If we were serious about cooling the globe(1)

Putting myself in a position of someone who really cared if we could reverse global warming as soon as possible(2), I would note that because there are a lot of positive feedbacks in the system, and that the momentum is what is important for positive feedbacks (3), actions that have good short term results are more urgent than those with long term results. Residence times for CH4 are approximated to 10 years, while those for CO2 are 100 years. CO2 captured or gathered from the atmosphere is valueless, is complicated to sequester and per volume has much less carbon credit. CH4 is a useful and valuable fuel, is easy to dispose of and is much more potent warmer per volume. Branson's prize might be very easily won by capturing ambient CH4 equivalent to the required CO2 capture.

The conclusion is obvious - It would be very effective if CH4 was treated like CFC's. ie completely separate target than CO2. Tight emmission standards and it being treated like a serious pollutant could dramatically reduce it, in a relatively short timeframe. Targets, as well as reflecting what kind of world we want in the future, should reflect what is reasonably possible. Our addiction to CO2 emmissions will take excruciatingly high Carbon taxes to reduce substantially (even though the net cost to society will be negligible - see Tobacco taxes). Even though best estimates by the latest climate models show that anthropogenic CH4 has only contributed a fraction to the net warming power, it is conceivable that we could reduce emmissions form both anthropogenic and natural sources, so the cooling power of capture may be much greater than the warming fraction these climate scientists are promoting.

(1) It would pay to reiterate that I believe that if the consequences of global warming are very severe, this is a fair punishment for our collective sins and we should take it on the chin.

(2) An alternative theory is that climatologists would prefer a "perfect storm" of warming first - to prove their point and to convert the masses from the fear factor.

(3) One point that climatologists fail to make is that a same positive feedback causing accelerated warming on a warming trend, will actually help cool quicker on a cooling trend.

My Children

Teenager
Water Rating : *
Energy Rating: *

Long, Hot showers + obsessive with having clothes cleaned, ironed (by others). Uses more water and energy than the average adult.

Pre-Teens
Water Rating : * * * * *
Energy Rating: *

Water: They never flush the toilet, wash their hands, they have a bath once a month at the most, they care little whether they play on green grass or bare dirt, they even get most of their fluids from fruit.

Energy: They like computers but don't like shutting them down (takes too long to restart their games), they watch DVD's and videos but never turn them or the TV off (Not much point those devices having low standby power usage if they don't switch to standby). They love airconditioning, especially for when they get home. They either have a light, fan, air conditioner, cd player, computer (or combination) on in their room all night.

Dream time for water trading enthusiast

First they wanted to build pipes to Brisbane, now they are resurrecting the NQ to Darling-Murray system diversion scheme. The latter scheme kind of Bypasses Brisbane a bit but on paper seems to be slightly cheaper. There is also talk of a network of pipes between Queensland's dams. All of this is enough to make the mouth of a water-trading enthusiast.. well... WATER. It is hard to trade water allocations between places that don't have a cheap transference of actual water (ie. a pipe) between them. After years that recycled water has been free, it now is seen as valuable, and therefore worth spending money on. With a water allocation trading structure, infrastructure ideas suddenly find a way to fund themselves. Why would North Queenslanders be happy for their excess water to go to greedy southern areas? For the money of course!

Freakonomics analysis of Swimming sportsmen

The book analysed extensively the level of corruption in Sumo-wrestling, a high profile Japanese sport. So why not a high profile Australian sport. I shall resist naming names, but there are times when I am suspicious given the incentives.

1) Selection trials often get in the way of "tapering" the training regime. ie, faster times would be more likely at big meets, if one could avoid having to swim hard to qualify, rather than sticking to a training regime.

2) This is more of a problem in longer races eg. 550m or 1320 meter races, for instance, and not so much for the 90m and 180m type distances.

3) The general public doesn't really know the qualifying rules, while top swimmers would know if there was a way to get into an event without swimming in the qualifying final.

4) A casual, pre-race gentleman's agreement between swimmers is unlikely if they are coached by different coaches.

5) In certain races, it is very easy to predict the places each swimmer will get, in advance, if there is considerable difference between them.

6) It is quite easy to fake a false start.

7) If you are going to false start, better it be in the first heat, rather than the final, so that you didn't waste that energy qualifying for the final for nothing.

8) How does a swimmer get a jaw injury that requires surgery, and how come his mouth can open so wide afterwards.

No more mr. pigeonhole on climate change

Browsing through Realclimate I have found a pigeon-holeing term for people like me and dr. clam. "Action-denialist" being someone who believes there is GW and it is anthropogenic but need take no remedial action (with our own marginal differences{*} ). Also there is plenty of blogs which are following up on the jumps the GW conformists are asking us to take such as: ten questions. I would like to nuance my stance lest I be pigeon-holed as an action denier or be accused of attacking the fringes; by putting aside that I believe no remedial action is necessary, take it as given that people and countries are going to take some sort of action, and convincing people that some actions are worse than useless and expensive, while other actions are virtually free (and with the proviso that any change has winners and losers) that there will be more winners than losers given certain actions. There is a vaccuum out there being filled by GW ideologues, and my ideologies should be sucked into it in its place!

* - The difference being that Dr.Clam will not talk as if he believes action should be taken, while I don't care if casual observers get that impression.

Tail wagging the dog?

John Howard's comments on US policy (policey?) in Iraq has really stirred things up. This is how Australia will become the world's best police - by policing the world's police with the most effective firepower (USA).

Different sort of bathtub curve - Bananas from NQ 2006

Banana shipments from NQ 2006

Dissecting articles from Realclimate.org

WSJ Editorial Board: Head Still Buried in the Sand
Filed under: Climate Science RC Forum— group @ 8:38 am
While the rest of the world has basically accepted the conclusion of the latest IPCC report, one small village still holds out against the tide - the Wall Street Journal editorial board. This contrasts sharply with the news section of the paper which is actually pretty good. They had a front-page piece on business responses to global warming issues which not only pointed out that business was taking an interest in carbon reduction, but the article more or less took as a given that the problem was real. However, as we have pointed out before, the editorial pages operate in a universe all their own.

I will start with their latest headline piece - It is very typical anyhow. As far as the title goes, using a metaphor is a form of "proof by ridicule". What exactly they are trying to prove is not obvious to start with, but the means they are using is attacking an opinion piece. To falsify a scientific statement you must use science, to falsify an opinion you must use ridicule. Fairly obvious, but they are not really showing their hand.

The first sentence uses the terms "village" and "Tide". I am not sure if this is subliminally pushing the "sea is rising" fear triggers, but is the tide public opinion? Public opinion of what? The tide is of pro-environmentalism and the village is of dissenting opinions published in news & magazines. Almost all magazines (including "the Economist") have stopped publishing dissenting views (whether they be scientists or whatever). I am not really sure why that is, but for instance, the Economist has not recently written anything at all from Bjorn Lomborg, while a couple of years ago, they backed him up in almost everything he said.

The third sentence mentions business responses and interest, and the taking as a given that the PROBLEM is REAL (by the front page article). The science demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that there is global warming and that humans are the predominant factor. That it is a "problem" is a much less scientifically tested assertion. Proving that there is global warming and that it is caused by humans does not prove that there is a problem in itself. Also, there is the assertion that it is the most significant environmental problem. This assumes a prioritised list, but prioritised lists have been rejected as presumptious.

The fourth sentence is again criticising the opinion piece, and again ridiculing it. I have found this type of tactic in operation with groups of evangelical christians. It was exceedingly effective when used in groups of majority christians and a minority of uncommitted youths. They would ridicule (say) evolution, and attack the inconsistencies of darwinism and any proven errors any Darwinist has ever made. It is difficult for an uncommitted person to resist this kind of peer pressure. I think this is what is happening in Realclimate. There are a majority of readers which are "converted" and a minority of uncommitted and recalcitrant, which is a perfect environment for winning over the uncommitted.

If you're not a "skeptic" you're not a scientist

The hijacking of the word "Skeptic" by the environmental community to mean someone who doesn't believe the scientists was unthoughtful and will backfire. Scientific skepticism is an extremely important concept and cannot be discredited ad hoc like it is. If an experiment gives reproducible results then it is considered science. Essentially, skepticism is an important distinction between science and religion. Any Climate scientist labelling others "climate skeptics" are showing their hand that they are "believers" in the way one believes in God - ie. without further need for "experiment". The Earth is running the experiment for us, so arguing the toss is less important than patiently analysing which predictions become reality and which ones don't. Importantly, some classes of prediction like whether an El Nino will form, are being more accurately predicted outside of the mainstream climate science bodies. This leads me to believe that most climate scientists are putting "faith" in models which accurately predict the past and glossing over discrepancies, and concentrating on subliminal pushing of their ideologies. I will combat this label hijacking by referring to any "scientist" using the label "Skeptic" in vain as "Believers" or "preachers" or some such religious label fitting the dogma.

Iran and the surge?

Some hardline posturing has been going on recently, which is making me think that the "surge" is also a message aimed at Iran. An assumption of hostilities with Iran changes all my reckoning with what is good strategy. Iraq in this case is just a huge training ground for possible Iran related operations. Therefore, the longer time and lots of troops just means they are better trained and battle-hardened for the next phase. Reminds me of a recent game of Caesar IV.

Letter to the editor of the World Wide Web

Self publishing has certainly changed the way we state our opinions and how we are censored. So many times when I was young and foolish I would want to write a letter to the editor but I had twin worries of whether I would be published and if I did, how it would make me look. I like blogs because there is certainty in publishing and freedom of expression within your own self-censorship. The weigh-up between anonimity and non-anonimity is still there, and I have decided for good or ill to go with complete non-anonimity. I have decided that this influences my self-censorship little, while making me more likely to be taken at face value. I still have never written a letter to the editor of a newspaper, and only once an email to "the Economist" (not published...).

Fine line

Hells bells! We sure go from Brownsville to Drownsville pretty quick! The rain will be P(ers)iss(t)ing down for a while to come now. Should have re-routed those rivers to point South.

Political Rules #1 Sell on the perception, Buy on the reality

With any law or tax change this is how it always seems to be done. Take the introduction of the GST. In part it was sold on perceptions that it would reduce the black market incentives, reduce income tax burden, help exports etc. None of that really matches the reality. That doesn't mean it wasn't good for the country or for the government. The actuality of the benefits are more in line of - less paperwork, easier and more consistent tax revenue flow, less distortions on commerce. This is why the government "bought" the idea of a GST.