[LINK] Last Call - Was - In Retirement on this thread

[TKoltai]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gordon Keith [mailto:gordonkeith at acslink.net.au] 
> Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 2:36 PM
> To: TKoltai; link at anu.edu.au
> Subject: Re: [LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - The 
> meaning of
> 
> 
> On Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:15:34 AM TKoltai wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Gordon Keith [mailto:gordonkeith at acslink.net.au]
> > > Sent: Friday, 29 June 2012 9:51 AM
> > > To: link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> > > Cc: TKoltai
> > > Subject: Re: [LINK] In Retirement on this thread - Was - 
> The meaning 
> > > of
> > 
> > <SNIP>
> > 
> > > Tom, you haven't previously come across as anti-science 
> per se, but 
> > > this rant is starting to look that way.
> > 
> > Actually Gordon, I love Science - but only when Science is good for 
> > humanity.
> > 
> > I'll give you an example of "Acceptable/Tolerable and Not 
> acceptable" 
> > for humanity:
> > 
> > From a Tsunami Planning Document:
> > Quote/
> > Criteria Risk to human life
> > Acceptable Less than 10-5
> > Tolerable 10-5 to 10-3
> > Not acceptable Greater than 10-3 /Quote
> > 
> > Whilst not wishing to debate the morals of disaster planning that 
> > considers 10 to the 3rd Tolerable human life loss, I would suggest 
> > that AGW at .6 degrees per century is so irrelevant as to 
> be a waste 
> > of our time to discuss by comparison.
> 
> Tom
> 
> Science has very little to do with what is good for humanity, 
> it is about how 
> things are.
> 
> Science may be able to calculate that the expected population 
> loss in the area 
> of impact of a tsunami of a given size is 1 in a thousand, 
> but it is totally 
> neutral about whether that level of loss is acceptable or 
> not. The decision 
> about what is acceptable is a political one which may be 
> informed by the 
> science.
> 
> > I love almost all aspects of science. The whole "learning, 
> exploring, 
> > philosophising, inventing, prototyping, and then delivering."
> > 
> > What I hate is the boys club cabals that prevent the 
> average non-boys 
> > club person from being able to do that successfully.
> 
> What about those areas of science that have become too complex for an 
> individual to be across the whole field, where it takes 
> collaboration of a 
> number of different specialists working together to make 
> progress in the 
> field? There are an increasing number of areas of science, 
> including climate 
> change, which are just too hard for an individual to progress.
> 
> > I hate the Universities that refuse learned valid thesis 
> because the 
> > conclusions are contrary to the belief systems of the examiners.
> 
> I don't think you are alone there. Scientist are ordinary 
> people at core and 
> any system which is based around humans will have some who 
> are problematic. I 
> can think of no reason why scientists should be better than 
> average in that 
> regard. There are systems in place to try to limit the damage 
> individuals 
> cause, but systems aren't perfect either.
> 
> > And I hate that the AGW conclusion is referred to as being 
> the result 
> > of science.
> > 
> > A 279 Kb Fortran model designed to spit out increasing log 
> tables is 
> > not science, it's programming.
> > 
> > The proof of climate change is not Science either. There is nothing 
> > scientific about taking temperatures in urban areas and 
> then say - gee 
> > lookie lookie, there is a temperature rise across the planet. Of 
> > course there's a temperature rise in the urban centres, it's called 
> > population growth. We increased the population by 5 
> billion, obviously 
> > there are ramifications. The fact that over a century that 
> effect is 
> > only  a provable 0.6 decrees C after all the "data 
> smoothing" is the 
> > alarming aspect.
> > 
> > That Gordon is also not science, it's Statistics.
> 
> Programming and statistics are both important tools used by 
> science. There is 
> a lot of science that can't be done without them.
> 
> As to air temperature readings as proof of climate change, 
> you can totally 
> ignore air thermometer readings and there are plenty of other 
> datasets which 
> provide substantial evidence of climate change: sea 
> temperatures (surface and 
> profiles), ocean salinity, sea level, migration of species habitat 
> (terrestrial and marine) to preciously cooler areas (up 
> mountains or further 
> from the equator). The evidence from all of these data sets 
> and others provide 
> compelling evidence of climate change without any urban impacts.
>  
> > And those statistics tell me that our environment outside 
> those urban 
> > areas is cooling. That's bad for all the agriculture based growing 
> > activity.
> 
> The state of the climate report 
> http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/State-of-the-
> Climate-2012.aspx gives a map of change of average daily mean 
> temperatures 
> from 1960 to 2011. The only area it shows cooling is around 
> the Kimberleys. 
> This report is a summary of best data available by CSIRO and BoM. 
> 
> > I also love Science fiction.
> > But not usually the kind that reaches out and removes wads of cash 
> > from my wallet.
> > 
> > And whilst I'm not allowed to mention why... I don't think 
> the average 
> > Australian is going to be too kindly disposed to an 
> additional impost 
> > on his unemployed cost of living standard.
> 
> Science is not imposing anything. Political decisions are 
> being made informed 
> by the science, but it most definitely politics not science 
> making those 
> decisions.
> 
> If you want to complain that the actions being taken are less 
> than optimal 
> then be my guest, that is a political debate. Whether we do 
> anything about 
> climate change or what we do about it is not a question for 
> or about the 
> science. The best the science can do is inform us of the 
> likely impacts of our 
> actions - not their value. 
> 
> If the science were to say that business as usual is likely 
> to lead to world 
> that can support a population of at most 1 billion by 2100 
> then it is politics 
> which decides if business as usual is acceptable or not. Not science.
> 
> > It's fine for us to discuss these matters, but did any of 
> you realise 
> > that the Green Economy is actually a euphemism for a red economy ?
> > 
> > There is no Green Economy.
> > 
> > A green economy where in a perfect world ecologically responsible 
> > citizens all ride bicycles, eat vegan and wash their solar panels 
> > daily with recycled distilled sewerage water depends on 
> those people 
> > having jobs.
> > 
> > There are just business that can't afford to hire people any more 
> > because of the increasing environmental restrictions that 
> are forcing 
> > factories and industries to shut down.
> > 
> > I actually agree with installing smoke stack scrubbers, and 
> catalytic 
> > converters, but damn it, at what point do we wake up to 
> ourselves and 
> > say - Hang on.... With all these Green laws that we have 
> implemented, 
> > who are we hurting.
> 
> This is now clearly a political debate and not a scientific 
> one. Personally I 
> am fully in favour of environmental restrictions that force 
> the internalising 
> or externalities. If some activity causes a cost to the 
> public or environment 
> then they should be ones who pay that cost and if that no 
> longer makes the 
> activity profitable then the activity should cease.
> 
> Properly internalising externalities is however a difficult 
> exercise but we 
> should try to do better than we have in the past.
> 
> > The Chinese factories are now making what we used to make. The 
> > standard of living in China is growing almost directly inversely 
> > proportional to the decrease in jobs in Australia.
> 
> Have you any statistics to support that? It surprises me that 
> standard of 
> living in China is correlated strongly to jobs in Australia - 
> I would have 
> thought the US would have a much larger influence.
> 
> > Wake up Linkers... You have a job today, but what will you eat 
> > tomorrow ? Will your families be safe from the unemployed next door 
> > neighbours, whilst you are at work ?
> > 
> > How's that for science Gordon ?
> 
> Pure politics with no science at all.
> 
> > It's called the Science of an almost defunct discipline called 
> > Sustainable Economics.
> 
> Describing economics as science is drawing a very long bow. 
> Economics as a 
> discipline is not closely related to science. 
> 
> > When Climate Science regulations
> 
> This is where you are losing the plot. "Climate science 
> regulations" is an 
> oxymoron. Climate science is about science. Regulations are 
> about politics.
> 
> The climate science is established and fairly clear.
> 
> The politics of climate change regulation is a completely 
> different kettle of 
> fish. 
> 
> > start killing more people due to
> > increasing poverty, increasing food prices, increasing e***** 
> > [censored by your government] prices and all the other effects that 
> > Climate change "science" has achieved then I think it's time to 
> > reassess Climate Change".
> 
> What I think we should be aiming for is the level of 
> regulation were the 
> marginal increase in the number of people killed due to 
> increasing poverty, 
> increasing food prices etc from the regulations is equal to 
> the marginal 
> decrease in the number of people killed to due to increasing poverty, 
> increasing food prices etc from the effect of the regulations 
> on the impact of 
> climate change.
> 
> Where that point is is beyond me.
> 
> > Whilst it was good for the world, I was all for it.
> > 
> > It is no longer good for the world. Not by any stretch of anyone's 
> > imagination - even if we could believe the cooked figures.
> > 
> > Point six of one degree over a hundred years. Oh dearie 
> dearie me... 
> > The sky is falling, the sky is falling - quick let's legislate 
> > something...
> > 
> > Is that what you call Science Gordon ?
> 
> 0.6 degree over a hundred years is not what I call science. The model 
> predictions indicate the change in temperature is not linear. 
> Over the last 
> hundred years my understanding (not my field) is that we have 
> had 2.1 degrees 
> of warming caused by CO2 and 1.3 degrees of cooling caused by 
> aerosols. Given 
> that the aerosol cooling is short term and unlikely to 
> increase dramatically 
> while the CO2 warming is long term and likely to increase 
> exponentially the 
> forecast for the next century is much worse.
> 
> As to the effects of the past climate change, while causes 
> are (and always 
> will be) complex it is not unreasonable to blame the civil 
> war in the Sudan 
> largely on climate change causing desertification in the 
> north as one of the 
> underlying factors. I'm not sure of the death toll in the 
> Sudan, but I'm 
> fairly confident is more than have died from the impacts of 
> climate control 
> measures (such as they are) to date. 
> 
> Regards
> Gordon
> 

I should leave well enough alone... But I am mindful of alarmist Climate
announcements that have been common In the last 34 years...
Announcements made by eminent climate "scientists"

Sample announcement from yesterday...

http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7193129/What-global-warming-really-looks-
like

Quote/
" A trio of scientists say the scorching heat, high winds and bone-dry
conditions fuelling catastrophic wildfires in the US offer a preview of
the kind of disasters human-caused climate change could bring.

"What we're seeing is a window into what global warming really looks
like," Princeton University's Michael Oppenheimer said.

"It looks like heat, it looks like fires, it looks like this kind of
environmental disaster... this provides vivid images of what we can
expect to see more of in the future." /Quote
http://climatecommunication.org/new/articles/heat-waves-and-climate-chan
ge/overview/

This is pure theatre and is one of the biggest reasons why the average
person (moi) is starting to become suspicious of climate change.

When Scientists stop hamming it up for the press, then I guess your
comments above might be taken with some seriousness until then...

Any Scientists that acts like this is being political, manipulative and
is obviously no longer an impartial scientist...

Hmmm... Openheimer. 
I remember another scientist named oppenheimer who openly wept when he
realised what politicians had managed to do with his contribution to
science.

But once again Gordon, thank-you for your polite but unfortunately not
entirely uniformly representative reply.

Your claims as to the motivations of many scientists are I am sure
accurate.

However, as per the above example, Scientists often become embroiled in
political debates [by becoming alarmist spokespersons] to support their
sources of continuing funding.
This is when they should automatically be banned from further
contributions to the field as obviously objectivity, an important
ingredient in science has been thrown out the window...

What wasn't announced was that the original fires [according to several
independent eye witnesses], were started by multiple fiery meteorites.
The Weather bureau is still claiming lightning strikes started the
Colorado fires.

So seeing people are keen on throwing around numbers... Let me throw
some...

An adult human male expels around 900 grams of CO2 per 24 hours.
Therefore (with smoothing) it would reasonable to claim .535 grams per
human person.
If pop = 7.1b then Human CO2 breathing output = 1,464,197,500 AT

If volcanoes underwater = 4% active and number = 3.7 M and average CO2
output per Volcano = 20 MGT per annum then
Total CO2 output from undersea volcanoes = 296,000,000,000 Tonnes 

If Wikipedia is accurate... Fossil Burning = 24,390,000,000 Tonnes 

And when I add everything together (not counting livestock - perhaps
another 30 million tonnes...) Then Human activity equals less than 9% of
CO2 generated on planet earth per annum. 

A fairly serious amount. But the science doesn't show the 18% almost
compound increase in volcanic activity over the last three years, the
increase in human population. 

The Science tells us that the CO2 at Mauna Lau air sampling and weather
station shows an increase in CO2 since 1970 of 110 ppm.
It fails to mention that the temperature hasn't followed.
http://junksciencearchive.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.png

In fact all US based climate science appears to start in 1947... (Which
just happens to the down tick of a twenty year cooling cycle.) 

Any statistician will tell you that the accuracy of the forecast data is
increased exponentially with the size of the data and period length of
the dataset.

Therefore to me the omission of the previous 80 years of temperature
data appears slightly unscientific.

The Americans are telling us that these hot fires in Colorado are
unusual.. But let us compare some Australian Data....

Quote from ttp://henrythethird.wordpress.com/

Just out of curiosity, then, which of the following fires in Australia
can be blamed on global warming?
Adelaide Hills bushfires (1939)
Black Sunday bushfires (1955)
Ash Wednesday I (1980)
Ash Wednesday II (1983)
Eyre Peninsula bushfire (2005)
Kangaroo Island Bushfire (2007)

Tasmania
Black Tuesday (1967)

Victoria
Black Thursday (1851)
Red Tuesday (1898)
Black Sunday (1926)
Black Friday (1939)
WW2 bushfires (1943-44)
Ash Wednesday (1983)
Linton bushfire (1998)
Eastern Victorian alpine bushfires (2003)
Grampians region bushfires (2006)
Black Saturday (2009) /Quote

And... 

Quote/
     "In Melbourne the day opened with a scorching north wind and an
unclouded sky. Under the influence of the fierce sirocco the city was
soon enveloped in blinding dust, and by 11 o'clock the thermometer
marked 117 degrees ( 47.2 Celsius ) in the shade.
    By midday, rolling volumes of smoke began to converge on the city,
and outdoor life became intolerable. The streets were almost deserted, a
dull sense of suffocation oppressed even those who cowered in the
coolest recesses of their homes, and anxiously asked what it meant.
Fortunately no fires broke out near the city, for had it once done so,
in all probability the whole place would have fallen.

    With sunset came a change of wind to the south, and anxious crowds
gathered towards nightfall on the summits of Batman's Hill and the
Flagstaff Reserve to note with awe and wonder the red glare that marked
the Dandenong Ranges and illuminated the whole of the northern horizon.

    The change of wind relieved them from all fear for the city, but it
was not until two or three days later that the extent of the devastation
became even approximately known."

This is a passage from H. G. Turner's "History of the Colony of Victoria
".
The devastating fires Turner refers to are the Black Thursday fires
which took place in 1851, on 6 February and subsequent days. The extent
of land burned, 5 million hectares, has not come anywhere near being
equalled by any other Victorian bushfire event since European
settlement. Victoria also suffered significant flooding events during
that same year./Quote.

On an interesting note and apparently unrelated to Global warming but
definitely related to planetary perturbations is....

That Sunday is going to be one second longer boys and girls...
That's one additional second to be added to your clocks forever...
Think about that.. When was the last time that happened ?  

Gordon, you can reply if you wish, but at Midnight tonight, our world in
Australia changes, economically for the worst.
Unless someone can convince our politicians to not further penalise the
already badly [economically] wounded people of Australia, we will all
continue to see the negative results of climate change as it pertains to
fiscal policy for a very very long time.

Financial handouts as a stop gap measure may make people smile for a
month or two... But what happens when that money runs out. I predict an
unfortunate increase in the now halted ABS 3309 series of stats.

Further, if the underlying data in relation to climate change is wrong,
and the impost from that initiative on Australians' leads to an increase
to the 3309 stats, then I think future generations will remember that
historically as the commencement of Australia's darkest hour.

TomK