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 > There’s not much future in predictions > Comments

There’s not much future in predictions : Comments

By Tom Quirk, published 1/12/2006

The Stern report is all very well but we simply can't forecast the impact on our climate in 100 years with any accuracy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Climate change is a certainty and a reality, it always was and always will be. There is not enough computing power yet, or more importantly enough data loggers and sensors to collect and process the information. The closing of so many temperature recording points, and the siting of so many at airports close to large metropolitan heat islands and surrounded by masses of concrete runways, motor vehicles, and jet engines, makes one question the data that has been used in the "computer models" we are being told by the climate wonkers is our future in 100 years. I'd be leaving that sort of forecast to the Jules Vernes of this world.

Richard42
Posted by richard42, Friday, 1 December 2006 10:23:27 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
So what the author is saying is we shouldn't do anything, we shouldn't plan for the future with the available data because we might find something out that will change it. Get real.

As for the above post, displaying your ignorance for all the world to is always funny. Much of the data used by scientist comes from states using remote sensors measuring sea surface temps with all sources lining up well. Do you really believe that the thousand of climate scientist wouldn’t understand the primary school physic’s?
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 1 December 2006 1:02:42 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
This seems a decidedly short sighted article, the idea that because we can not know with certainty the outcome of economic predictions does not mean that we should not plan for the future. At the very least the Stern report presents a plausible scenario that can and should be avoided. Besides predictions themselves have enormous power in that right or wrong they play a role in shaping policy. Tom Quirk seems to have missed the point that the predictions in the Stern report are not made in order to be proved right, rather they are produced using all the available data and best practice of economics to change the policy now and into the future so that these predictions do not come about.
Posted by ChrisS, Friday, 1 December 2006 2:44:06 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
But interesting the Stern report gets some basics wrong. There are a few more examples here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001714.html .
Posted by Jennifer, Friday, 1 December 2006 4:22:51 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
Just because we haven't managed to destroy the world yet doesn't mean it can't happen and a head in the sand policy does not seem wise.

Sure some of the long term discussions feel like lemmings arguing over whether it will take 12 or 13 seconds to fall to the bottom but the end result is the same.

Even on the off chance that all the scientists have blundered and the lemmings fall on a small ledge switching to renewables will make our cities cleaner and our politics less dependent on the middle east, russia and other energy suppliers.
Posted by gusi, Friday, 1 December 2006 6:45:53 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
You climate wonkers should go and have a look at some recent articles in www.sciencedaily.com dated Dec 1 2006 "Excess water vapour near cirrus clouds puzzles scientists" I quote " A number of researchers in recent years have reported perplexing findings of water vapour at concentrations as much as twice what they should be in and around cirrus clouds high in the atmosphere, a finding that could alter some conclusions about climate change"... "based on our current knowledge it shouldn't exist" says Marcia Baker a UofWashington Professor of Earth and Space sciences. She is one of six climate scientists who are authors of a Perspectives article in the Nov30 2006 edition of the Journal "Science". She goes on to say that current assumptions in their models may need "significant adjustment" if the recent findings are accurate. What these scientists are talking about are SVCs- low temperature thin and subvisible cirrus clouds that have a powerful impact on climate.

It has only recently (July 2002) been possible to measure and map atmospheric water vapour. NASA pioneered the research with high flying aircraft using an aircraft infrared absorbtion spectrometer

As those of us who have been in the computer industry know full well,
GIGO,garbage in garbage out. If you put assumptions into a computer modelling program, they can very easily lead you seriously astray. NASA has reported that the number of weather stations providing regular and reliable temperature measurements has fallen from 5000 in the 1960s to 2000 today. There are also few measurements taken at sea which comprises 71% of the earth's surface, the one good thing little Johnny Howard has done recently is to provide funding for disposable sea temperature sensor buoys. This is particularly important as there is an expecial dearth of data almost everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere. Lets all calm down, avoid taking fixed positions, and demanding "action" which might be very expensive and unneccessary, until the scientists really understand what is going on.
Richard42
Posted by richard42, Saturday, 2 December 2006 4:52:13 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
Having just seen An Inconvenient Truth, am inclined to believe Al Gore. He has too much to lose to peddle lies. Found it credible and convincing. Anyway predicting 100 years ahead is at least a platform to work from. Does the author have a better prediction? With action much may be preventible.
Posted by Grieki, Saturday, 2 December 2006 7:24:41 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
Tom,

Do you think you have the bigger picture that just future climate change...meaning is climate change the fundamental issue or is it part of the issue making the fundamental, in which case what is the fundamental... I think its a earth that we can walk, talk and laugh in with our god given body, not living in an artificial city with controlled environment as the earth has become too toxic for most lives. Yep...some corporation will control the life sustaining facilities and we have to essentially be slaves to the system to survive...

Sounds like science fiction, maybe, but here are a few facts. See WWF site, it states that we have lost more than half the plant and animal biomass in the last 30 years. This figure is closer to 96% when its compared to time when industrial revolution started.

Something else, fat tissue of all animals and fish show toxic chemicals in abnormal levels. Fat is a good disolver and reduces the concentration of these toxic chemicals in our blood but if we continue to ingest food with these chemicals...well all safety systems have limits.

Other facts, all put together shows that earth has been 'dying' and we human survive because we have technology to enable us to...transport food from where it can be grown to where it cannot etc

So the ultimate question is this, have we doomed our future or are we on the edge of it and we have to do major changes now...I think the later, at least as long as we have enough plants to produce life giving oxygen, of which there is no other source...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Sunday, 3 December 2006 3:47:14 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
Presumably Mr Quirk doesn't insure his car or have superannuation either, because the future is so uncertain, you know, and i read one report once that said it doesn't pay.

The 100 yr prediction of an economist i wouldn't change my socks over, but the measureable loss of arctic ice, megadroughts, hurricane incidence and many other CURRENT changes are.

How typical of RightThink to focus on one tiny part of the story, misrepresent it, and keep plugging economic fundamentalism as the unchallengeable Good that all else must give way to. Can't do anything about climate change - might hurt the economy!! Surely the dumbest line to come from Howard in a long time, and thats saying something.

Incidentally, i might know why RightThink articles are so short, and getting shorter - the more 'thought' and 'evidence' (i use these terms very approximately) they put in, the more the rest of us can examine their evidence and see how bare arsed naked their emporer is. Same reason Bush & Howard never do unscripted interviews, they know they're 'full of it'.
Posted by Liam, Sunday, 3 December 2006 7:09:38 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
Tom, a breath of fresh, cooling air in the overheated accelerated global warming debate. The Australian recently printed the following letter from me, which I commend to OLO readers:

"UK Environment Minister David Miliband claims that the scientific evidence on climate change is overwhelming ("Denial won't halt global warming," 14/11). But the IPCC's warming estimates for 2100 are based not on science but on economic modelling, with highly contentious assumptions about the relationship between economic growth and increase in greenhouse gases.

The world is so variable that medium-term economic forecasts looking 3-5 years ahead have limited accuracy. Yet the IPCC depends on 100-year forecasts. Even worse, these forecasts have been demonstrated by experts such as former Australian Statistician Ian Castles to have serious flaws which exaggerate growth and emissions. Some of the modelling results are incredible - for example, showing that South Africa's national income in 2100 will exceed world income in 2000. However, the IPCC has flatly refused to revisit its modelling.

We don’t know what the course of global warming will be in the next 100 years. We do know that climate is, and always has been, highly variable, and can pursue policies which increase our capacity to respond positively to changing climate and economic circumstances rather than policies based on a view of what may or may not be the situation in the 22nd century."

The world may or may not be warming at an increasing rate; this may or may not be due to human activity; I don't think that either has been fully determined. What has been clearly demonstrated is that the IPCC's scenarios and resulting temperature rise projections are very seriously flawed. The "precautionary principle" raised in response to Richard Castles suggests that we shouldn't put all our eggs in the very badly-woven IPCC basket.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 4 December 2006 7:59:52 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
Mr Quirks article reminds me of George Dubya Bush going into Iraq - those of us who went to Vietnam, or lived through taht time could see another impossible Vietnam looming from miles and months away, but oh, who knows? - we can't judge this situation by the last, can we, now? Or, can we?

Rectal Myopia I call it - heads so far up their backsides ( or too many hands putting money in THEIR pockets.

You couold use the same argument in favour of cigarette smoking - hey, I know heaps of people who lived well into their 80's and 90's who smoked until they died etc. We cannot predict with any certainty who will die from smoking and who will not, can we?

But, we all know the statistics are not good - same with factories and power stations and vehicles pushing out millions of tons of pollutants DAILY - plenty are sick already but who knows what the long-term effects are?

WE CAANOT AFFORD to wait and see, as Mr Quirk advocates - we HAVE to do something NOW - for our kids and their kids and so on!

Very Scientific Mr Quirk, but lacking ONE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT - Common Bleeding Sense !

Charles Flesfader
Posted by Flezzey, Tuesday, 5 December 2006 12:13:15 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. 2
  4. All

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