I'm somewhat confused about this global warming & the impact of rising sea levels. All this data & research is so damn varied. Apparently, the behavior of the sea level is an important indicator of climate change..
Now all are all these luxury ocean front properties that are already established and being developed along the coast somewhat doomed ? I certainly enjoy the ambience of ocean side living. I have noticed more & more erosion over the years , don't think that's good is it also impacting on the marine life, coral formations etc?
Perhaps everyone should know how to swim ...like good vegemites..
Newjerk? can you try harder than dig up another person's blog. My first promo was with Billabong and my name in English is modified with a T, am Perth born but also lived in Sydney to make my $$ It's Absolutely Fabulous if it includes brilliant locations, & high calibre tenants..what more does one want? Understand the power of the two "P"" or be financially challenged Even better when there is family who are property mad and one is born in some entitlements.....Understand that beautiful women are the exhibitionists we crave attention, whilst hot blooded men are the voyeurs ... A stunning woman can command and takes pleasure in being noticed. Seems not too many understand what it means to hold and own props and get threatened by those who do. Banks are considered to be law abiding and & rather boring places yeah not true . A bank balance sheet will show capital is dwarfed by their liabilities this means when a portions of loans is falling its problems for the bank.
Hang on - doesn't that chart actually show that the 95% predictions have so far been proven to be correct? The 95% prediction provides a range with a lower and and an upper bound. The fact that the records are coming in at/near the lower 95% bound does not make the model incorrect. And the fact that the data is outside the 75% bounds simply means that the odds came up such that 25% chance that this would happen, is what happened?
The modelling behind climate change is certainly an "inexact" science - but this chart and the chart posted by MIW certianly demonstrate the trend we can see over the last 100-150 years. The thing to do now - which I am sure is happening, is to refine / imporve the models so that they can reflect more accurately what has now been observed, and this may improve their predictions for future changes.
For Aussie property bears, "denial", is not just a long river in North Africa.....
Hang on - doesn't that chart actually show that the 95% predictions have so far been proven to be correct?
Only the area to the right of the blue bar are true predictions. To the left of the blue bar was 'retrospectively predicted'.
If you look at the predictions to the right of the blue bar, really all they seem to have done is extend the trendline from around 1965 to 2005, and assume that trend will continue indefinitely.
In reality, the data has actually been moving away from that trendline since the true predictions began.
Temperatures today are lower than they were in 1998.
I think you meant....Another tiny splinter towards what might eventually become a coffin for the alarmists.....published in the DailyMail writing about revised forecasts by the Met office, who admit they didn't factor in enough temporary cooling of the oceans over the short term.
Ironically the article was about climate alarmists not drawing enough attention to it and ignoring data about revising down. Perhaps you are equally as guilty as a denialist of drawing too much attention to non outcomes such as this?
Shadow
16 May 2013, 02:19 PM
Only the area to the right of the blue bar are true predictions. To the left of the blue bar was 'retrospectively predicted'.
If you look at the predictions to the right of the blue bar, really all they seem to have done is extend the trendline from around 1965 to 2005, and assume that trend will continue indefinitely.
In reality, the data has actually been moving away from that trendline since the true predictions began.
Temperatures today are lower than they were in 1998.
I will welcome the good news if it proves true. I'd love a new VF SS-V wagon.
I'm somewhat confused about this global warming & the impact of rising sea levels. All this data & research is so damn varied. Apparently, the behavior of the sea level is an important indicator of climate change..
Now all are all these luxury ocean front properties that are already established and being developed along the coast somewhat doomed ? I certainly enjoy the ambience of ocean side living. I have noticed more & more erosion over the years , don't think that's good is it also impacting on the marine life, coral formations etc?
Perhaps everyone should know how to swim ...like good vegemites..
Yes, the seal level is affected by 2 major factors.
1. The temperature of the ocean, especially subsurface temperatures (which are apparently increasing, but there really isn't enough widespread reliable data since it's just a crazy amount of mass to measure globally). Higher temperatures cause expansion.
2 - Melting of land-based frozen reserves.
This swelling of oceans due to rising sea temperatures is linked to the non-heating article posted by Shadow. If the Met office is correct in stating the reason for almost no warming in the past 15 years is due to a temporary increase in heat taken up by ocean movements then we should see higher sea temperatures and some swelling. However I suspect this would be at an immeasurably small level over the short-term due to the large mass of the ocean and the high heat capacity of water (plus non-homogeneous mixing effects in the short term vs our limited understanding).
Shadow
16 May 2013, 02:36 PM
I have never denied that the global climate experiences changes.
I'm simply highlighting the important fact that global temperatures haven't really increased for the past fifteen years.
The measured temperatures haven't increase much, I agree.
By environment reporter Sarah Clarke and Katie Hamann Updated Mon May 20, 2013 7:25pm AEST
A new report says the planet may be warming slower in the short-term than had been previously projected.
The study published in the journal Nature Geoscience reveals that while the world has experienced its hottest decade since records began, the rate of average warming has been lower over the past decade.
By using modelling based on data from the past 10 years, the report says that after significant rises in the 1980s and 1990s, the most extreme projections are now looking less likely than before.
The lead author of the report, Dr Alexander Otto from Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute, estimates that in the coming decades, global average temperatures will warm about 20 per cent more slowly than expected.
"The shorter-term range, which is the rate of warming which we might expect over this century, might actually have to be adjusted down slightly," he said.
Dr Otto says the previous worst-case scenarios predicted by some scientists may need to be slightly revised.
"If we take this hypothetical scenario of doubling the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, then we would see an increase in temperature of 0.9 to 2 degrees," he said.
"This is lower than the range in the ensemble of models that are being used for example in the upcoming Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which have a range of 1 to 2.5 degrees.
"We have a range that's slightly lower and that certainly would execute some of the more extreme models that are being used for projecting temperatures."
Longer-term warming trend will not change
But Dr Otto cautions that the longer-term warming trend will not change and it will eventually result in the same higher temperatures as earlier forecast.
"It certainly is no reason to relax or become complacent in terms of climate policy, because the rate of warming that we will see eventually in the coming centuries has not changed from this data," he said.
"If we were following our current emission trends... we would still look at temperatures at the end of the century significantly above the 2 degrees target that we are talking about."
The Nature Geoscience report suggests the slow-down in temperature rises can be explained by the fact that the world's oceans are capturing heat more rapidly than expected over the past decade.
The IPCC, the United Nations' chief climate science body, will release its next major report in September.
A contributor to the report, Professor Steven Sherwood from the University of NSW, is sceptical of the latest findings.
He says eventually the ocean will stop taking up the heat.
"Although the surface temperatures are not warming quite as fast, when you look down below the surface at the oceans where all the heat is going, that's still increasing about the same," he said.
"What they infer from that is that the ocean is taking up the heat a bit faster."
Rise may be part of natural and changeable cycle
He also suggests that the rise in ocean temperatures may be part of a natural and changeable cycle.
"They haven't taken into account the natural variations in the ocean that cause it to temporarily store heat and we know it does that," he said. Some experts say rise in ocean temperatures may be part of a natural cycle. Beach at Woolgoolga, NSW. Photo: Some experts say rise in ocean temperatures may be part of a natural cycle. (National Parks NSW)
"For example, an El Nino is when the heat stored in the ocean temporarily glurges out so the surface warms up but the total amount of heat in the system doesn't change.
"They haven't accounted for that and I think it may just be that if we repeat this analysis in another 10 years and do this calculation again, the answer is going to go right back to where it was before."
The lead author of the next IPCC report says their forecasts are consistent with previous long-term estimates.
The IPCC's draft report indicates that the planet may be on track to reach a temperature rise of up to 4.5 degrees by the turn of the century.
Today we released research which reduces the range of uncertainty in future global warming. It does not alter the fact we will never be certain about how, exactly, the climate will change.
We always have to make decisions when there are uncertainties about the future: whether to take an umbrella when we go outside, how much to spend on insurance. International action on climate change is just one more decision that has to be made in an environment of uncertainty.
The most recent assessment of climate change made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007 looked at what is known with high confidence about climate change, as well as uncertainties. It included projections of future global warming to the end of this century based on simulations from a group of complex climate models.
These models included a range of uncertainties, coming from natural variability of the climate and the representation of important processes in the models. But the models did not consider uncertainty from interactions with the carbon cycle – the way carbon is absorbed and released by oceans, plant life and soil. In order to allow for these uncertainties, the likely range of temperature change was expanded.
Our recent study has re-visited these results and tested an approach to reduce the range of uncertainty for future global warming. We wanted to calibrate the key climate and carbon cycle parameters in a simple climate model using historical data as a basis for future projections. We used observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for the last 50 years to constrain the representation of the carbon cycle in the model. We also took the more common approach of using global atmospheric and ocean temperature variations to constrain the response of the climate system.
This led to a narrower range of projected temperature changes for a given set of greenhouse gas emissions. As a consequence, we have higher confidence in the projections. In other words, using both climate and carbon dioxide observations reduces the uncertainties in projections of global warming.
Figure 1. Global-mean temperature change for a business-as-usual emission scenario, relative to pre-industrial. Black line: median, shaded regions 67% (dark), 90% (medium) and 95% (light) confidence intervals. The sidebars are uncertainty ranges based on the IPCC likely range and best estimate (grey column) for 2090-2099 and our corresponding results (purple column) from the simple climate model (MAGICC); the black bars are the respective best estimates (modified from Nature Climate Change paper). Bodman & Karoly
We found that uncertainties in the carbon cycle are the second-largest contributor to the overall range of uncertainty in future global warming. The main contributor is climate sensitivity, a measure of how the climate responds to increases in greenhouse-gas concentrations.
Climate sensitivity has been discussed recently on The Conversation. A recent study by Alexander Otto of Oxford University and colleagues, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, also considered future global warming in the context of observations of global mean temperature change over the last decade.
Unlike that study, our results do not show lower climate sensitivity or lower mean projected global warming. Our study uses the same observed global atmospheric and ocean temperature data. But we also used observed carbon dioxide data and represented important additional processes in our simplified climate model, particularly the carbon cycle on the land and in the ocean and uncertainties in the climate forcing due to aerosols.
In our study, the reductions in uncertainty came from using the observations, the relationships between them and how these affect the parameters in the simple climate model. We found 63 per cent of the uncertainty in projected warming was due to single sources, such as climate sensitivity, the carbon cycle components and the cooling effect of aerosols, while 37 per cent of uncertainty came from the combination of these sources.
Once we reduced the uncertainty we found there is an increased risk of exceeding a lower temperature change threshold, but a reduced chance of exceeding a high threshold. That is, for business-as-usual emissions of greenhouse gases, exceeding 6 degrees Celsius global warming by 2100 is now unlikely, while exceeding 2 degrees is virtually certain.
These results reconfirm the need for urgent and substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions if the world is to avoid exceeding the global warming target of 2 degrees. Keeping warming below 2 degrees is necessary to minimise dangerous climate change.
It is unlikely that uncertainties in projected warming will be reduced substantially. Indeed, if you allow for population growth, levels of economic activity, growth in demand for energy and the means of producing that energy, overall uncertainty increases. We just have to accept that we will have to manage the risks of global warming with the knowledge we have. We may not know exactly how much and by when average temperatures change, but we know they will. This is an experiment we probably don’t want to make with the only planet we have to live on.
This piece was originally commissioned as a response to a piece from Maurice Newman, which can be found here.
What is the difference between a genuine scientific sceptic (aka an agnostic) and a science denier? It’s simple: sceptics consider the full body of evidence before making up their mind. Deniers already have their mind made up and reject any evidence that conflicts with their pre-conceived views.
It’s not that difficult identifying denialist behaviour. The tell-tale characteristic is denial of the full body of evidence.
For example, there is an overwhelmingly strong case that humans are causing global warming. Many lines of evidence, taken from direct, real-world measurements, all point to a single, consistent answer. The heat-trapping nature of greenhouse gases has been known since John Tyndall measured them in the laboratory in 1859. Tyndall predicted the distinct climate fingerprints you’d expect to see from greenhouse warming.
A century and a half later, these predictions have been confirmed by modern observations. Just as Tyndall anticipated, winters are warming faster than summers. Consistent with greenhouse warming, nights are warming faster than days.
A number of additional human fingerprints have been observed throughout our climate. More heat is being observed returning back to the Earth’s surface, at the exact wavelengths that greenhouse gases absorb energy. Another pattern of greenhouse warming is a cooling upper atmosphere while the lower atmosphere warms. This has also been observed.
And a smoking gun that emphatically points to human causation comes from satellites measuring less heat escaping to space at those same greenhouse wavelengths. The scientists publishing this research described this as "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect".
Taken together, these fingerprints rule out other possible causes of global warming such as the sun, ocean cycles or Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory. In fact, in the last few decades of global warming, sun and climate have been moving in opposite directions. The same goes for cosmic rays. Solar activity, if anything, has recently had a slight cooling effect – in a small way, offsetting the warming effect of rising greenhouse gases.
The genuine scientific sceptic considers the full body of evidence. Deniers squeeze their eyes shut, stick their fingers in their ears and in that state, find no evidence for human-caused global warming. The same, tell-tale pattern of science denial is observed whenever the question of whether global warming is happening comes up. Climate deniers claim global warming stopped in 2000 (or 1998 or 2001 or even 1995 depending on the day of the week).
To make this claim requires turning a blind eye to the full body of evidence. When scientists add up all the heat accumulating in the oceans, warming the land and atmosphere and melting ice, they find that since 2000, our planet has been warming at a rate of four Hiroshima bombs worth of heat every second. The laws of physics still operate after 2000 and are, in fact, still in effect as we speak. The greenhouse effect continues to blaze away and the planet continues to build up heat.
While the surface temperature warming trend has flattened somewhat in recent years, this can only be understood in light of all the evidence. When considered in the context of the planet’s continued build-up in heat, it becomes clear that the slowdown in surface warming is due to the oceans absorbing more than the usual amount of heat.
Temporary drops in surface temperature have happened throughout the last few decades of global warming. As the planet has steadily built up heat, surface temperature jumps up and down from year to year as the ocean exchanges heat with the atmosphere.
How do deniers react to the planetary build up in heat? By denying the empirical evidence.
They reject any ocean measurements that show the planet is building up heat. They laser focus on the upper layers of the ocean while denying any measurements indicating heat build-up in the several kilometres of ocean below 700 metres.
The preponderance of evidence has resulted in a consensus among the scientific community. Several surveys of the scientific community have determined that around 97 per cent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming.
I was recently involved in a group effort to analyse 21 years of published climate research, with our results published in the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters. We found that among the papers stating a position on human-caused global warming, over 97 per cent endorsed the consensus. We also asked the scientists who authored the papers to rate their own research – this independent method also found a 97 per cent consensus that humans are causing global warming.
Our analysis is the latest in a series of studies (e.g., here, here and here) indicating overwhelming scientific consensus on the basic fact that human activity is disrupting our climate. We found over 10,000 scientists from over 70 countries publishing peer-reviewed papers endorsing the consensus. These scientists come from a range of disciplines including climate science, biology, chemistry, geology, paleoclimate and glaciology.
The scientific consensus is built on a foundation of empirical evidence and manifests in a diverse community of scientists spanning a range of disciplines in countries all over the world.
How is it that people deny the many lines of evidence for human-caused global warming, turn a blind eye to the astounding build-up in heat and reject the scientific consensus? The various movements that deny a scientific consensus all have a number of characteristics in common. A common technique is cherry picking of the data, for which we’ve already seen several examples.
Another characteristic of all movements that reject a scientific consensus is the inevitable clinging to desperate conspiracy theories. For example, many deniers of the link between AIDS and HIV believe that AIDS was created by the US government.
The tobacco industry accused the scientific consensus linking smoking to cancer of being a “a vertically integrated, highly concentrated, oligopolistic cartel" which "manufactures alleged evidence, suggestive inferences linking smoking to various diseases, and publicity and dissemination and advertising of these so-called findings."
Most climate conspiracy theories derive from a batch of private emails stolen from the University of East Anglia in 2009. The conspiracy theories are generally constructed by taking quotes out of context to imply a nefarious plot by climate scientists to falsify data. However, since the theft of the emails, nine independent enquiries by government and university bodies in the UK and USA have scrutinised the emails. Every single investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing by climate scientists.
The UK-based University of East Anglia concluded "The scientists’ rigor and honesty are not in doubt." The US National Science Foundation found “no research misconduct.”
So what was found in these investigations? The US Environmental Protection Agency discovered “simply a candid discussion of scientists working through issues that arise in compiling and presenting large complex data sets.”
You would think nine independent investigations by a range of organisations across two countries would allay the concerns of conspiracy theorists. However, a key characteristic of conspiracy theorists is that any evidence against their conspiracy theory is regarded as further proof that the conspiracy exists. Consequently, each time a new investigation concluded that there was no climate conspiracy, climate deniers responded by broadening the conspiracy to include the investigators.
Climate ‘sceptics’ are anything but genuine sceptics. They deny the full body of evidence, they cherry pick the data and they indulge in vast, implausible conspiracy theories involving tens of thousands of scientists across a range of disciplines from countries all over the world. They believe a few out-of-context quotes from stolen emails can overturn the laws of physics and 150 years of scientific research.
Sadly, this behaviour shouldn’t surprise anyone. It is exactly the type of behaviour expected from any movement that denies a scientific consensus built on a preponderance of evidence.
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.
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
