The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > ‘Global warming’ or 'climate change'? > Comments

‘Global warming’ or 'climate change'? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 27/10/2016

The only link that I could find at about that time was, paradoxically, the opposite of what I had remembered.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Don,

This article is not addressing the important issues. I suggest focus should be maintained on the key issue that is the Achilles heel of the climate alarmist's agenda. That is, there is no valid evidence that GHG emissions will do more harm than good. The focus needs to be on the ‘damage function’ not on temperature trends, temperature changes, climate sensitivity, or emissions rates. If the damage function shows damages will be negligible, zero or negative (i.e. net beneficial), there is no reason for concern. And no valid justification for mitigation policies or funding the 'climate industry'.

Empirical evidence to derive of calibrate the damage functions is lacking. As IPCC AR5 WG3 Chapter 3 says: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter3.pdf says:

- “Damage functions in existing Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) are of low reliability (high confidence).” [3.9, 3.12]”

- “Our general conclusion is that the reliability of damage functions in current IAMs is low.” [p247]

- “As discussed in Section 3.9, the aggregate damage functions used in many IAMs are generated from a remarkable paucity of data and are thus of low reliability.”

“Assessing the Social Costs and Benefits of Regulating Carbon Emissions” says:
“Social cost of carbon should be set at zero” http://reason.org/files/social_costs_of_regulating_carbon.pdf

Richard Tol, one of the foremost authorities on estimating the economic cost of climate change, published Figure 3 here: http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf which I interpret as warming would be net-beneficial to around 4C (if we ignore for now the energy cost item; IMO, he overestimates the cost of energy because he assumes cost of energy will increase significantly in future; Tol seems to believe renewables are the future).

The belief that GHG emissions will be damaging is based on dogma, innuendo and unsupported or poorly supported assumptions.
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 27 October 2016 11:16:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bias on impacts of GHG emissions

“The Case Against a U.S. Carbon Tax” explains many, but not all, the problems with the estimates of SCC and of the hypothesized costs of climate change. https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa801.pdf

“SCC Calculations

In addition to such procedural problems with the use of the SCC in federal policy, there are deeper conceptual concerns. The average layperson may have the belief that the SCC is an empirical fact of nature that scientists in white lab coats measure with their equipment. However, in reality the SCC is a malleable concept that is entirely driven by analysts’ (largely arbitrary) initial assumptions. The estimated SCC can be quite large, small, or even negative— the latter meaning that greenhouse gas emissions should arguably be subsidized because they benefit humanity—depending on defensible adjustments of the inputs to the analysis.

But the possibility of such negative SCC values is rarely, if ever, reported. A recent study assessed the scientific literature on the SCC and determined that there exists a large and significant publication bias toward reporting only those results that indicated a positive SCC. The authors calculated that the selection bias resulted in a three- to four-times overestimate of the mean SCC value in the current mainstream economics literature. Such selective reporting of results can build upon itself to further enhance the biases in the literature, for example when future studies are developed from extant findings.”

Read the full article here:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/pa801.pdf
Especially notice chart atr the top that compares fifteen recent estimates of the climate sensitivity with the values being used in the models for estimating and projecting future climate damages
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 27 October 2016 11:22:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We don't need to "think" about disastrous ice melts and destructive weather events etc/etc. Just witness them as our everyday reality. So what difference can it possibly make how you label the cause and effect factors!

They tell me you used to be a reputable scientist Don, with an enviable reputation? Surely they jest!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 27 October 2016 11:24:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Two things. First the ABC report that fifteen of the last sixteen years have been the hottest on record. Wow this has not been the case here in Melbourne but if this is true the temperature must have increased world wide but by how much? If this is true if should be quantifiable without any need to abuse people who do not believe it?
Second we were told how much better diesel was for the enviroment and people than petrol. It turns out that forty years later they were completely wrong and now the opposite is the case. No chance of any of those scientific experts being called to account now.
However let us all abuse, complain and deride the current crop of science charlatans and keep reminding them what money grubbing thieves and liars they are!
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 27 October 2016 11:45:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Its rather unfair and not a little strange to be criticising this article for not addressing the issues others want addressed. Surely it should be examined on its own terms.

Basically the author is wondering aloud as to why he had/has the perception that the term 'climate change' has become more prevalent than 'global warming' when the objective data doesn't appear to support that. I also had/have the view that CC is more preferred these days as compared to the past and that the change occurred around the time that the hiatus became an accepted phenomena.

Repeating what I wrote on the author's website:

For what its worth:
Using Google Trends (which goes back to 2004) we find that the term Global Warming was consistently used more often (and often significantly more often) than ‘climate change’ right up until around 2013. From then one term seems to be used just as often as t’other.

That applies both worldwide and in the USA. Interestingly, in Oz ‘global warming was the preferred term up until around 2008 but since then ‘climate change’ has been consistently more preferred and is now used twice as often as GW.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 27 October 2016 1:26:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth,

Since you are interested in using the enhanced CO2 levels to help green the planet you might find this of interest:

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html

Gaia is doing the greening all by herself. No need to get the government involved in tree planting. Just let the natural negative feedbacks run their course. More vegetation, more land being 'greened', higher crop yields. What's not to like. Seems like nature just loves all that extra fertiliser.
Posted by mhaze, Thursday, 27 October 2016 1:42:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy