Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 20
We got climate change wrong says IPCC - global warming estimates revised down; Global temperatures less sensitive to atmospheric carbon dioxide than previously thought
Topic Started: 16 Sep 2013, 01:42 PM (15,924 Views)
Admin
Member Avatar
Administrator

Quote:
 
We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC

Graham Lloyd, Environment editor
September 16, 2013 12:00AM

THE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment reportedly admits its computer drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007.

More importantly, according to reports in British and US media, the draft report appears to suggest global temperatures were less sensitive to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than was previously thought.

The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade, but according to Britain's The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12C.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to deny it was locked in crisis talks as reports intensified that scientists were preparing to revise down the speed at which climate change is happening and its likely impact.

It is believed the IPCC draft report will still conclude there is now greater confidence that climate change is real, humans are having a major impact and that the world will continue to warm catastrophically unless drastic action is taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions.

Read more: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/we-got-it-wrong-on-warming-says-ipcc/comments-e6frg8y6-1226719672318

Quote:
 
Global warming is just HALF what we said: World's top climate scientists admit computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong

By David Rose
PUBLISHED: 21:01 GMT, 14 September 2013

Posted Image

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has changed its story after issuing stern warnings about climate change for years

A leaked copy of the world’s most authoritative climate study reveals scientific forecasts of imminent doom were drastically wrong.

The Mail on Sunday has obtained the final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science.

They are cited worldwide to justify swingeing fossil fuel taxes and subsidies for ‘renewable’ energy.

Yet the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007.

Back then, it said that the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2C every decade – a figure it claimed was in line with the forecasts made by computer climate models.

But the new report says the true figure since 1951 has been only 0.12C per decade – a rate far below even the lowest computer prediction.

The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.

They recognise the global warming ‘pause’ first reported by The Mail on Sunday last year is real – and concede that their computer models did not predict it. But they cannot explain why world average temperatures have not shown any statistically significant increase since 1997.

They admit large parts of the world were as warm as they are now for decades at a time between 950 and 1250 AD – centuries before the Industrial Revolution, and when the population and CO2 levels were both much lower.

The IPCC admits that while computer models forecast a decline in Antarctic sea ice, it has actually grown to a new record high. Again, the IPCC cannot say why.

A forecast in the 2007 report that hurricanes would become more intense has simply been dropped, without mention.

This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.

One of the report’s own authors, Professor Myles Allen, the director of Oxford University’s Climate Research Network, last night said this should be the last IPCC assessment – accusing its cumbersome production process of ‘misrepresenting how science works’.

Despite the many scientific uncertainties disclosed by the leaked report, it nonetheless draws familiar, apocalyptic conclusions – insisting that the IPCC is more confident than ever that global warming is mainly humans’ fault.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2420783/Global-warming-just-HALF-said-Worlds-climate-scientists-admit-computers-got-effects-greenhouse-gases-wrong.html
Edited by Admin, 16 Sep 2013, 01:44 PM.
Follow OzPropertyForum on Twitter | Like APF on Facebook | Circle APF on Google+
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
barns
Member Avatar


Alex Barton
16 Sep 2013, 01:42 PM

Abbott's only been in a week and climate change is fixed...
“You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means” - Inigo Montoya
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Count du Monet
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
This year has been one of the quietest hurricane seasons in history and the US is currently enjoying its longest-ever period – almost eight years – without a single hurricane of Category 3 or above making landfall.


That was never my view. Personally I thought global warming would moderate weather. Global warming results in moderation of global temperature between the polar regions and the equatorial belt. That is the polar regions rise in temperature while the equatorial regions do very little. But I'm no scientist and simply made my own estimation. According to my theory rainfall should reduce in inland regions and increase in coastal regions.
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
 
Trojan
Default APF Avatar


barns
16 Sep 2013, 01:56 PM
Abbott's only been in a week and climate change is fixed...
:lol
I put trolls and time wasters on my ignore list so if I don't respond to you, you are probably on it ....
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


The IPCC didn't get it wrong, The Daily Mail and The Australian reported it wrong.

Quote:
 
Eleven of the last twelve years (1995–2006) rank among the 12 warmest years in the instrumental record of global surface temperature[9] (since 1850). The updated 100-year linear trend (1906 to 2005) of 0.74°C [0.56°C to 0.92°C] is therefore larger than the corresponding trend for 1901 to 2000 given in the TAR of 0.6°C [0.4°C to 0.8°C]. The linear warming trend over the last 50 years (0.13°C [0.10°C to 0.16°C] per decade) is nearly twice that for the last 100 years. The total temperature increase from 1850–1899 to 2001–2005 is 0.76°C [0.57°C to 0.95°C]. Urban heat island effects are real but local, and have a negligible influence (less than 0.006°C per decade over land and zero over the oceans) on these values. {3.2}

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html


0.12 is within the range they reported, not .20 as the newspapers say. .20oC/decade is the maximum safe level of increase, we don't want to be anywhere near it.
"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
 
Foxy
Member Avatar
Zero is coming...

strange how tax will reduce global warming.
Hmmmmmm
Peter
:bl:
http://www.afr.com/content/dam/images/g/n/2/1/u/8/image.imgtype.afrArticleInline.620x0.png/1456285515560.png
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Kulganis
Member Avatar


Quote:
 
Professor David Karoly is Professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Melbourne and a review editor of the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report

“The Australian gets it wrong on global warming and the IPCC, again.

Today’s Australian newspaper has major errors in its front page article with headline “We got it wrong on warming, says the IPCC”. I look forward to The Australian publishing a correction or a new article with my headline above.

The first sentence of the article states ‘The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest assessment reportedly admits its computers drastically overestimated rising temperatures, and over the past 60 years the world has in fact been warming at half the rate claimed in the previous IPCC report in 2007’

First, the latest assessment report has not been finalised, so no conclusions are final. Second, the observed global average warming of surface air temperature over the last 60 years of 0.12°C per decade is almost identical to the value reported in the IPCC report in 2007 of 0.13°C per decade (likely range 0.10 to 0.16°C per decade) for the period 1956 – 2005.

The Australian got it wrong again on what the IPCC reported in 2007 and what is happening to global average temperatures.”




Dr John Cook is a Research Fellow in Climate Communication at the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland. In 2011, John received an Australian Museum Eureka Award for Advancement of Climate Change Knowledge. John also created and maintains skepticalscience.com, a website that examines the arguments of global warming scepticism.

“The Australian article ‘We got it wrong on warming, says IPCC” demonstrates the inherent dangers in sourcing scientific information from a UK tabloid rather than climate scientists. The Australian misrepresents the IPCC, claiming “The 2007 assessment report said the planet was warming at a rate of 0.2°C every decade, but according to Britain’s The Daily Mail the draft update report says the true figure since 1951 has been 0.12°C”. In actuality, the trend reported in the IPCC report was 0.13°C per decade (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-direct-observations.html). The Australian discusses a slowdown in surface temperature but fails to consider that the planet as a whole continues to build up heat at an accelerating rate, currently at a rate of 4 Hiroshima bombs-worth of heat every second. The Australian also fails to report the growing body of research indicating that the slowdown in surface temperature is due to more heat accumulating in the ocean, indicated by direct ocean heat measurements. Discussion of ocean heat up-take is expected to be included in the upcoming IPCC report.”




Professor Steven Sherwood is Professor of Physical Meteorology and Atmospheric Climate Dynamics at the University of New South Wales and is lead-author of chapter 7 of the IPCC Working Group 1 Fifth Assessment Report, “Clouds and Aerosols”.

”The Australian story is riddled with errors. The IPCC does not do climate forecasts on its own “computer,” as stated in the lead paragraph of the article, but analyses forecasts submitted to them by two dozen or so research organisations worldwide, including NASA and CSIRO. The lead paragraph also claims that the rate of observed surface warming over the previous 60 years is half that reported in 2007, when the real difference is much smaller and, according to several published studies, is balanced by stronger than expected recent warming below the ocean surface.

The article also confuses a quantity called “transient climate response” with the projected future warming. If we continued on a business-as-usual path, the eventual global warming would be several times larger than the “transient climate response,” not equal to it as implied in the story. The quote from Matt Ridley, that most experts believe warming of under 2°C will be beneficial, may have been stated by Mr Ridley, but is also incorrect. Instead, 2°C is often taken to be the maximum “safe” warming before which dangerous thresholds, such as the warming needed to guarantee the eventual melting of the Greenland ice sheet, may be crossed. Past assessments have projected that business-as-usual warming must almost certainly exceed 2°C (IPCC 2007 set a range of about 3-6°C above preindustrial by 2100), and no new results have emerged that could cause a significant revision to that assessment.

Finally, the story positions a legitimate statement by Judith Curry so as to seemingly undercut IPCC conclusions about climate change, but contrary to this implication, it is possible for a report on this or any similar topic to reach firm conclusions about important questions even when some aspects of the science are well known to be “unsettled” or in a “state of flux.” Just as it is possible to know that a cancer patient is likely to die without treatment, even if the date or particular symptoms cannot be predicted accurately.’




http://www.smc.org.au/2013/09/rapid-reaction-did-the-ipcc-get-it-wrong-experts-respond/


And so, I must apologise, as my own reporting was incorrect, .2oC/decade is not the maximum, 2.0oC by 2100 is the maximum.
"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
 
miw
Member Avatar


Count du Monet
16 Sep 2013, 06:04 PM
That was never my view. Personally I thought global warming would moderate weather. Global warming results in moderation of global temperature between the polar regions and the equatorial belt. That is the polar regions rise in temperature while the equatorial regions do very little. But I'm no scientist and simply made my own estimation. According to my theory rainfall should reduce in inland regions and increase in coastal regions.
If it is any comfort to you, that was exactly my understanding of what would happen if you had a drop in temperature differential between the poles and the equator. I've heard several real meteorologists say the same thing over the years. Wild weather should become less, not more under global warming because the poles warm more than the equator.
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
genX
Default APF Avatar


miw
16 Sep 2013, 08:31 PM
If it is any comfort to you, that was exactly my understanding of what would happen if you had a drop in temperature differential between the poles and the equator. I've heard several real meteorologists say the same thing over the years. Wild weather should become less, not more under global warming because the poles warm more than the equator.
Unfortunately, not correct. The great conveyor of ocean energy is large currents (thermohaline circulation). As the poles warm, the currents should slow down, which should result in colder winters at higher latitudes (which in turn should cool the poles). This is a dynamic feedback loop that moderates temperature gradients between the equator and the poles. However, under this scenario, you would expect very hot summers at latitudes above 40 degrees, and the associated extremes in cell formation that accompany that.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
miw
Member Avatar


genX
16 Sep 2013, 09:06 PM
Unfortunately, not correct. The great conveyor of ocean energy is large currents (thermohaline circulation). As the poles warm, the currents should slow down, which should result in colder winters at higher latitudes (which in turn should cool the poles). This is a dynamic feedback loop that moderates temperature gradients between the equator and the poles. However, under this scenario, you would expect very hot summers at latitudes above 40 degrees, and the associated extremes in cell formation that accompany that.
But the surface warming at the equator has been observed to be very significantly less than the warming at the poles, in accordance with the atmospheric models. We are talking degrees here, not tenths of degrees.

You are right that some people are worried that the currents might at some time shut down and, for example, plunge the British Isles into a new ice age, but it has not happened yet - and nobody has expected it to be visible as yet.

This is a classic case of "oh shit our prediction didn't come to pass. Let's find some excuse to push it out a few years."
The truth will set you free. But first, it will piss you off.
--Gloria Steinem
AREPS™
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
3 users reading this topic (3 Guests and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Australian Property Forum · Next Topic »
Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 20



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