn’t work. It’s much like all your arguments in that way. Why are you doing this?

    Read the science.

    The Earth is warming. Humans are causing it, mostly with greenhouse gases, also deforestation and destruction of soil organics. It is unraveling the biosphere already and will get much worse but we can stop it by switching to renewable energy, reforestation and organic permaculture.

    1. DirkH

      “It’s a misleading misuse of cherrypicked statistics, trying to make statistical noise seem like signal. ”

      That is of course projection. It is in fact the other way round. No human being can detect Global warming with his senses; as Global Warming is far weaker than diurnal temperature variations, and far far smaller than seasonal temperature variations.

      So the “signal” of Global Warming must be extracted by the climatists out of a huge bag of noise. A hallmark of pathological science as defined by Landmuir.

      “Why are you doing this? ”

      It’s fun to debunk propagandists like you.

  18. J4zonian

    Interesting that you think helping to bring on unimaginable suffering for billions is fun. Well, not so much interesting as profoundly sad, tragic and pathetic.

    The scientific community agrees, (even former denying delayalist Richard Muller, who used Koch funding to attack climate science and instead proved it true): climate catastrophe is real, human caused and heading us toward unparalleled cataclysm. I strongly recommend reading the science, getting into therapy to find out why you are so in favor of wreaking havoc on the world, and then helping us to undo what those who have lied to you and used you have done.

    1. Ed Caryl

      You are a John Cook Bot, right?
      The unimaginable suffering will be brought on by artificially raising the costs of energy with no affect on CO2 or warming.

      I’ve read Muller. He found what he wanted to find.

  19. J4zonian

    My posts have apparently stopped being allowed in; in addition to a couple of random ones before, the last several replies I’ve posted have not appeared. Please read the science and reconsider your position.

    1. Ed Caryl

      If you put to many links in a post they get caught in Pierre’s spam filter. Certain key words also get caught. Don’t get paranoid. Mine get caught also.

  20. J4zonian

    “childish name-calling”… Isn’t that a contradiction?

  21. J4zonian

    Even though I wasn’t aware opinions weren’t allowed on this site, the post you refused was filled with facts:

    Orgone was spelled wrong, and Jung had nothing to do with it, that was Wilhelm Reich. My post contained a number of facts about the contributions Carl Jung made to psychology and civilization.

    Oh, and I forgot these:

    “J4zonian, please don’t stop the Prozac. You’re a psychotherapist, you know what the next psychotic break will do to you.“

    “…pathological science.“ referring to the overwhelming near-unanimity of science supporting anthropogenic global warming, and over 10,000 peer-reviewed studies showing so

    “Where did you learn economics?“ “Go and find a table that you can wait.“ DirkH

    But clearly those are factual data offered in the spirit of scholastic intercourse.

    1. DirkH

      Thanks for correcting me.

  22. J4zonian

    The moderator keeps asking for facts, data, etc. but posts containing links to them get deleted. The facts presented in favor of what virtually all scientists and every national and major scientific organization in the world agree on are completely ignored, distorted and cherry picked by responders, so are utterly useless here, as they are on all sites populated by those who call themselves global warming “skeptics”.

    But a skeptic is someone who is careful about believing unsupported claims, not someone who refuses to believe a particular side no matter how much incontrovertible evidence is set forth. I’ve posted all the links anyone could want to refutations of the claims made, referring to the most reputable data and peer-reviewed studies available. I’ve been told by the responders that they don’t pay attention to such sites, which were called “warmist”, apparently for referring to science supporting that side of the “debate”. The fact that there is no other science apparently doesn’t matter.

    Once it turns out the 13,000 studies supporting global warming are found by the public to be true and the price of delay starts to be paid, people here run the risk of being isolated and even hated. That would be unfortunate and I’ve done everything I can to prevent it. I guess that’s my mistake. I apologize and will leave you to your discussion.

    1. Ed Caryl

      Have you read ANY of my posts?

    2. DirkH

      J4zonian, I am at a loss how you can still think the planet is warming. It hasn’t warmed in 15 years, or maybe 17; look at UAH or RSS.

      As for the physical mechanism – a slight increase in average cloudiness is enough to offset any pressure broadening of the CO2 absorption (and re-emission) bands, so it is not difficult to explain it.

      In other words, to determine whether you are right or I, it suffices to track the temperatures.

      As the GCMs have predicted relentless warming (which is logical, given the CO2AGW theory), and the Earth hasn’t refused to warm, we see the failure of a scientific movement built on a theory that fails.

      see Lakatos about Degenerative Research Programs to understand the psychological mechanisms that drive helpers like Marcott and Shakun to publish their questionable defensive papers.

      It’s an interesting phenomenon especially for a psychologist. Also, please don’t worry. (to cite the head of the Bank Of Japan)

      1. DirkH

        “and the Earth hasn’t refused to warm”

        well, that didn’t make sense; of course I meant
        “and the Earth has refused to warm”

        Now don’t get started with Freudian slips or anything. Again, only the temperature counts.

  23. J4zonian

    I just noticed the original of this was refused. I’m not sure why. It’s quotes, (you can look them up; they are all right here on this page) facts about what was said and questions about the difference between insults that are allowed and insults that aren’t allowed. What criteria should I have used to differentiate?

    [Snip. Insults fly on both sides, and minor ones have been allowed on both sides. But there comes a point when enough is enough. I’m not interested opening a childish debate on who has the most insults. Please get back on topic. -PG]

    Apparently on this site insults by “warmists” (aka people who believe in science) are worse than insults and aspersions by others, and worse than making statements that distort science and mislead the public on the most dire situation humans have ever faced. Do I have that wrong? Please point out my error if it’s not correct. I’ll keep that hierarchy of priorities in mind in the future. Thanks for clarifying it.

  24. DirkH

    J4zonian, another hint. I offer you two links to pages that discuss the recent Marcott and Shakun paper.
    Climate Audit:
    http://climateaudit.org/2013/03/16/the-marcott-shakun-dating-service/#comments

    and Joe Romm:
    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/08/1691411/bombshell-recent-warming-is-amazing-and-atypical-and-poised-to-destroy-stable-climate-that-made-civilization-possible/?mobile=nc

    You can use McIntyre’s post and the comments to understand what Shakun and Marcott have done. You can, on the other hand, use Joe Romm’s post to wallow in your apocalyptic fears. Please compare the level of technical detail, oh my, did I really just say that.

  25. J4zonian

    Meta comments about the nature of the debate are exactly on topic, because the form and nature of the debate determine everything that happens in the debate. The nature of this debate is that no facts or reasoning I post are going to make any difference at all. The fact that all national and major scientific organizations in the world and virtually all scientists in relevant fields believe one thing, based on all the data, and that a few scientists mostly found to have financial ties to fossil fuel corporations say something else and support it with tiny snippets of cherry picked data (16 years, eg.) means nothing at all here because there is a psychological and ideological basis to that belief that apparently does not consider facts and overwhelming evidence important. I yield to your superior intransigence. Please read the science.

    1. Ed Caryl

      Science is data and analysis of data, not propaganda. We read the science.

    2. DirkH

      J4zonian, what’s your comment on Marcott’s and Shakun’s re-dating of proxies? Do you think it is defensible? If we ignore the non-robust (in Marcott’s words) uptick in the end, do you agree that Marcott and Shakun 2013 shows a long term cooling?

  26. Josef Boberg

    Jag tror på goda grunder att CO2 – som i någon betydelsefull grad klimatförändrande – ÄR en ren bluff ifrån början till slut. Om vad jag grundar det på – har jag tydliggjort i två kommentarer HÄR.