Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]


Reply
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 (15,930 Views)
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Aussiehouseprices
12 Nov 2013, 03:31 PM
"A new survey of over 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers by our citizen science team at Skeptical Science has found a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible."

"Of the papers that specifically examine the human and natural causes of global warming, virtually all conclude that humans are the dominant cause over the past 50 to 100 years."
The 97% consensus is a old myth. The bulk of scientists are unable to say how much influence humans have on the climate. See below...

Quote:
 
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/home/10723-climate-scientists-consensus-based-on-a-myth

The two principle questions in the poll, the results of which monopolized media coverage, were:

Q1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Q2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” The possible answers were, “Yes”, “No”, and “I’m not sure.”

In later queries, survey respondents were given the opportunity to enter text in response to, for example, question 3c:

“What makes you unsure if human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing global mean temperatures?”

Not surprisingly, many experts took the opportunity to thoroughly dismantle the obvious problems in these questions. For example, at least 34 scientists objected to the use of the word “significant” when applied in this context. Here are some samples (bolding added to most important comments. An unedited listing of the 34 scientists’ objections to the use of this word may be seen here on the ICSC Website):

“’Significant’ is undefined, and to achieve the statistical parameters of sigificance is much of what the debates are about…The bigger question is, ‘How much [warming] does human activity add?’”
“I assume you mean ‘substantial’ rather than statistically ‘significant’… It is possible that we have provided 5-10% of the change, but I am not sure if that is what you would define as ‘substantial.’ “I believe human activity is a contributing factor, it’s the term ‘significant’ I’m unsure about.”
“I do not know what you mean by significant. I believe humans are affecting the climate, I am not sure how and to what level.”
“I don’ know how to distinguish the effect of human activity from other controls, and I don’t know how you define ‘significant’.”
“I think human activity is a significant component, but I do not know if it is 10%, 25%, 50% or more.“
“I have no doubt that it is a factor, and part of my answer relates to the vagueness of the word ‘significantly’. Certainly natural variability is significant. I don’t think we are yet able to ease out the fraction of warming that is anthropogenic from the fraction that is natural…”
“It depends on your definition of ‘significant. Is human activity a factor? Yes.”
“Personally I have no doubt that human activity is a contributing factor to increased average MGT, but I cannot evaluate unquantified, qualitative statements like ‘major,’ ‘important,’ or ‘significant’ and disapprove of their use in scientific discussions/conclusions.”
“Significant is a loaded term. Human activity has contributed to the increase in temperature, but how much has this activity impacted the global mean temperature?”
“Significant’ is a relative term. To me, significant means that most of the changing temperature would be attributable to human activity. I’m not sure that can be demonstrated.”
“‘Significant’ is a word that is open to multiple interpretations. Significant is the key word. it has made a difference, but I am not sure if it is a significant difference or just adding to a natural change in temperatures.”
“That the humans are a contributing factor is clear, as to ‘significant’ is debatable.”
“I believe human activity is likely doing something, but I hesitate to say it is ‘significant’.”
“The key word is significant. There have been cyclic warm and cold periods since man has been on earth. The last 10 years the mean temperature has been rather flat, and we have a downward spike this winter. I’m not sure of all the factors going on…”
“The term significant is somewhat ambiguous particularly in comparison to climate changes throughout geologic history.“
“The use of the word significant makes me unsure. I know that climate fluctuations are normal, and I’m not convinced that humans are making current temperature changes significantly different.”
“The way that you phrased the question implies that human activity has to be a significant contributor. I think that the data indicates we are contributors but I’m not sure that we understand the background cycles/changes well enough to know how small or how huge our impacts are.“
“Does ‘significant’ mean perceptible or outside the ‘normal range’ of observations?…”
“what do you mean by significant? Statistically? A player in the total rise? sure we are! How much? I am not sure.“
“What is meant by significant? A major contribution, yes, but what is human activity compared with increased solar activity. So far, it is lost in the statistical models.“
“Your use of the word ‘significant’. It seems clear that human activity has caused an increase in CO2 levels. That, in theory, might have caused an increase in global temperature. However, did it? If so, was it the only cause? If it was a cause, was it a significant cause?”
“without defining what is meant by significant, you may get a wide range of responses that agree… ”
“Q2 then asks if I think that humans are “a significant” contributor to warming temperatures, but I can only answer yes or no. I happen to think that we are one among many contributing factors, so I answered yes, but I couldn’t explain this. … I had to stop the survey at this point because it was forcing me to answer queries about why I think they are… ”
“I have attempted to take your survey, but am dismayed at how it is constructed…”
“I have answered some questions from your survey and some I have not answered because they are vague…”
“Just filled out your survey and I have a suggestion. You need a question that asks to what degree we think human activity has influenced climate…”

… and so it continues throughout Zimmerman’s thesis appendices.
Edited by Shadow, 12 Nov 2013, 03:59 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Aussiehouseprices
Member Avatar


Shadow
12 Nov 2013, 03:58 PM
The 97% consensus is a old myth. The bulk of scientists are unable to say how much influence humans have on the climate. See below...

Your link doesn't address the study of 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers that I referred to.
It talks about a couple of polls that it thinks are dodgy - and maybe they were.

What percentage of climate scientists do you think believe that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past 50-100 years.
What percentage of climate scientists do you think are recommending that we taking action to reduce emissions?
Aussie House Prices blog
Latest post: Real Estate 101 - Lecture 1: Never use the "F" word
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Aussiehouseprices
12 Nov 2013, 04:33 PM
Your link doesn't address the study of 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers that I referred to.
The survey conducted by Skeptical Science, the world's most infamous climate change alarmist website? I assumed you were being facetious.

Quote:
 
What percentage of climate scientists do you think believe that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past 50-100 years.
I have no idea. Nobody has conducted a survey asking that question of all climate scientists.

Quote:
 
What percentage of climate scientists do you think are recommending that we taking action to reduce emissions?
Hopefully all of them. We should definitely reduce emissions, in order to lower pollution, improve air quality, sea quality etc.

The goal should be to influence things we can measure, where costs and benefits can be tracked.

There's little point doing it with the aim of preventing the climate from changing, or preventing global temperatures from rising.
Edited by Shadow, 12 Nov 2013, 04:45 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Aussiehouseprices
Member Avatar


Shadow
12 Nov 2013, 04:41 PM
There's little point doing it with the aim of preventing the climate from changing, or preventing global temperatures from rising.
Why not? The scientists are saying we can prevent the climate from changing dangerously fast and to an extreme degree by reducing emissions.
Aussie House Prices blog
Latest post: Real Estate 101 - Lecture 1: Never use the "F" word
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Aussiehouseprices
12 Nov 2013, 04:55 PM
Why not? The scientists are saying we can prevent the climate from changing dangerously fast and to an extreme degree by reducing emissions.
How much money do we need to spend per degree of temperature reduction?

Should we just write a blank cheque? Should we cut all other funding... education, healthcare, infrastructure etc for the next 50 years and throw all available resources into a black hole to prevent the climate from changing?

Then in 50 years time we can measure the global temperature again and still be completely clueless as to whether or not all that money and effort had any impact to the climate.

I don't think so. There are better ways to allocate resources, rather than wasting them in a futile attempt to prevent the global climate from changing.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Aussiehouseprices
Member Avatar


Shadow
12 Nov 2013, 05:08 PM
How much money do we need to spend per degree of temperature reduction?
Why are you asking me? I'm not a climate scientist or economist.

I'd be interested to know your thoughts though:

1. How much are humans influencing climate change? Why do you say that?
2. How likely does it need to be that a problem exists before you take steps to address it?
3. Assuming a problem is so likely that you want to take steps to address it, how much should you spend?
4. How much do you need to spend to reduce emissions to zero by, say, 2050? What is the net present value of doing that?
5. We may not be able to prevent the climate from changing, but are you suggesting we can't prevent the climate from changing dangerously fast and to an extreme degree? Why?
6. How much will it cost to adapt to climate change? Is that more than the cost of reducing emissions to zero by 2050?

If you don't have answers to these questions with 100% certainty and supporting evidence, and I mean all the statistical probabilities, the scientific evidence including atmospheric feedback loops, impact of ocean acidification, etc. and the economic modelling and analysis, then I'd rather take the advice of the experts.
Edited by Aussiehouseprices, 12 Nov 2013, 05:21 PM.
Aussie House Prices blog
Latest post: Real Estate 101 - Lecture 1: Never use the "F" word
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Aussiehouseprices
12 Nov 2013, 05:20 PM
1. How much are humans influencing climate change? Why do you say that?
2. How likely does it need to be that a problem exists before you take steps to address it?
3. Assuming a problem is so likely that you want to take steps to address it, how much should you spend?
4. How much do you need to spend to reduce emissions to zero by, say, 2050? What is the net present value of doing that?
5. We may not be able to prevent the climate from changing, but are you suggesting we can't prevent the climate from changing dangerously fast and to an extreme degree? Why?
6. How much will it cost to adapt to climate change? Is that more than the cost of reducing emissions to zero by 2050?
1. Nobody knows
2. Depends on the cost
3. Depends how much money I've got, and what other things require funding
4. I don't know myself, and while that is something that could be calculated and measured, the subsequent impact on the climate can't be measured
5. Define 'dangerously fast' and 'to an extreme degree'
6. How long is a piece of string? The climate will always change, and the cost to adapt to infinite change is infinite.

Quote:
 
I'd rather take the advice of the experts
Which experts? (there is no consensus among these so-called experts)
Edited by Shadow, 12 Nov 2013, 05:29 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Aussiehouseprices
Member Avatar


Shadow
12 Nov 2013, 05:28 PM
Which experts? (there is no consensus among these so-called experts)
The National Academies of Science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States to name a few.

See these joint statements: 
http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf and 
http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf.
Edited by Aussiehouseprices, 13 Nov 2013, 09:15 AM.
Aussie House Prices blog
Latest post: Real Estate 101 - Lecture 1: Never use the "F" word
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Shadow
Member Avatar
Evil Mouzealot Specufestor

Aussiehouseprices
12 Nov 2013, 07:32 PM
The National Academies of Science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States to name a few.

See these joint statements: http://www.nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf and http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf
What is their consensus on the degree to which humans influence the climate, and how much money/resources will be needed to prevent the climate from changing? They don't seem very certain... using words such as 'likely' that 'most' of the warming... pretty vague stuff. Other scientists disagree with those scientists. But feel free to believe whichever group you prefer, I suppose.
Edited by Shadow, 12 Nov 2013, 07:47 PM.
1. Epic Fail! Steve Keen's Bad Calls and Predictions.
2. Residential property loans regulated by NCCP Act. Banks can't margin call unless borrower defaults.
3. Housing is second highest taxed sector of Australian Economy. Renters subsidised by highly taxed homeowners.
4. Ongoing improvement in housing affordability. Australian household formation faster than population growth since 1960s.
Profile "REPLY WITH QUOTE" Go to top
 
Aussiehouseprices
Member Avatar


Shadow
12 Nov 2013, 07:41 PM
What is their consensus on the degree to which humans influence the climate, and how much money/resources will be needed to prevent the climate from changing? They don't seem very certain... using words such as 'likely' that 'most' of the warming... pretty vague stuff. Other scientists disagree with those scientists. But feel free to believe whichever group you prefer, I suppose.
Will do. Cheers.
Aussie House Prices blog
Latest post: Real Estate 101 - Lecture 1: Never use the "F" word
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



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