Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
Global Warming: Glaciers, ice caps and ice sheets are collapsing, and it's unstoppable; How the planet's ice cover is being altered by climate change
Topic Started: 27 May 2014, 01:51 PM (22,693 Views)
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
Why economic models of climate change need better science

Mat Hope

Carbon Brief

Economic analysis can help policymakers gauge how much action it's worth taking to tackle future climate change. But some economic models have been criticised for failing to account for the findings of the latest climate science – resulting, critics say, in significant blind spots.

Prominent climate economist, Lord Stern, is one of those critics. He's previously warned that models "grossly underestimate" the risks of climate change, and consequently the cost of failing to act.

In a new paper due to be published in The Economic Journal and released by LSE this week, Stern and co-author Dr Simon Dietz try to redress the balance. They suggest informing models with the latest research strengthens the case for stringent action to tackle climate change.

Estimating costs

There are a number of models that try to work out how much economic damage climate change will cause in the future, and how much we should pay now to avoid that.

But the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report warned that such models were incomplete. The IPCC uses multiple 'integrated assessment models', or IAMs, to estimate the future cost of climate change. The models estimate changes in temperature and economic conditions based on future emissions. They then calculate how much additional damage is caused by emitting an extra tonne of carbon dioxide today.

That cost is known as the social cost of carbon and is expressed in dollars per tonne of carbon dioxide – a carbon price, effectively.

But the information you get out of models in only as good as the information you put in. Professor Chris Field, co-chair of one of the groups that wrote the IPCC report, has previously said the numbers produced by economic models are "old fashioned" when you consider "the modern science".

What does that mean? It implies that economic models don't capture all the potential impacts of climate change. That means they produce low social cost of carbon estimates, and underestimate the risk of failing to take action to tackle climate change.

Updating models

To address these gaps, Stern and Dietz tried to incorporate insights from recent climate science into one prominent model – the dynamic integrated climate-economy, aka DICE, model developed by Yale Professor Bill Nordhaus. The thinking goes that by updating what they describe as the models "unrealistic" assumptions, the results should become more useful.

For example, recent research suggests climate change could seriously damage some countries' infrastructure or cause certain assets (such as coastal power stations) to be abandoned. That could have a big impact on economic productivity, and so Stern and Dietz include this in the model.

They also adjust the model's climate sensitivity input – the impact of doubling the concentration of greenhouse gases on global temperatures. The standard DICE model only looks at the economic impact of around three degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels. Stern and Dietz make it consider a range from 1.5 to 6 degrees.

Finally, they adjust the temperature threshold at which the model assumes large economic losses occur. The standard DICE model suggests an 18-degree rise in global average temperatures would only result in a global economic output reducing by about 50 per cent. But such warming would likely render the Earth uninhabitable for most species, including humans. The tweaked model allows such damage to occur at much lower levels of warming, to try and better reflect the likely real world impact of climate change.

The result of the updates – perhaps unsurprisingly – is that the reformed DICE model implies taking much stronger action than previously. The updated model finds that if policymakers are going to avoid warming of more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, they should try to implement a carbon price of $US32 to $US103 today – either through a carbon market or a tax. The price should rise to $US82 to $US260 in 2035 depending on how great the damage from climate change is expected to be.

Useful indication

The carbon prices need to be taken with a pinch of salt, however. It's uncertain how much emissions could reduce as a result of implementing a stringent carbon price. That's why most models – including DICE – give a range of prices dependent on how big the climate impacts are anticipated to be.

Nonetheless, it's notable how the results differ to the model's previous recommendation and current carbon prices. Even in a best case scenario, the updated model's carbon price is considerably more than the $US12 the standard model recommends. It's also much more than current carbon prices. The EU's carbon market currently has a price of around €6 ($US8), and two US markets have prices of $US2 to $US15.

So even if the updated price range doesn't translate into a hard and fast policy recommendation, the discrepancy with current prices will support the argument that policymakers aren't doing enough to curb emissions.

Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2014/6/17/science-environment/why-economic-models-climate-change-need-better-science
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Investor888
Default APF Avatar


Quote:
 

They also adjust the model's climate sensitivity input – the impact of doubling the concentration of greenhouse gases on global temperatures. The standard DICE model only looks at the economic impact of around three degrees of warming above pre-industrial levels. Stern and Dietz make it consider a range from 1.5 to 6 degrees


The result of the updates – perhaps unsurprisingly – is that the reformed DICE model implies taking much stronger action than previously. The updated model finds that if policymakers are going to avoid warming of more than 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels, they should try to implement a carbon price of $US32 to $US103 today – either through a carbon market or a tax. The price should rise to $US82 to $US260 in 2035 depending on how great the damage from climate change is expected to be.


SO basically fudging the DICE climate models, to make it produce the ANSWER they want. Which is the problem is even worse than we though, even though the observed measurements and raw data prove the opposite.
And you fools want to rely on these fudged climate models.

Stern and Dietz make it consider a range from 1.5 to 6 degrees. Even though their existing climate models are FU##ED, and can't even match the measured no global warming for 17.5yrs now. So they up the figure to +6deg, and WOW, the rubbish out shows that the problem is worse. Garbage In, Garbage Out. Fudge In, Nonsense Out.

So they doubled the sensitivity to CO2 rise up to 6deg. Even though the past 17.5yrs, CO2 has been rising, but temperatures have not, so ALL models are currently inaccurate as it is. The stupidity defies logic. Proof that they will do anything to have the models produce any rubbish that continues their man -made warming myth
Edited by Investor888, 17 Jun 2014, 06:31 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
szokolay
Member Avatar


derp
16 Jun 2014, 10:28 PM


Credible sources? As in the ABC?
The abc is not a source, it is a news reporting agency. A credible source would be a scientific acadamy or university. I have read climate change denial reports from individual scientists but not one from a collective scientific body, because there is no such body in denial of the facts.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Count du Monet
Member Avatar


Investor888
17 Jun 2014, 06:00 PM




Stern and Dietz make it consider a range from 1.5 to 6 degrees. Even though their existing climate models are FU##ED, and can't even match the measured no global warming for 17.5yrs now.
Nothing new there. From 1940 to the late 70's the line went flat as well. But then Global atmospheric temperatures rose rapidly for the 20 years to 2000.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!!
You are no longer customer, you are property!!!

Don't be SAUCY with me Bernaisse
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Investor888
Default APF Avatar


Count du Monet
17 Jun 2014, 06:42 PM
Nothing new there. From 1940 to the late 70's the line went flat as well. But then Global atmospheric temperatures rose rapidly for the 20 years to 2000.
Your proving your ignorance and lack of knowledge once again Count. Read up on negative and positive phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation ( AMO) , both 30-40yr cycles. The cycles were negative 1940-1970's, then positive 1980, s to 2000's. Heading into negative phase again. PDO went negative phase again from 2005, and AMO is expected to go negative phase in about 2023.
With the stronger solar activity previous solar cycles the 1940-1970 negative phase ONLY resulted in flat, to slight decline in global temperatures. These coming negative phases plus weakening solar activity (from solar cycle 25 - 2019 onward) will lead to cooling. Learn some FACTS fool. QED!

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image
Edited by Investor888, 17 Jun 2014, 09:02 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


derp
17 Jun 2014, 12:45 PM
Surely, you must accept that there is a direct relationship between government management and education and science funding.
Oh, so you mean that because the government doesn't fund their academy, then obviously they must be unable to effectively do any science at all?
Quote:
 
I made the mistake of thinking I could just say 'Zimbabwe is third world' and you would be able to make all the logical deductions yourself. But now I see that I have to spell out every tiny detail for you and connect all the dots.
Zimbabwe is third world, and you're expecting them to have first world levels of access to resources. They might not have as much access to funding and communications as the western world, but that doesn't automatically make them wrong.
Quote:
 
As I say, send your kids to one of those countries for a good education.
As I've said many times, I won't have any kids, so my response will be worthless to you. But if I did have children, and they wanted to go to Zimbabwe for education, I would have no problems with them going.

And oddly, the Academy isn't an educational institution, it might be headquartered in a university, but that doesn't mean they teach anyone.
Quote:
 
Phoneline is not critical for a modern science academy? You really are out of touch. What about access to the host of online only science journals that exist today? I suppose they are just a 'convenience' too? I'm sure glad you're not in charge of Australia's university system.
Of course a permanent phone line isn't critical, and I didn't say that they have no access to online information, that's your silly assumption, I assume they borrow resources from the university in which they are headquartered, so if they need to look up information online, they use the university connection.

They might have a 3G connection of their own though, just because they don't pay for a phone line where you can call them, doesn't mean they have no access at all.
stinkbug
17 Jun 2014, 04:15 PM
But their smoke signals probably aren't very environmentally friendly.
Oh yes, so from no phone line permanently installed, to 'they must use smoke signals'. What crazy ridiculous logic. Surely they have the ability to go next door if they really need to call someone.
Edited by Kulganis, 17 Jun 2014, 07:44 PM.
"If man is to survive, he will have learned to take a delight in the essential differences between men and between cultures. He will learn that differences in ideas and attitudes are a delight, part of life's exciting variety, not something to fear." - Gene Roddenberry

"Balloon animals are a great way to teach children that the things they love dearly, may spontaneously explode" -- Lee Camp
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
PiratePete1911
Member Avatar


I cant believe you guys are still entertaining Investor888, his account was created pretty much just to comment on climate change threads. He registered and his very first post was climate change. What kind of normal person registers on a PROPERTY forum just to try and muddy the waters around climate change?

You cannot change the mind of someone who only has one purpose.

Its the same reason I cant believe people still respond to Strindberg, unlike other bulls he doesn't seem like a real person. He seems to only post things that will support one agenda or the other and posts that discredit people. He also only posts in threads that he knows he will come out on top.

If there is a thread with solid evidence of something he will pretend like it doesn't exist and simply continue in the next thread that has data he can manipulate to fit the bill.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Investor888
Default APF Avatar


PiratePete1911
17 Jun 2014, 09:07 PM
Its the same reason I cant believe people still respond to Strindberg, unlike other bulls he doesn't seem like a real person. He seems to only post things that will support one agenda or the other and posts that discredit people. He also only posts in threads that he knows he will come out on top.

If there is a thread with solid evidence of something he will pretend like it doesn't exist and simply continue in the next thread that has data he can manipulate to fit the bill.
That's the attitude that makes us successful. Not listening to negative and doomsday predictions from fools (on property or climate). Having an understanding of what is actually happening.

I'll be retired at 45 from property investment. What about you. Still waiting for the property crash :re:
PiratePete1911
17 Jun 2014, 09:07 PM
I cant believe you guys are still entertaining Investor888, his account was created pretty much just to comment on climate change threads. He registered and his very first post was climate change. What kind of normal person registers on a PROPERTY forum just to try and muddy the waters around climate change?
This forum is a joke of a PROPERTY forum anyway. So many whinging doomers and gloomers, with NO understanding of what drives the property market, property cycles, property investment structures, financing structure (interest only + offset). If I want a proper property forum, I go to Somersoft.
Edited by Investor888, 17 Jun 2014, 09:33 PM.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
apex
Default APF Avatar
Gold Member
Investor888
17 Jun 2014, 09:16 PM
If I want a proper property forum, I go to Somersoft.
Who do you post as on Somersoft?
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
peter fraser
Member Avatar


Investor888
17 Jun 2014, 09:16 PM
This forum is a joke of a PROPERTY forum anyway. So many whinging doomers and gloomers, with NO understanding of what drives the property market, property cycles, property investment structures, financing structure (interest only + offset). If I want a proper property forum, I go to Somersoft.
This forum actually isn't bad for property, although I can see why you struggle with it. Your knowledge on property is passable at best but don't worry you will pick it up as you go along.

Any expressed market opinion is my own and is not to be taken as financial advice
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply



Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.

Forum Rules: The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.

Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.

Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.

This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.

For more information go to Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Fair Use

Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ

Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy